Colorado Will Not Be Allowed To Deny Trump Access To Their Presidential Ballot

[Fuzzy1975]

I posted the reasons why.

No you posted other people's reasons, you have yet to formulate one of your own. You are just a glorified Parrot....

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing in the 14th amendment says it doesn't apply to current officeholders. You're probably thinking of "having previously taken an oath". It doesn't say anything about whether or not that oath is still in effect.

It doesn't apply to the President of the United States who is not an "officer of the United States," for the reasons I quoted in post #1.

 

[icanhelp1]

No you posted other people's reasons, you have yet to formulate one of your own. You are just a glorified Parrot....

Your banter is equivalent to Chuck Schumer debating a third grader and losing.

 

[Rightguide]

No you posted other people's reasons, you have yet to formulate one of your own. You are just a glorified Parrot....

I posted the legal findings of the now Chief Justice of the United States.

 

[dkovic77]

Sorrry asshole, the 40000 hours of tapes are going to be public and you will get the truth, not that you would believe in your shit hate filled head. Orange hair is coming back or have you missed the polls?

Nothing to be sorry about, get to watch the MAGA folks storming the Capitol. Saw it already but sure we can watch it all happen again. Will still show people coming insurrection.

Watch out for the footage, people in shorts and no coats will be the swap for summer visitor footage.

 

[dkovic77]

Once again, the hate in your head is showing in your stupid remarks. Scotus is reviewing the convictions and they likely will all be thrown out

They threw out the Alabama map too. And the gun kits. Turns out they do know what laws are here and there.

 

[dkovic77]

Your banter is equivalent to Chuck Schumer debating a third grader and losing.

Obsessed with third grade today. Did you stop going to school in third grade? You remember it fondly this time of year?

 

[icanhelp1]

Obsessed with third grade today. Did you stop going to school in third grade? You remember it fondly this time of year?

I was very fond of third grade. It’s then I started to realize girls weren’t such bad creatures.

 

[dkovic77]

I was very fond of third grade. It’s then I started to realize girls weren’t such bad creatures.

Then you left school….that go over with the ladies too?

Or just your fry stained uniform gets them hot? Or so they just want the fries?

 

[icanhelp1]

Then you left school….that go over with the ladies too?

Or just your fry stained uniform gets them hot? Or so they just want the fries?

You seem to know a lot about stained uniforms. Ya must have been a waitress at one of them there French fry joints.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I posted the legal findings of the now Chief Justice of the United States.

Which is not "your" findings, you're just a fucking Parrot.

 

[dkovic77]

You seem to know a lot about stained uniforms. Ya must have been a waitress at one of them there French fry joints.

It’s honest work, just can’t imagine you having any other kind of uniform.

Any time I have paid attention to the fry cook, they seem super angry so it fits your persona.

We know KFC has the 11 secret herbs and spices so that could have been your security clearance. McDs has the mystery Big Mac Sauce, so it could be there too.

 

[YDB95]

It doesn't apply to the President of the United States who is not an "officer of the United States," for the reasons I quoted in post #1.

And if you had ONLY argued that in the first place, I wouldn't have commented.

 

[dkovic77]

And if you had ONLY argued that in the first place, I wouldn't have commented.

So difficult for him to argue things right away. He needs his conservative email chain forwards to tell him what to think.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

So difficult for him to argue things right away. He needs his conservative email chain forwards to tell him what to think.

https://media.tenor.com/7eEkx2SWl1UAAAAC/nailed-it-hammer.gif

 

[RandyRebecca]

That is a lie.

It was an insurrection attempt. If politicians on Capitol Hill had gotten harmed that day, before the 2020 election results had gotten certified, Trump could have called a "national emergency" and stayed in power until new elections were called further down the line.

 

[dmallord]

What she didn't consult was the law. Trump did not encourage insurrection. He wasn't charged with insurrection by a Trump-hating DOJ because there was no actual evidence he did. There was a lot of emoting by the ignorant and the mentally vulnerable on the left however who were lied to that he did. Trump was no more of an insurrectionist than Al Gore and the Democrats were when they contested the 2000 presidential election.

There was never a chance that a removal of Trump from a state ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would ever survive the appellate level of American jurisprudence, and I posted the reasons why.

While it is true that Trump was not charged with insurrection, an open-minded person, one slow to judgment, has to acknowledge that the absence of charges does not necessarily absolve him of any culpability in the face of the connected chains of evidence implicating him. Trump's feckless and constant dissemination of unfounded claims regarding election fraud instigated a call for supporters to "fight like hell" on January 6, 2021. He directly inflamed the atmosphere that led to the Capitol riot. Direct cause and effect is evident to anyone who watched it unfold on television that day.

He ranted for them to march to the Capitol, and they marched. He called for them to fight like hell, knowing some of them were armed, and he urged them anyway, and they fought like hell – even though some congressmen said it was like a tourist day. He said they were not there to harm him and even gloated when they chanted ‘Kill Mike Pence.’

These are not the actions of an innocent. Though not charged, the impact of his rhetoric is a matter of considerable debate and analysis and a matter still for the pending court cases to adjudicate. His role in the fraudulent fake elector attempts was clear and presented dangerous attacks on our democracy. A blind man can see that his hands are not clean in the mess he created.

The assertion that the Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump with insurrection equates to a lack of evidence is an oversimplification. Various factors, including legal considerations, political dynamics, and prosecutorial discretion, can influence DOJ decisions. The absence of charges does not inherently negate the existence of evidence; it raises questions about the interpretation and application of the law in a complex political context. That is why the judicial system is a carefully constructed balancing act: a judge, a prosecutor, a defense system, and a jury of one’s peers. Those twelve peers will deliberate, weigh the legal nuances, and draw their conclusions, colored as they may be, and we shall accept their outcome. That is the premise of our system – anything else leading us to chaos.

Drawing parallels between the events surrounding the Capitol riot and the 2000 presidential election dispute oversimplifies the distinctions in context and is a blatant deflection attempt. The actions leading up to and following the Capitol attack represented a direct assault on the democratic process.

Comparing this to legal challenges in the 2000 election, which were within the bounds of established legal procedures, undermines the gravity and uniqueness of the Capitol riot as an unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol and democratic institutions.

During the legal challenge to the 2000 election, no one incited a riot and furiously assailed the principles of democracy or shamefully assaulted an opponent as odiously as Donald Trump. It was a dignified challenge in court, not in the streets. When the legal case was adjudicated, the challengers accepted it with dignity, and like true Americans, they accepted the outcome, quietly retiring so that the Nation moved forward without anarchy in the wings.

The assertion that any attempt to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from a state ballot would inevitably fail at the appellate level oversimplifies a complex legal issue. Interpretations of constitutional provisions can vary, and legal scholars may differ in their assessments. It is not a certainty that the application of Section 3 doesn’t include the President; it involves nuanced legal analysis, and predicting outcomes at the appellate level is subject to interpretation, legal arguments, and the specific facts of the case. Perhaps the Supreme Court can assist in interpreting a novel wording with few actual cases and none as unique as an ex-president attempting to overthrow the government.

Let’s wait and see how Trump gets judged – by his peers – and accept the outcome like individuals who believe in a fair justice system.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Fuck!! If Gore had held out for all the recounts that Trump did, he would have won
Suck on that
It’s been counted in every possible way
Oh… but not by Ninjas.. who still found Biden won.

No Iraq war? Where would we be now ??

 

[dmallord]

And you would commit juror misconduct by doing so.

As a juror you're required to render your verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. Not the bullshit spread all over the TV and social media.

That bullshit on the TV I saw was in real time is evidence. I expect it would be presented just as well at trial. So I would expect that my judgement would be rendered based on evidence. Not misconduct at all.

 

[HisArpy]

That bullshit on the TV I saw was in real time is evidence. I expect it would be presented just as well at trial. So I would expect that my judgement would be rendered based on evidence. Not misconduct at all.

Which is NOT what you said.

Face it, you've prejudged him and don't care what the evidence at trial would be. You've already accepted the prosecutions case and discarded the defense and have willfully done so despite being required to weigh ALL the evidence.

Basically, you're one of the assholes who have fucked up the world because you think you're special and can do whatever the hell you want.

 

[rainsol]

They threw out the Alabama map too. And the gun kits. Turns out they do know what laws are here and there.

PLease send me your address you have won the commnist/marxist award for this month. You have won a ticket one way to North Korea

 

[rainsol]

Then that would be the end of Trump politically.

The very first thing to end the tyrrany of the left is to regulate the first amendment which gives assholes like yourelf immnity from prosecution for your outlandish accusations.

 

[Rightguide]

And if you had ONLY argued that in the first place, I wouldn't have commented.

I did in post # 1. Section 3 does not apply to the President.

 

[Rightguide]

Fuck!! If Gore had held out for all the recounts that Trump did, he would have won
Suck on that
It’s been counted in every possible way
Oh… but not by Ninjas.. who still found Biden won.

No Iraq war? Where would we be now ??

Gore's case went all the way to the SCOTUS.

 

[icanhelp1]

Which is NOT what you said.

Face it, you've prejudged him and don't care what the evidence at trial would be. You've already accepted the prosecutions case and discarded the defense and have willfully done so despite being required to weigh ALL the evidence.

Basically, you're one of the assholes who have fucked up the world because you think you're special and can do whatever the hell you want.

Mallord talks out of both sides of his mouth. He pretends to walk an unbiased path all the while bashing the crap of Trump.

His zealous attempt to convict Trump for insurrection without a trial is laughable on its face.

I find it ironic that he‘s quick to apply his reasoning that just because the DOJ doesn’t charge Trump for insurrection does not inherently negate the existence of evidence.

Dmallord writes this.;
“The assertion that the Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump with insurrection equates to a lack of evidence is an oversimplification. Various factors, including legal considerations, political dynamics, and prosecutorial discretion, can influence DOJ decisions. The absence of charges does not inherently negate the existence of evidence; it raises questions about the interpretation and application of the law in a complex political context. That is why the judicial system is a carefully constructed balancing act: a judge, a prosecutor, a defense system, and a jury of one’s peers. Those twelve peers will deliberate, weigh the legal nuances, and draw their conclusions, colored as they may be, and we shall accept their outcome. That is the premise of our system – anything else leading us to chaos.”

Funny how the left refuses to apply the same standards of evidence when it implicates the Biden crime family. There is compelling evidence for the DOJ to initiate a grand jury panel for all the Biden’s but they don’t. What Dmallord doesn’t pontificate about is the fact that this present day DOJ is an extension of his party and can pick and choose who wins and who loses. Opposite circumstances exist, with Trump there are no provable statutory violations but with the Bidens the evidence is compelling but the DOJ runs a protective umbrella.

The DOJ ( the justice system in general) wins back the confidence of the people when they apply the law equally and provide equal protections under the law.