Judge Overseeing Case To Remove Trump From Ballot Agrees To Banning Threats and Intimidation.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know what preponderance is, it is more likely than not and the burden of proof required in a civil matter, not the same as beyond reasonable doubt, which is a criminal trials burden of proof.

And removing him from the ballot would be a _____ matter

a) Civil

b) Legislative

c) Either one

 

[Papageorgio]

And removing him from the ballot would be a _____ matter

a) Civil

b) Legislative

c) Either one

None of the above.

 

[BackAgain]

Depends on the Election Laws of Colorado work.

IF the State of Colorado P01135809 strikes from the ballot, writing him would be to no avile That ballot and/or ballots with P01135809's name on them would be discarded. Ballots with P01135809 could be considered "Spoiled". Such ballots are NOT counted. Also, write in's very seldom if ever win a damn thing.

Nice you of links and case authority.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None of the above.

No. A criminal court does not remove candidates from ballots. Civil action does that. Or a state legislature could vote on it, which would then just be challenged in a civil proceeding.

So, we're back to civil proceedings. There really isn't any good reason to say a civil judgment, in general, requires a criminal conviction, is there? There is not.

So your opinion that this requires a criminal conviction is an opinion of what should be. Not of what, necessarily, is. Not yet, anyway.

Why does this case deserve such special treatment?

 

[Papageorgio]

No. A criminal court does not remove candidates from ballots. Civil action does that. Or a state legislature could vote on it, which would then just be challenged in a civil proceeding.

So, we're back to civil proceedings. There really isn't any good reason to say a civil judgment, in general, requires a criminal conviction, is there? There is not.

So your opinion that this requires a criminal conviction is an opinion of what should be. Not of what, necessarily, is. Not yet, anyway.

Why does this case deserve such special treatment?

I never said a criminal court would be the venue.

All I’m saying to remove a candidate for anything less than a criminal conviction, is a bad precedent. Whether the case was through the legislative, executive or judicial branch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never said a criminal court would be the venue

Then what is the other option? There isn't one.

All I’m saying to remove a candidate for anything less than a criminal conviction, is a bad precedent.

No matter what the candidate did? I doubt you actually believe that.

Really?

 

[Papageorgio]

Then what is the other option? There isn't one.



No matter what the candidate did? I doubt you actually believe that.

Really?

So, what bar do you want to set, an accused person, a person that a court ruled against? Loser of a civil suit, we are getting into a gray area that could have cause for a red state or blue state to rid opposition just because. The Constitution is pretty clear on qualifications, I’m not sure we should play games.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, what bar do you want to set, an accused person, a person that a court ruled against?

For the matter of removing a candidate from the ballot? A clear attempt to overturn the 2020 free and fair election easily clears the bar. Like, by a long shot.

As the preponderance of evidence easily shows.

But not for you, apparently. Why not? "It's complicated!"...?

 

[Papageorgio]

For the matter of removing a candidate from the ballot? A clear attempt to overturn the 2020 free and fair election easily clears the bar. Like, by a long shot.

As the preponderance of evidence easily shows.

But not for you, apparently. Why not? "It's complicated!"...?

You need a conviction. How can you take a candidate out by a preponderance of evidence? The preponderance of evidence has 74% of Americans believing Biden is losing his cognitive abilities. I don’t want to go down that road. I hope Trump goes away but legally, the right way.

 

[Rogue AI]

He participated in, he encouraged, he condoned and he supported an Insurrection against the United States of America. P01135808 can legally struck from ballot of any state that wants to do so.

He committed an act of treason and under 14th. Amendment is NOT eligible to be president.

Utter nonsense. For your fantasy to be true Trump would need a conviction for insurrection, even then the courts would reject the silly argument because there are already Constitutional remedies.

 

[multivita-man]

So many hissy fits, MAGA snowflakes crying about nothing.

I'm not a MAGA, just so we're clear.

I can be anti-MAGA and still recognize we're going to have a serious problem if the leading GOP candidate's name is removed on the basis that he was part of an insurrection when he was never convicted in the Senate or in a criminal court.

My position is, wait until he's convicted in court, at least. But if he's removed from the ballot before then, I don't think anyone knows where that leads. I'm just being a realist here.

 

[multivita-man]

What kind of disaster?

I don't know, but I know it won't be good. If a fairly substantial portion of the electorate believes the system's rigged now, well, try removing his name from the ballot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not a MAGA, just so we're clear.

I can be anti-MAGA and still recognize we're going to have a serious problem if the leading GOP candidate's name is removed on the basis that he was part of an insurrection when he was never convicted in the Senate or in a criminal court.

My position is, wait until he's convicted in court, at least. But if he's removed from the ballot before then, I don't think anyone knows where that leads. I'm just being a realist here.

What problem is that?

Me, I think we will have a much bigger problem, if his actions are not punished.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know, but I know it won't be good. If a fairly substantial portion of the electorate believes the system's rigged now, well, try removing his name from the ballot.

We cannot be held hostage by delusional morons.

 

[multivita-man]

What problem is that?

Me, I think we will have a much bigger problem, if his actions are not punished.

He's being prosecuted in a criminal court, right? I'm for that. What I'm saying is, we're gonna have a problem if he's removed from the ballot before people believe there's a valid reason to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He's being prosecuted in a criminal court, right? I'm for that. What I'm saying is, we're gonna have a problem if he's removed from the ballot before people believe there's a valid reason to do so.

I get that. It's a decent point.

Do you mean, these people, right after January 6th?:

59% Say Trump Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In Future​

59% Say Trump Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In Future, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 2 Out Of 3 Republicans Do Not Think Biden's Victory Is Legitimate | Quinnipiac University Poll

"A seething President Trump seems poised to slip out of D.C. by the back door while the transition takes place, leaving a wary capital encircled by troops, a weakened country assaulted by a murderous virus, and a weary population disillusioned and divided, wondering if the person next door is a...

poll.qu.edu

How about, these people, in Sep 2022?:

"Just 35% of voters say Trump should be allowed to serve again."

Poll: Most U.S. voters now say Trump should not be allowed to serve as president again

Given “what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump,” a narrow majority of registered voters (51%) now believe he should not “be allowed to serve as president again in the future,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

news.yahoo.com

Or, these people?:

57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll​

BY OLAFIMIHAN OSHIN - 03/29/23

57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll

A majority of Americans in a new poll say that any criminal charges filed against former President Trump should disqualify him from running for another White House term. Fifty-seven percent of resp…

thehill.com

So, it seems like most people believe there is a valid reason. Several, really. 91 solid reasons, per the majority of Americans, as far as we can tell.

Or, really -- let's be honest -- are you talking about a dangerous, erratic minority making problems for everyone else because they don't believe there are valid reasons?

 

[multivita-man]

I get that. It's a decent point.

Do you mean, these people, right after January 6th?:

59% Say Trump Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In Future​

59% Say Trump Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In Future, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 2 Out Of 3 Republicans Do Not Think Biden's Victory Is Legitimate | Quinnipiac University Poll

"A seething President Trump seems poised to slip out of D.C. by the back door while the transition takes place, leaving a wary capital encircled by troops, a weakened country assaulted by a murderous virus, and a weary population disillusioned and divided, wondering if the person next door is a...

poll.qu.edu

How about, these people, in Sep 2022?:

"Just 35% of voters say Trump should be allowed to serve again."

Poll: Most U.S. voters now say Trump should not be allowed to serve as president again

Given “what we know about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump,” a narrow majority of registered voters (51%) now believe he should not “be allowed to serve as president again in the future,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

news.yahoo.com

Or, these people?:

57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll​

BY OLAFIMIHAN OSHIN - 03/29/23

57 percent say any criminal charges should disqualify Trump from reelection bid: poll

A majority of Americans in a new poll say that any criminal charges filed against former President Trump should disqualify him from running for another White House term. Fifty-seven percent of resp…

thehill.com

So, it seems like most people believe there is a valid reason. Several, really. 91 solid reasons, per the majority of Americans, as far as we can tell.

Or, really -- let's be honest -- are you talking about a dangerous, erratic minority making problems for everyone else because they don't believe there are valid reasons?

He's far and away the leader in the GOP primary and he's dead-even in polling against the president. He got 75 million votes in 2020.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He's far and away the leader in the GOP primary and he's dead-even in polling against the president. He got 75 million votes in 2020.

Ah, so they have to be convinced there was a valid reason? You know that isnt going to happen.

So which people are you talking about?

Seems like you are setting an impossible bar, there.

 

[multivita-man]

Ah, so they have to be convinced there was a valid reason? You know that isnt going to happen.

So which people are you talking about?

Seems like you are setting an impossible bar, there.

It's not impossible. Have a trial. Convict him in a court of law. There should be time for that before the election.

Why not just wait for that? Then he can be convicted, and sentenced, and then removing him from the ballot is more of a formality, an exclamation point.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm not a MAGA, just so we're clear.

I can be anti-MAGA and still recognize we're going to have a serious problem if the leading GOP candidate's name is removed on the basis that he was part of an insurrection when he was never convicted in the Senate or in a criminal court.

My position is, wait until he's convicted in court, at least. But if he's removed from the ballot before then, I don't think anyone knows where that leads. I'm just being a realist here.

Exactly my view as well, it sets up a dangerous precedent.