Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

[Robert W]

CNN had an old fart lawyer who said that he and Larry Tribe are absolutely convinced that the CO ruling to disqualify Trump is 100% correct and unassailable legally.

Then on FNC I saw Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz say that the USSC will overturn it 9-0.

I'd bet on Turley and Dershowitz.

They said that Roberts needs to tailor the decision to get a 9-0 decision to avoid any political blow-back.

Something like obvious due process violations.

Also the insurrection law was a law. And provides for a fine up to $10,000

Trump did not storm the capitol as the term is used by Democrats.
To use insurrection as a claim, this first must be proven in courts of law.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything at all about a person needing to be convicted of anything. They found that the President engaged in insurrection and that this bars him from holding office under section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They wrote a ruling over a hundred and twenty pages long defending that ruling. As I said, feel free to be a ***** about it.

/——/ Twitter took down this video. Why?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well… zero proof that you cared to look at anyway.

This is the result of you dopes ignoring reality and choosing to believe your own bullshit memes instead.
It’s time to pay attention for real now.

/——/ Twitter took this video down. Why?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Their own judgement. That is the job. Feel free to cry about it.

/—-/ I guess they ignored this video, so will you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Everyone has the right to run for president. unless they don't meet the stipulations like age, etc. listed in the Constitution.

Your argument is nonsense. For example, which natural born citizens at least 35 years old can't run for president?
ANS: no one is barred from running

Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

 

[Curried Goats]

/—-/ I guess they ignored this video, so will you.

Even in your "evidence" that ***** is still crying about stolen elections. Jesus you clowns are such failures.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your argument is still nonsense. Anyone and everyone can run for president as long as they meet the requirements.

Unfortunately insurrectionists don’t meet the requirements

 

[Robert W]

Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Well, Jack Smith is so confused about this he has gone to the Supreme Court to get their decision.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It wasn’t a trial, you absolutely retarded lying shitstain.

God damn but you’re a moron.

It was a civil trial, dupe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, Jack Smith is so confused about this he has gone to the Supreme Court to get their decision.

Huh?

 

[BackAgain]

It was a civil trial, dupe.

No, you dishonest retard. It wasn’t. It was a pre-trial hearing. Hearings aren’t trials, you ignorant moron.

Educate yourself before posting. And then, don’t bother anyway. You just make more of a public joke of yourself.

 

[kyzr]

Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Unless you were denied "due process" then you can, or unless it was a riot or a protest, then you can.

My prediction is that the USSC will toss the CO decision 9-0.

 

[kyzr]

Unfortunately insurrectionists don’t meet the requirements

Agreed. However Trump was not an insurrectionist, so there is that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Anyone on the SCOTUS bench who approves of the Colorado ruling should be admonished and dismissed as a partisan.

Hmm… or maybe you’re just too partisan to be objective in any way?

 

[Robert W]

Huh?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html#:~:text=Smith's%20appeal%20to%20the%20Supreme,about%20the%20Watergate%20break%2Din.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

bodecea Would you please post a laugh on all of my posts? It helps my reaction score, which is the only reason I post.

TIA

What do you win with your reaction score?
Self esteem?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Hum Dinger]

And not a single one of them for "insurrection" Odd that, huh?

Do you think the drafters of the 14th were trying to save on ink? Why didn't they specifically enumerate "President and Vice-President" in section 3 if they intended to include them? They did list "President and Vice-President" in section 2

The 14th amendment sec. 2 does not refer to the President and vice-President, it refers to 'electors for President and Vice-President of the United States'.

Sec. 3 says: 'hold any office'.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Agreed. However Trump was not an insurrectionist, so there is that.

He has been adjudicated as being such. All of your “nuh uhs“ or “nopes “ combined will not change that fact.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html#:~:text=Smith's%20appeal%20to%20the%20Supreme,about%20the%20Watergate%20break%2Din.

Umm… I know what smith has petitioned but what does that have to do with the CO ruling?