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

[GLASNOST]

You choose the ***** grabber who is by far the biggest threat this country

You must be young. Back in my and Trump's day, grabbing ***** was a sign of virility. It was called "copping a feel" and it was considered an admirable thing to do. The fact that you think a 'stinky finger' is a threat to the country makes it obvious that you live on Lou Reed's wild side.

.... without values , a criminal and rapist and insurrectionist.

We value the appreciation of gender. Men are men and women are women and "copping a feel" is only considered rape & insurrectionist to you snowflake ***** boys anyway. Who needs you?

I keep on asking can these brain dead ***** be as stupid as they seem to be by what they say and I'm convinced that you traitors are as scummy as you seem.

We "traitors" as you say, know the difference between masculinity and feminity and while we're bouncing the bedsprings with the opposite sex you scum are jerking off your dog and trying to seduce the mailman in your pastel, terrycloth house coat. Disgusting!

 

[Slade3200]

They cited supposdely-mean (but just BS talk to normal human beings) things Trump said in 2016, and then of all things used a radical leftist sociology professor to declare that Trump was using "coded language" to incite violence even though he called for peace many times... and tied those assumptions into some calculating intent they maniftested by Trump.

This is like tin-foil hat stuff. This is a wakeup call that we have crazed radicals in government that will gladly abuse it to go after the people they disagree with or hate.

That may be your interpretation of it but I definitely saw something very different than what you just described. Don’t think many honest people would say that riot would have happened had it not been for Trumps engagement… and his response in the aftermath pretty much negates all that desire for peace BS

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That may be your interpretation of it but I definitely saw something very different than what you just described. Don’t think many honest people would say that riot would have happened had it not been for Trumps engagement… and his response in the aftermath pretty much negates all that desire for peace BS

Trump called for people to go down to the Capitol to protest the ruling. What he was calling for was dumb and by definition not possible, but I think it was more of a showing rather than anything else.

However, for so many supposedly-educated individuals in the media, big tech, and the Democrat party to connect such randomly distant dots to paint the picture they have is remarkable.

So you abide by the theory that when Trump talked about peacefully protesting at the Capitol, he was using "coded language" to be violent? You think that if he talked about roughing up a protester in 2016, he was setting the table for some call to violence in 2020?

Is that what you're saying? Because that's what the CO Supreme Court is saying, and they are relying on the testimony of a radial leftist sociology professor to outline reality for the entire nation.

Seems like Democracy is being chopped at the neck.

 

[jbander]

You must be young. Back in my and Trump's day, grabbing ***** was a sign of virility. It was called "copping a feel" and it was considered an admirable thing to do. The fact that you think a 'stinky finger' is a threat to the country makes it obvious that you live on Lou Reed's wild side.

We value the appreciation of gender. Men are men and women are women and "copping a feel" is only considered rape & insurrectionist to you snowflake ***** boys anyway. Who needs you?

We "traitors" as you say, know the difference between masculinity and feminity and while we're bouncing the bedsprings with the opposite sex you scum are jerking off your dog and trying to seduce the mailman in your pastel, terrycloth house coat. Disgusting!

When they are this slimy you just dump them. DUMP!!!!!!!!

 

[Slade3200]

What he was calling for was dumb and by definition not possible, but I think it was more of a showing rather than anything else.

You call it dumb and not possible to water it down. In reality it was lying and illegal… and many people believed it and fed off it to get pissed off enough to charge the capital and riot. And when that happened Trump did nothing to try and stop it. He sat back and watched it on TV. Mission accomplished.

 

[Slade3200]

So you abide by the theory that when Trump talked about peacefully protesting at the Capitol, he was using "coded language" to be violent? You think that if he talked about roughing up a protester in 2016, he was setting the table for some call to violence in 2020?

Not coded language… Trump always tosses in qualifiers to try and cover his ass. The people like you use those lines to make excuses for him. You act like his words don’t matter. Let me ask a simple question. Do you think that riot would have broken out had Trump not given that speech and spread those lies about a stolen election?

 

[Slade3200]

Is that what you're saying? Because that's what the CO Supreme Court is saying, and they are relying on the testimony of a radial leftist sociology professor to outline reality for the entire nation.

Seems like Democracy is being chopped at the neck

You make these claims that don’t fit the reality that I saw that day so when you also say it seems like democracy is being chopped at the neck I can’t really take that seriously. The case was presented in court. Evidence reviewed. Both sides were able to make arguments. A judge ruled, it was appealed to the state Supreme Court, they ruled. That’s how our legal system works. Sorry you don’t like it. I’m sure this will now go to SCOTUs where it will be upheld or not.

Yall call yourselves patriots but are so quick to demean and rip apart our system when it produces results you don’t like.

 

[GLASNOST]

When they are this slimy you just dump them. DUMP!!!!!!!!

Be careful how deeply in the slime you submerge yourself. It's a bit tight down there with Billy Boy hiding his cigars in Monica's treasure box and Creepy Joe molesting puberty-aged girls to his heart's content. But maybe wearing flip-flops and squeezing in tightly with the likes of those perverts is what excites you?

 

[Invisibleflash]

Gee, do you also have their home addresses? Phone numbers? Names of family members? Shameful thread.

No not necessary. Thug mentality is the purview of filthy dems.

Once America collapses and no rule of law, then have a stern rebuking of the dem scum.

 

[scruffy]

No not necessary. Thug mentality is the purview of filthy dems.

Once America collapses and no rule of law, then have a stern rebuking of the dem scum.

The two halves of your post kinda contradict each other. Just sayin.

 

[Curried Goats]

This. ^^^

Taking someone off a ballot is a loss of rights, it requires a criminal conviction.

Constitution 101

It doesn't. Insurrectionists don't have a right to be on the ballot.

 

[lantern2814]

Lisa, Lisa and the cult jam.

That song is tired, honey

No. The lying by you and retards agreeing with you is tired. No insurrection and SCOTUS is going to slap you morons stupid. Again. Then you’ll threaten the conservative justices again.

 

[lantern2814]

Yes. I can. But go **** yourself.

In other words you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. So go **** yourself you proven liar.

 

[GLASNOST]

Insurrectionists don't have a right to be on the ballot.

Has anyone bothered defining 'insurrection' before making the accusation or is that too cumbersome a thing to do?

 

[Curried Goats]

Has anyone bothered defining 'insurrection' before making the accusation or is that too cumbersome a thing to do?

Yes. The Colorado Supreme Court wrote a page or two in their decision going over the definition of insurrection.

 

[GLASNOST]

Has anyone bothered defining 'insurrection' before making the accusation or is that too cumbersome a thing to do?

Yes. The Colorado Supreme Court wrote a page or two in their decision going over the definition of insurrection.

I'm talking about the definition, not excuses or tweaks, or more specifically, how the "definition" fits the accused.

 

[Curried Goats]

For those actually interested, i.e. everyone not a MAGAt moron, here's the courts definition of an insurrection. I also appreciate how they took the time to explain why things like the BLM riots were not an insurrection.

2. Insurrection​

Dictionaries (both old and new), the district court's order, and the briefing by the parties and the amici curiae suggest several definitions of the word "insurrection".

For example, Noah Webster's dictionary from 1860 defined insurrection
as:

​

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law ina city or state. Itis equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction​

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines insurrection as “an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority or against an established government" or "an act or instance of rising up physically." In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that "an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States".

Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump's counsel, while not
providing a specific definition , argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but
less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of
related conduct. But we part company with him when he goes one step further . No authority supports the position taken by
President Trump's counsel at oral argument that insurrectionary conduct must involve a particular length of time or geographic location.

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word insurrection . Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of insurrection for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.

The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the
dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection's inception.

The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court
sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and
public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the
U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful
transfer of power in this country. We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection. It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers on site could not control it. Moreover, contrary to President Trump's assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol's premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied.

Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, "The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose... They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence". And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target the certification of the presidential election and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building.

Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer ofpower. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification process was ongoing. This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob's
ire - which included threats of physical violence - was directed at Vice President
Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with
carrying out the electoral count. As discussed more fully below,these actions were the product of President Trump's conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump's demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties.

In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider whether President Trump "engaged in" this insurrection.

 

[GLASNOST]

For those actually interested, i.e. everyone not a MAGAt moron ....

So, according to you Making America Great is "moronic"?

... here's the courts definition of an insurrection.

Very nice but it doesn't apply to Trump.

 

[Curried Goats]

So, according to you Making America Great is "moronic"?

Very nice but it doesn't apply to Trump.

This is why people call you morons.

 

[maybelooking]

Has anyone bothered defining 'insurrection' before making the accusation or is that too cumbersome a thing to do?

leftist idiots dont worry about silly definitions or facts. just repeat the lie they have been told to repeat. thats all that matters! clowns.