The judge knows she would be in the wrong
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The judge knows she would be in the wrong
When it goes to the Appeals court, even the FBI said it wasnt an insurrection. Maybe it is time that some of these judges be barred from law.
Donald Trump’s name will be on the ballot in Colorado in 2024, at least according to the latest ruling handed down by a Colorado court on Friday.
However, Judge Sarah B. Wallace also ruled that there is sufficient evidence the then-president “incited an insurrection,” and that he therefore “participated in an insurrection.”
Nonetheless, the judge determined that the language of the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause did not clearly apply to the office of president, and she was unwilling to rule that he is ineligible to be a candidate for that office.
The order wasn’t exactly what either side wanted, and an appeal is expected from the plaintiffs, a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
It’s possible that the state Supreme Court, and in turn, the U.S. Supreme Court, could see it the same way. Both may hear the case since an appeal from either Trump or the plaintiffs (depending on the outcome) is a likely prospect.
Ultimately, SCOTUS is likely to have the last word, and their position could set a rule that will apply in every state, as well as a precedent for elected officials going forward. The Washington Post reports:
CERTIFIED: Why Trump's "victory" in Colorado may not be what he thinks
Yep, Trump is officially an insurrectionist. Sane people already knew that. What do you think?
That's why she didn't rule it as an insurrection she did it for political points.When it goes to the Appeals court, even the FBI said it wasnt an insurrection. Maybe it is time that some of these judges be barred from law.
FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6 - Washington Examiner
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters...www.washingtonexaminer.com
YAWN.
Donald Trump’s name will be on the ballot in Colorado in 2024, at least according to the latest ruling handed down by a Colorado court on Friday.
However, Judge Sarah B. Wallace also ruled that there is sufficient evidence the then-president “incited an insurrection,” and that he therefore “participated in an insurrection.”
Nonetheless, the judge determined that the language of the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause did not clearly apply to the office of president, and she was unwilling to rule that he is ineligible to be a candidate for that office.
The order wasn’t exactly what either side wanted, and an appeal is expected from the plaintiffs, a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
It’s possible that the state Supreme Court, and in turn, the U.S. Supreme Court, could see it the same way. Both may hear the case since an appeal from either Trump or the plaintiffs (depending on the outcome) is a likely prospect.
Ultimately, SCOTUS is likely to have the last word, and their position could set a rule that will apply in every state, as well as a precedent for elected officials going forward. The Washington Post reports:
CERTIFIED: Why Trump's "victory" in Colorado may not be what he thinks
Yep, Trump is officially an insurrectionist. Sane people already knew that. What do you think?
So why did the judge violate her oath if office? She knows she lied but an idiot tds simp would believe her.Trump has been identified legally as an insurrectionist and sexual perv.
"Participated in insurrection" = insurrectionist, I say.I wouldn't call it that, even though it's interesting to us political pundits. (Of course I'm talking about the insurrectionist label.)
"Participated in insurrection" = insurrectionist, I say.
That's right she did. And that's right, it doesn't.She punted on the second question because who can honestly say that the Office of the President ISN'T and Officer of the United States. That doesn't make sense.
Are you calling the FBI, "Liars"?"Participated in insurrection" = insurrectionist, I say.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
I agree, but we are talking about the ruling.
There was a two tier question before the court, both had to be true for the Judge to rule.
She found that he was an insurrectionist as part of the fact finding that needed to happen to get to the second question. She punted on the second question because who can honestly say that the Office of the President ISN'T and Officer of the United States. That doesn't make sense.
- Trump was an active part of the insurrection, AND
- Trump could be removed under A14S3.
** IF ** she had found that FPOTUS#45 had not participated in the insurrection, that was it. That ended the ease. She would have never had to get to the second question. By finding that he participated in the insurrection, then that opens the door to examine the second question.
(And yes I disagree with her premise as it related to the 2nd question, the President is in fact an Officer of the United States.)
WW
Without even looking, I knew "she" would look like a man. lmao