Colorado Judge Rules that Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but can still run

USincognito · Nov 26, 2023

ralliann said:
We will see. But, I do believe that is why it seemed unclear to her. She did not want that on her record at the very least. Yet maintained talking points, while leaving the decision concerning it to others..

Or, she was taking strict interpretation of the verbiage which does appear to apply only to officers of states.

Ana the Ist · Nov 26, 2023

Pommer said:
Rudy muscled his way onto that podium to deliver his speech against the wishes of Donald J Trump?

I doubt it...why?

Ana the Ist · Nov 26, 2023

USincognito said:
Or, she was taking strict interpretation of the verbiage which does appear to apply only to officers of states.

Which is odd....because she takes a really loose interpretation of "incitement" and insisted upon not using Trump's actual words. Apparently, he could have stood there silent and the audience would have known that he wanted them to riot.

Ana the Ist · Nov 26, 2023

DaisyDay said:
Please do!

Very well...

Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.

Is Joe Biden willing to stake his reputation that there’s no crime there? No. Also, last night one of the experts that has examined these crooked dominion machines has absolutely what he believes is conclusive proof that in the last 10%, 15% of the vote counted, the votes were deliberately changed. By the same algorithm that was used in cheating President Trump and Vice President Pence. Same algorithm, same system, same thing was done with the same machines. You notice they were ahead until the very end, right? Then you noticed there was a little gap, one was ahead by 3%, the other was ahead by 2%, and gone, gone, they were even. He can take you through that and show you how they programmed that machine from the outside to accomplish that. And they’ve been doing it for years to favor the Democrats.

Would you like some more?

Ana the Ist · Nov 26, 2023

perplexed said:
If you continue Guliani tells a flat out lie
Rudy Giuliani: (03:24)
, last night one of the experts that has examined these crooked dominion machines has absolutely what he believes is conclusive proof that in the last 10%, 15% of the vote counted, the votes were deliberately changed. By the same algorithm that was used in cheating President Trump and Vice President Pence. Same algorithm, same system, same thing was done with the same machines. You notice they were ahead until the very end, right? Then you noticed there was a little gap, one was ahead by 3%, the other was ahead by 2%, and gone, gone, they were even. He can take you through that and show you how they programmed that machine from the outside to accomplish that. And they’ve been doing it for years to favor the Democrats.

He told a lie?!?! Throw him in jail!!!

I would say I can't even count all the lies Biden has told....because I genuinely can't. The guy thinks his son died in Iraq. He claimed we’re going to cure cancer....not a specific cancer....just cancer in general lol. He claimed to never have involved himself in his son's "business" and I use the term "business" as lightly as possible.

Who cares if a political figure told a lie?

Ana the Ist · Nov 26, 2023

ralliann said:
She is just covering herself as a lower court. Not sure if it applies to the presidency, is just a way to avoid "doing" something unconstitutional, and actually violating someones rights vs higher courts deciding she was wrong on her decision concerning insurrection, which happens all the time.

Are Trump's lawyers appealing this decision?

The judge ruled that Trump will stay on the ballot...though I suppose they could appeal her opinion regarding incitement.

perplexed · Nov 26, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
Who cares if a political figure told a lie?

I honestly think everyone does in the right circumstances
If Obama said: "Hillary won the 2016 election by millions of actual votes but the Russian hacked election and massively changed the outcome so it is vital for Joe Biden not to certify the election because the legal system has ignored clear evidence the election was stolen",
then all the Trump supporters would not have any problem referring to any "increase in tourism" as an insurrection and I am sure you won't believe this but I would agree with them

childeye 2 · Nov 26, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
Who cares if a political figure told a lie?

I do. What's more is I particularly don't like slander.

Pommer · Nov 27, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
I doubt it...why?

Do you think President Trump was ignorant that Rudy was going to call for “trial by combat”?
Uttered by the C-i-C, this would have clearly been “incitement“; letting Rudy deliver it got the message across by gave Trump some wriggle room.

ralliann · Nov 27, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
Are Trump's lawyers appealing this decision?

The judge ruled that Trump will stay on the ballot...though I suppose they could appeal her opinion regarding incitement.

I don't know if he is appealing. But, I believe he probably will. I also believe it would be without question had she decided je could not run.

Hank77 · Nov 27, 2023

USincognito said:
Or, she was taking strict interpretation of the verbiage which does appear to apply only to officers of states.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't appear that way to me in a simple straightforward reading.

childeye 2 · Nov 27, 2023

Hank77 said:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't appear that way to me in a simple straightforward reading.

The issue the judge pointed to is that the President takes a different oath of office than a member of congress. The members of congress swear to "support" the constitution as underscored above, whereas the President swears to "preserve" the constitution.

Hank77 · Nov 27, 2023

USincognito said:
Or, she was taking strict interpretation of the verbiage which does appear to apply only to officers of states.

as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

It says rebellion against the Constitution of the United States and the enemies of the Constitution of the United States.

Hank77 · Nov 27, 2023

childeye 2 said:
The issue the judge pointed to is that the President takes a different oath of office than a member of congress. The members of congress swear to "support" the constitution as underscored above, whereas the President swears to "preserve" the constitution.

The president vows to "preserve, protect, and defend" Can any of those words be supportive?

What does common sense and grammar say? If you "preserve, protect, and defend" your family are you "supporting" your family?
In my view, those three words are three of the strongest words that can be used to describe how someone would support something, including the Constitution of the United States.

The judge in Colorado repeated arguments that have been given by people such as the attorney Jonathan Turley and others. And the other side of the argument is expressed by people such as Judge Luttig.

essentialsaltes · Nov 27, 2023

Hank77 said:
What does common sense and grammar say?

Haha, we're talking about the law here.

Hank77 · Nov 27, 2023

ralliann said:
I don't know if he is appealing. But, I believe he probably will. I also believe it would be without question had she decided je could not run.

It was already in the news last week that both sides are appealing for different reasons.

USincognito · Nov 27, 2023

Hank77 said:
as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

It says rebellion against the Constitution of the United States and the enemies of the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, and I think it does apply to Presidents. My point is that I understand where she's coming from.

Colorado Judge Rules that Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but can still run

a post by Alan Smithee

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads