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

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,034
5,807
✟249,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Add to this the fact that, agree with them or disagree with them, a very large portion of the American public does not believe any sort of insurrection actually happened on Jan 6th.
Either that, or they are just simply OK with an insurrection in support of D Trump and against the "stolen election".
They are taught that it is fine to take up arms against "Tyranny". It's just exercising one's 2nd amendment right. Some of them think it was their patriotic duty to rise up against the peaceful transition of power that day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,910
3,589
NW
✟193,431.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Add to this the fact that, agree with them or disagree with them, a very large portion of the American public does not believe any sort of insurrection actually happened on Jan 6th.
For months after the 2020 election, they were also claiming Trump was actually still in the White House conducting mass executions as well, so there are a lot of delusional people out there.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Either that, or they are just simply OK with an insurrection in support of D Trump and against the "stolen election".
They are taught that it is fine to take up arms against "Tyranny". It's just exercising one's 2nd amendment right. Some of them think it was their patriotic duty to rise up against the peaceful transition of power that day.
The protesters were not armed. Being armed in DC can get you in trouble. i.e. if that was an insurrection, they were doing it wrong. :tearsofjoy:
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,685
9,405
the Great Basin
✟328,537.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The protesters were not armed. Being armed in DC can get you in trouble. i.e. if that was an insurrection, they were doing it wrong. :tearsofjoy:

Actually, several were armed. For example, if you go last week to the Jan 6 consequences thread, there have been individuals convicted of carrying a gun while participating in the riot. Additionally, guns are not the only things that are weapons -- in many cases the various poles, shields, pepper type sprays, and other items were also "weapons" that were used against law enforcement.

Part of the problem is also that various people and groups at the Capitol had different reasons for being there. For groups like the Proud Boys, there was clear evidence that they were seeking to start an insurrection on behalf of D. J. Trump, of which several have been convicted. There are others who claim they weren't trying for "insurrection" but they wanted "justice" -- they seemed to have some odd idea of dragging non-Trump supporting members of Congress out of the Capitol and quickly trying and executing them by mob rule; with the idea that the "non-traitorous" members of Congress would then certify the election for Trump.

Of course, most were there just to protest that Trump was not the winner of the election and they have been charged with misdemeanors, fined and/or given community service. So I'll agree that most weren't there to cause an "insurrection," and it was a very poorly operated one.

At the same time, I'd submit that it was never actually meant to succeed, that the purpose wasn't to overthrow the government. Instead, the purpose was to keep Congress from voting to certify the election. The idea being -- if Trump's "fake elector" plot failed (which it did because Pence refused to participate) -- the riot was to keep Congress from meeting on Jan 6 to certify the election. With the date being Constitutional mandated, the idea was to keep the vote from happening that day -- at which point there was a strong legal argument that the election could not be certified. At that point, Congress would vote for the winner, which the Representatives and Senators from each state sharing a single vote, which would then vote Trump as the winner of the Presidential election, completely ignoring the vote that occurred in November.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,034
5,807
✟249,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The protesters were not armed. Being armed in DC can get you in trouble. i.e. if that was an insurrection, they were doing it wrong. :tearsofjoy:
Plenty of police were attacked by weapons.

The purpose of this insurrection on the Capitol was to delay the electoral count by the VP. Supposedly, if it were delayed long enough, then a different system kicks in, one that is controlled by the Republicans and they could just simply vote for D Trump despite what the voting public wanted. A redo of the election that D Trump lost, but this time a vote by a few people, mostly D Trump loyalists to instead declare D Trump the winner.

It was a self insurrection because D Trump was in power at the time, rather than trying to take over power, he was trying to prevent the rightful transition of power to the new president elect.

Of the people storming the Capital. There were various types of people.
Some were fully and knowingly engaged in an insurrection, they had planned for this day, they knew before hand that they were going to break into the Capital, take over the chamber and also search for Pence (2nd in line) and Pelosi (3rd inline).
There were also some very enthusiastic D Trump supporters, who believed that the election was stolen and believed that this "wrong" needed righting, and they were enthusiastically following the first group, but where not quite sure on what to do, other than to break in, attack any defence forces and make lots of noise.
There was also a much less violent group who seemed to want to be part of what was going on, wanted to be part of history in the making, but really were clueless on what to do. They weren't wanting to attack anyone, happy to be further away from the front line, they were just there to make up the numbers.

But D Trump, Eastman and several others knew quite clearly what their goal was, and that was to remain in power. They were fully onboard with the insurrection, but saw themselves as generals rather than foot soldiers.

While this attack was going on, D Trump watched gleefully at the TV. Many of his people, including his family, attempted to contact him to get him to call off the dogs. D Trump did nothing. Pence on the other hand assumed the role of commander in chief and gave orders and instructions to the national guard.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,267
6,950
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟372,972.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I haven’t read every post in this thread. But wouldn’t this ruling apply—at least initially—only to the Republican primary election? Colorado has become a strongly blue state. Last year, the incumbent Democratic governor won re-election with 58+% of the vote. As did Democratic Senator Mike Bennet. They won even with the taint of Joe Biden’s baggage. Not to mention that in 2022, the state passed a law protecting access to abortion, and expanded it this year. I know the past is no guarantee of the future. But I’d doubt that Donald being on or off the Colorado ballot will make much difference in next year’s general election.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, several were armed.
Of that I have little doubt. When you have thousands of people in a crowd, you are going to get a few of everything. They are what is called the "red herring". And then there are pitchforks and torches. ;)
There was also a kid with a skateboard trying to bash in a window that the crowd stopped. Skateboards are an unusual weapon for the Trump crowd.

And have you seen any of the Tucker Carlson videos? Calling this an insurrection is a very, VERY broad definition of the word.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Plenty of police were attacked by weapons.

The purpose of this insurrection on the Capitol was to delay the electoral count by the VP. Supposedly, if it were delayed long enough, then a different system kicks in, one that is controlled by the Republicans and they could just simply vote for D Trump despite what the voting public wanted. A redo of the election that D Trump lost, but this time a vote by a few people, mostly D Trump loyalists to instead declare D Trump the winner.

It was a self insurrection because D Trump was in power at the time, rather than trying to take over power, he was trying to prevent the rightful transition of power to the new president elect.

Of the people storming the Capital. There were various types of people.
Some were fully and knowingly engaged in an insurrection, they had planned for this day, they knew before hand that they were going to break into the Capital, take over the chamber and also search for Pence (2nd in line) and Pelosi (3rd inline).
There were also some very enthusiastic D Trump supporters, who believed that the election was stolen and believed that this "wrong" needed righting, and they were enthusiastically following the first group, but where not quite sure on what to do, other than to break in, attack any defence forces and make lots of noise.
There was also a much less violent group who seemed to want to be part of what was going on, wanted to be part of history in the making, but really were clueless on what to do. They weren't wanting to attack anyone, happy to be further away from the front line, they were just there to make up the numbers.

But D Trump, Eastman and several others knew quite clearly what their goal was, and that was to remain in power. They were fully onboard with the insurrection, but saw themselves as generals rather than foot soldiers.

While this attack was going on, D Trump watched gleefully at the TV. Many of his people, including his family, attempted to contact him to get him to call off the dogs. D Trump did nothing. Pence on the other hand assumed the role of commander in chief and gave orders and instructions to the national guard.
I don't understand where you get your inference regarding Trump's motives. Did you hear his speech before the march on the capital? Not carefully edited excerpts, but the entire thing. For starters, he implored them to be peaceful. It's hard to convince a man of leading or even being part of an insurrection when the public record shows that.

I've followed this thing pretty closely and from what I've seen of the general crowd as well as Trumps words in his speeches, the only insurrection is in the minds of those that thought trump could do no good, no matter what.

But then, that is just my personal observation. Opinions vary.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,109
36,449
Los Angeles Area
✟827,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
For starters, he implored them to be peaceful.
He also exhorted them to fight like heck. Since he was talking out both sides of his mouth, his listeners were able to grab onto the message that resonated with them. The peaceful ones didn't make the news later.
I've followed this thing pretty closely
Then you must be aware of the many Jan 6 defendants who have testified they did what they did on behalf of Trump.

'Because President Trump said to': Over a dozen Capitol rioters say they were following Trump's guidance

 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,438
818
Midwest
✟159,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It doesn't specify executive branch of any state. "Of any state" applies to "judicial officer", not to "executive". If you ask me if I have a cat, or a dog with orange hair, the orange hair part of the question only applies to the dog.
If I were to ask "do you have a cat or a dog with orange hair" then I expect most people would not interpret it the way you describe, and would instead naturally interpret the phrase to be asking if you have a dog with orange hair or a cat with orange hair. The phrase could be interpreted in the way you describe, but it would not be the natural one and if that was the goal, one would typically reorder it to make it clear, by asking "Do you have a dog with orange hair or a cat?"

Now, I do notice you put a comma after the word cat, so perhaps your claim is supposed to be that the usage of the comma there differentiates the two. The problem is, that only goes against your interpretation. Note the Disqualification Clause again, with the applicable section bolded:

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.

There is no comma between "executive" and "or judicial officer of any State". So if that was your claim (I'm not sure if it was), then your argument doesn't work.

Can you point to any legal scholar--anywhere--that endorses the interpretation you have offered?

But regardless of whether any legal scholar takes that interpretation, we can see multiple problems why it makes little sense to try to read "an executive" as separate from "judicial officer of any State" (rather than it being a shortened form of "an executive officer of any State or a judicial officer of any State"),

First, simply stating "an executive" with no further qualification would be a very odd term to mean, as "executive" can have a ton of meanings, but "executive officer of any State" is much more clear.

Second, every other item in the list becomes with "as a(n)". "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". If "judicial officer of any State" was to be separate from "an executive" then why does it not say "as a" before it?

Third, if "executive" and "judicial officer of any State" are separate categories, then why is there not a comma between them? When making a list, you put a comma between the things in the list (or semicolons if the things in the list are full clauses). That's something people learn in elementary school. Now, some styles will omit the final comma--often called the Oxford comma or serial comma--in the list (e.g. instead of "A, B, C, or D" you write "A, B, C or D") but it is clear that is not the style being followed, as we see the serial comma used elsewhere in the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Section 1 reads, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof..." Notice the usage of the comma before "or the members". So the style being used is to include a comma before the final "or" or "and" in a list. So your interpretation goes against the laws of grammar that other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment are clearly following. Actually, the phrase I just quoted is further evidence against your claim, as it uses the similar phrase "the Executive and Judicial officers of a State". "The Executive" by itself makes no real sense in this context (however, "the Executive officers of a State" makes perfect sense), but according to the interpretation you offer we must consider it to be a separate thing entirely.

Fourth and finally, the order. In the normal interpretation that everyone else interprets its under, it is "descending", from federal to state. "As a member of Congress [federal], or as an officer of the United States [federal], or as a member of any State legislature [state], or as an executive or judicial officer of any State [state]" has it reasonably start with federal positions, then move onto state positions. Your interpretation instead has it be "as a member of Congress [federal], or as an officer of the United States [federal], or as a member of any State legislature [state], or as an executive [federal or state] or judicial officer of any State [state]." Why start with federal, switch to state, then switch to a combination of federal and state, only to switch back to state again?

So for your idea to work, we have to go with an interpretation that confusingly leaves "executive" by itself with no qualification, doesn't work with the way everything else in the list is listed, goes against grammar rules found elsewhere in the same amendment, and puts the items in a confusing order.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
7,034
5,807
✟249,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't understand where you get your inference regarding Trump's motives. Did you hear his speech before the march on the capital? Not carefully edited excerpts, but the entire thing. For starters, he implored them to be peaceful. It's hard to convince a man of leading or even being part of an insurrection when the public record shows that.
Yeah, I've seen the whole thing. He did mention that they go peacefully. I wouldn't say "implore" but then in a contradictory fashion he said they need to fight like hell. It's pretty well known that D Trump speaks in code. He obviously doesn't want to incriminate himself.
But three main things here.
1. If D Trump wanted them to peacefully protest, then as soon as he had reports of violence and criminal activity, he should have called them off. He had them in the palm of his hands, they were willing to do everything for him. But instead, he waited over 3 hours before calling them off.
2. When he called them off, he told them that he loves them and that they are patriots. This is after they violently attacked and invaded the capital and were hunting down the VP and other senators. Is this him giving them approval of the violence and crimes that they did?
3. He has said that he will pardon them if he gets back into office. Again is this him saying it is ok for them to do violence and crimes for him?
I've followed this thing pretty closely and from what I've seen of the general crowd as well as Trumps words in his speeches, the only insurrection is in the minds of those that thought trump could do no good, no matter what.
Well, no. A judge recently said that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

"Still, the judge concluded Trump’s “conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor” to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump “engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement”."

All the lies that Trump made about fraud, all the lies the Right wing media made about fraud, all the lies Trump Lawyers made when they did their TV appearances. Then there was the Eastman document describing in detail how to use the alternative slate of electors, how to get Pence to reject some elector results and just claim the win despite the people's vote. And then the show Trump and Eastman and others put on, on the morning of the insurrection to rile the people up, to get them to go down to the capital and fight like hell. And then D Trump standing back for hours, watching all the violence on tv and doing nothing. Instead Pence as VP assuming command as temporary commander in chief to get help.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,831
17,166
✟1,420,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand where you get your inference regarding Trump's motives. Did you hear his speech before the march on the capital? Not carefully edited excerpts, but the entire thing. For starters, he implored them to be peaceful. It's hard to convince a man of leading or even being part of an insurrection when the public record shows that.

I've followed this thing pretty closely and from what I've seen of the general crowd as well as Trumps words in his speeches, the only insurrection is in the minds of those that thought trump could do no good, no matter what.

But then, that is just my personal observation. Opinions vary.

Excerpts from the ruling:

144. The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence. Trump did so explicitly by telling the crowd repeatedly to “fight” and to “fight 46 like hell,” to “walk down to the Capitol,” and that they needed to “take back our country” through “strength.” He did so implicitly by encouraging the crowd that they could play by “very different rules” because of the supposed fraudulent election.

145. In the context of the speech as a whole, as well as the broader context of Trump’s efforts to inflame his supporters through outright lies of voter fraud in the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021 and his long-standing pattern of encouraging political violence among his supporters, the Court finds that the call to “fight” and “fight like hell” was intended as, and was understood by a portion of the crowd as, a call to arms. The Court further finds, based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented, that Trump’s conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor to, the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. See also 11/03/2023 Tr. 203:20–22; 11/02/2023 278:2–12.

...

288. The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence. Next, the Court concludes that the language Trump employed was likely to produce such lawlessness.

289. Regarding Trump’s specific intent (either purpose or knowledge), the Court considers highly relevant Trump’s history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, as well as his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election results and hinder the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress. Trump’s history of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name, as well as his cultivation of relationships with extremist political actors who frequently traffic in violent rhetoric, is well-established. Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous. Further, the Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.

 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,831
17,166
✟1,420,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Both parties have filed appeals this week with the Colorado Supreme Court.

 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He also exhorted them to fight like heck. Since he was talking out both sides of his mouth, his listeners were able to grab onto the message that resonated with them. The peaceful ones didn't make the news later.
Politicians use the phrase all the time. Fankly, it is a VERY common democrat mantra to the point where I find it odd that Republicans don't say it more often.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
See my post above this one. A dozen out of thousands completely misunderstanding what he said? And that is even assuming they are not just saying whatever they can to get out of it. Remember, in a case against Trump, their testimony regarding his words is only hearsay. Not admissible in court. It's admissible in their case because it is, technically, evidence. That is, they are simply saying how they interpreted what they heard. But apparently thousands of others didn't interpret it that way.

The whole case is much adeu about nothing that they are trying to use to nail the president. And if this is all they have, they don't have much.

To be really clear, I'm no fan of the R party, but I consider Trump to be the best president* this country has had in the 20th and 21st centuries. But, of course, opinions vary. :tearsofjoy:
Lastly, see this guy? He worked out a plea deal. However, when more video information came out he was released. Looks like that 2021 article has been superseded by more information. I don't think history is going to be very kind to this witch hunt.

BTW, they let this guy out early. He's apparently running for a house seat now. There is controversy regarding why he was released from prison early, but there is this nugget:
"Chansley’s case recently regained national attention this month when Carlson aired previously unseen video surveillance footage of Chansley walking through the Capitol hallways accompanied by police officers, who at some moments appeared to be escorting him—even opening a Senate-wing door."
1700755878643.png


*I suspect he was not a very good husband, but I wasn't voting for husband. Same goes for Clinton and JFK, for that matter...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,109
36,449
Los Angeles Area
✟827,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politicians use the phrase all the time.
Generally not in a situation where one could be 'inciting' a bunch of people right in front of them to go march down the street to a particular place.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,109
36,449
Los Angeles Area
✟827,086.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Remember, in a case against Trump, their testimony regarding his words is only hearsay.
Nonsense, his words are public record. They are not claiming to have heard something nobody else heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I've seen the whole thing. He did mention that they go peacefully. I wouldn't say "implore" but then in a contradictory fashion he said they need to fight like hell. It's pretty well known that D Trump speaks in code. He obviously doesn't want to incriminate himself.
But three main things here.
1. If D Trump wanted them to peacefully protest, then as soon as he had reports of violence and criminal activity, he should have called them off. He had them in the palm of his hands, they were willing to do everything for him. But instead, he waited over 3 hours before calling them off.
2. When he called them off, he told them that he loves them and that they are patriots. This is after they violently attacked and invaded the capital and were hunting down the VP and other senators. Is this him giving them approval of the violence and crimes that they did?
3. He has said that he will pardon them if he gets back into office. Again is this him saying it is ok for them to do violence and crimes for him?

Well, no. A judge recently said that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

"Still, the judge concluded Trump’s “conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor” to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump “engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement”."

All the lies that Trump made about fraud, all the lies the Right wing media made about fraud, all the lies Trump Lawyers made when they did their TV appearances. Then there was the Eastman document describing in detail how to use the alternative slate of electors, how to get Pence to reject some elector results and just claim the win despite the people's vote. And then the show Trump and Eastman and others put on, on the morning of the insurrection to rile the people up, to get them to go down to the capital and fight like hell. And then D Trump standing back for hours, watching all the violence on tv and doing nothing. Instead Pence as VP assuming command as temporary commander in chief to get help.
I don't feel the need to comment on every point you are making there, but I'll throw a few things out: First, there was a valid reason for not immediately calling them off. Second, they WERE patriot's, Except for a few youngsters that got caught up in the "mob mentality", this was very peaceful. As I may have mentioned, There was a video of a kid trying to bash in windows with his skateboard, and the crowd took him down and away. And the ones that did get in stayed within the velvet ropes. Third, biased judges have become a national joke. It is very, VERY common for Trump to lose in lower courts only to win in higher courts. It became downright comedic when he was president. And it's already starting to happen again.

Just because one lower court judge that wears his bias against Trump on his sleeve finds against him it really doesn't mean much of anything. History has clearly taught us that.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Excerpts from the ruling:

144. The Court finds that Trump’s Ellipse speech incited imminent lawless violence. Trump did so explicitly by telling the crowd repeatedly to “fight” and to “fight 46 like hell,” to “walk down to the Capitol,” and that they needed to “take back our country” through “strength.” He did so implicitly by encouraging the crowd that they could play by “very different rules” because of the supposed fraudulent election.

145. In the context of the speech as a whole, as well as the broader context of Trump’s efforts to inflame his supporters through outright lies of voter fraud in the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021 and his long-standing pattern of encouraging political violence among his supporters, the Court finds that the call to “fight” and “fight like hell” was intended as, and was understood by a portion of the crowd as, a call to arms. The Court further finds, based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented, that Trump’s conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor to, the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. See also 11/03/2023 Tr. 203:20–22; 11/02/2023 278:2–12.

...

288. The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence. Next, the Court concludes that the language Trump employed was likely to produce such lawlessness.

289. Regarding Trump’s specific intent (either purpose or knowledge), the Court considers highly relevant Trump’s history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, as well as his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election results and hinder the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress. Trump’s history of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name, as well as his cultivation of relationships with extremist political actors who frequently traffic in violent rhetoric, is well-established. Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous. Further, the Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.

Lower court ruling is pretty much irrelevant. As I said in my post just before this one, Trump's MO is to lose in lower courts with openly biased judges, and then win in higher courts. Taking Trump to court is like throwing Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
623
242
68
Kentucky
✟25,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nonsense, his words are public record. They are not claiming to have heard something nobody else heard.
So they won't be testifying at Trump's trial since it's public record?

Just because Cousin Eddy rounds up your boss on Christmas and wraps him in a bow because of what you said, doesn't mean everybody thought that is what you meant. Nor does it mean a reasonable person would have thought that was what you meant. And there's the rub. What did he actually SAY, and would a reasonable person have interpreted it the way a tiny minority, trying to keep out of jail, would have said they interpreted it?

Like I said, this whole thing is a witch hunt and just looks silly to the less biased observers.
 
Upvote 0