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

[Ana the Ist]

What does that have to do with Trump?

Cmon...you know why....

On the right, it's guilt by association.

On the left....the "movement" is different from the "organizers" and "Palestinians" aren't all "Hamas"...and so on....

 

[childeye 2]

I was referring to the claim in the OP that the judge's opinion somehow became fact in Colorado.

Some here seem to think that because it was her opinion Trump incited an insurrection, he therefore did so in fact.

Trump told his supporters the election was stolen from them, and some of them rioted because they believed him. I don't need a judge to tell me that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Trump told his supporters the election was stolen from them, and some of them rioted because they believed him. I don't need a judge to tell me that.

Uh huh.

I'll be honest that January 6th footage being released isn't great. Pelosi doing multiple takes with CNN and pretending to be surprised every time doesn't lend that air of "insurrection" authenticity.

 

[DaisyDay]

I was referring to the claim in the OP that the judge's opinion somehow became fact in Colorado.

Some here seem to think that because it was her opinion Trump incited an insurrection, he therefore did so in fact.

I thought judges made findings of fact and then based their opinions on those found facts.

 

[ralliann]

Was the judge a Trump appointee?

No, obviously. Just covering herself in appeal is all.

 

[ralliann]

Uh huh.

I'll be honest that January 6th footage being released isn't great. Pelosi doing multiple takes with CNN and pretending to be surprised every time doesn't lend that air of "insurrection" authenticity.

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.

 

[ralliann]

That's the judge's opinion lol not a fact.

And if taking it further than she did, if her decision is overturned could it be election interference?

 

[childeye 2]

Uh huh.

I'll be honest that January 6th footage being released isn't great. Pelosi doing multiple takes with CNN and pretending to be surprised every time doesn't lend that air of "insurrection" authenticity.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact remains that Trump lied and people believed in him.

 

[DaisyDay]

For starters....there was a question in his post. I answered it honestly.
Secondly, thank you for providing context.
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.

...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.

That was in one of your links and it clearly looks hyperbolic. He's not suggesting that the crowd go engage in combat. He's not even really saying he and Trump intended to engage in physical violence. He's talking about a legal fight.

Similar to the 60 62 legal battles they had already lost at this point? No, I don't think he is referring to a legal fight as, you'll recall, he did not use fraud in his legal arguments.

No I don't recall Rudy calling for "trial by combat". Between whom?

Giuliani said that his reference was to that most pacifist of works, the Game of Thrones with himself as Tyrion Lannister, who being physically weak, hired a champion to do his fighting for him. The combat was physical - Tyrion was a master at oral fighting.

So between whom? Giuliani and his boss had the crowd to do their combat against the Deep State as represented by VP Pence and the senators who would vote to certify Biden's win - and by extension, Trump's loss.

 

[DaisyDay]

And if taking it further than she did, if her decision is overturned could it be election interference?

No, the judge has qualified immunity which means she can not be prosecuted for doing her job (barring actual, provable corruption).

 

[ralliann]

No, the judge has qualified immunity which means she can not be prosecuted for doing her job (barring actual, provable corruption).

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..

 

[DaisyDay]

We will see.

Sigh. Look up "qualified immunity judges".

But, I do believe that is why it seemed unclear to her.

What did she seem unclear on?

She did not want that on her record at the very least. Yet maintained talking points, while leaving the decision concerning it to others..

It's a tricky business and unprecedented, afaik.

 

[ralliann]

Sigh. Look up "qualified immunity judges".

Why, I never said anything about that. You did include an "unless" didn't you? We will see if that becomes an issue here.

What did she seem unclear on?

Applicabilty .

It's a tricky business and unprecedented, afaik.

I believe she did it due to undesirable consequences.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact remains that Trump lied and people believed in him.

People still do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

...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.

Yup.

Similar to the 60 62 legal battles they had already lost at this point? No, I don't think he is referring to a legal fight as, you'll recall, he did not use fraud in his legal arguments.

Well you're wrong...his entire speech is basically about the legal battle over the election results.

In that context, it's hard to imagine what else he meant.

So between whom? Giuliani and his boss had the crowd to do their combat against the Deep State as represented by VP Pence and the senators who would vote to certify Biden's win - and by extension, Trump's loss.

That's a fanciful imagination you have there.

Ahem...

Hello. Hello everyone. We’re here just very briefly to make a very important two points. Number one; every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States. It is perfectly appropriate given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act of 1887 that the Vice President can cast it aside and he can do what a president called Jefferson did when he was Vice President. He can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots, or he can send it back to the legislators, give them five to 10 days to finally finish the work. We now have letters from five legislators begging us to do that. They’re asking us. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, and one other coming in.

It seems to me, we don’t want to find out three weeks from now even more proof that this election was stolen, do we?

So it is perfectly reasonable and fair to get 10 days… and you should know this, the Democrats and their allies have not allowed us to see one machine, or one paper ballot. Now if they ran such a clean election, why wouldn’t they make all the machines available immediately? If they ran such a clean election, they’d have you come in and look at the paper ballots. Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence. Not honest people.

Shall I continue?

 

[perplexed]

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.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yup.



Well you're wrong...his entire speech is basically about the legal battle over the election results.

In that context, it's hard to imagine what else he meant.





That's a fanciful imagination you have there.

Ahem...

Hello. Hello everyone. We’re here just very briefly to make a very important two points. Number one; every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States. It is perfectly appropriate given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act of 1887 that the Vice President can cast it aside and he can do what a president called Jefferson did when he was Vice President. He can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots, or he can send it back to the legislators, give them five to 10 days to finally finish the work. We now have letters from five legislators begging us to do that. They’re asking us. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, and one other coming in.

It seems to me, we don’t want to find out three weeks from now even more proof that this election was stolen, do we?

So it is perfectly reasonable and fair to get 10 days… and you should know this, the Democrats and their allies have not allowed us to see one machine, or one paper ballot. Now if they ran such a clean election, why wouldn’t they make all the machines available immediately? If they ran such a clean election, they’d have you come in and look at the paper ballots. Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence. Not honest people.

Shall I continue?

Please do!

 

[DaisyDay]

Why, I never said anything about that.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment that "And if taking it further than she did, if her decision is overturned could it be election interference". I took that to mean that you were asking if she personally could be charged with "election interference". If that's not what you meant, what did you want to say?

You did include an "unless" didn't you? We will see if that becomes an issue here.

"Barring corruption" could be read as an "unless". It does not seem to be an issue here.

Applicability .

Yes, that's the question, isn't it? Does the 14th Amendment bar people who committed [insurrection|treason|seditious conspiracy] while serving in the office of president of the United States from running for president? Does it depend on the election laws of individual states or is this, being a constitutional amendment, a federal matter only?

I believe she did it due to undesirable consequences.

Certainly possible.

 

[Pommer]

Cmon...you know why....

On the right, it's guilt by association.

On the left....the "movement" is different from the "organizers" and "Palestinians" aren't all "Hamas"...and so on....

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

 

[USincognito]

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.

What, exactly did she do (or not do) that was either unconstitutional or violated someone's rights?