Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution

[expos4ever]

The put up with Dominion voting changing millions of votes....

There is no remotely credible evidence to support this claim.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand what you are saying and can't say I totally disagree. What I am wondering is why we would let someone who organized what some consider an attempted coup or at the very least lead an insurrection against the capital of our government. Such people should not be allowed power over us.

There are provisions that prevent that...but they do need to go through proper channels.

As of right now, the unique approach the Colorado court is taking is, in part, disqualifying him for something he hasn't even been officially charged with yet, much less convicted.

From all appearances, Jack Smith is a pretty detail oriented and competent prosecutor. That particular charge is one he declined to pursue.

Why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting an insurrection

We've curated insights from experts on why an insurrection charge was absent from the third indictment against Trump.

finance.yahoo.com

Even publications like Slate (which tend to be more left-leaning and are probably chomping at the bit to get him out of the race any way possible) highlighted some of the legal challenges with that particular charge.

Trump was not at the Capitol when the violence occurred. And while common sense tells us he was inflaming the crowd in his speech at the Ellipse, issues around the First Amendment impose a barrier to a charge of incitement ever reaching a jury.

In addition, like an experienced mob boss, he also planted words like “peaceful” in his speech to include plausible deniability about inciting violence. For all these reasons, Smith may be forced to pursue in a way that makes evidence of incitement relevant to the overall case, without having to prove seditious conspiracy or insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.

Something tells me that if Smith thought he could even have any measurable chance of success on that charge, he would've gone for it.

Another possibility is that he's considering the "prosecutor's gambit", in which they pursue the charges they know they can take on and win, without risking "overcharging". (Sort of like when prosecutors will take on a case where someone kills someone else...and they'll opt to go for Manslaughter instead of Murder because they'd rather have a 100% lock on putting the person away for 15 years, rather than risk going for Murder and losing, and having the guy walk) -- I think we can all agree that Smith's charge of "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" is going to be much easier to "slam dunk" than the much more serious charge of insurrection.

 

[wing2000]

Another possibility is that he's considering the "prosecutor's gambit", in which they pursue the charges they know they can take on and win, without risking "overcharging". (Sort of like when prosecutors will take on a case where someone kills someone else...and they'll opt to go for Manslaughter instead of Murder because they'd rather have a 100% lock on putting the person away for 15 years, rather than risk going for Murder and losing, and having the guy walk) -- I think we can all agree that Smith's charge of "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" is going to be much easier to "slam dunk" than the much more serious charge of insurrection.

This. Additionally, with addtional charges, there is more opportunity for the defense to tie up the case with legal challenges.

 

[7thKeeper]

I'll be the one to tell you that it's customary to read Aryeh Jays' posts with a full on waterfall of sarcasm. He's not that terrible. Only a little

Ah, sarcasm in text is sometimes... Actually near always, hard to detect.

 

[rturner76]

I think we can all agree that Smith's charge of "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" is going to be much easier to "slam dunk" than the much more serious charge of insurrection.

That would include me as well.

Trump was not at the Capitol when the violence occurred. And while common sense tells us he was inflaming the crowd in his speech at the Ellipse, issues around the First Amendment impose a barrier to a charge of incitement ever reaching a jury.

So there is a thin line between inflaming and inciting I guess. While the First Amendment DOES protect freedom of speech, from what I remember, it is still illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded room. So while we may protest and print what we like, the First Amendment does have some limitations. For example, the First Amendment does not protect the rights of someone to make terroristic threats or to incite violence n a crowd.

 

[childeye 2]

No it would not have been. Pence disagreed with Trump concerning the election, and therefore would not do it. That is the only thing he did concerning the election. And it was only until it was until it was sufficiently investigated.

Check out this link:​

Trump wanted Pence to violate the laws that govern our Nation founded in the Constitution.​

​

illegal​

1 of 2

adjective​

il·le·gal (ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl

: not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT

​

Constitution​

noun​

con·sti·tu·tion ˌkän(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən
-ˈtyü-
1
a
: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I'll be the one to tell you that it's customary to read Aryeh Jays' posts with a full on waterfall of sarcasm. He's not that terrible. Only a little

You are a scholar and a gentleman.

 

[Belk]

Ah, sarcasm in text is sometimes... Actually near always, hard to detect.

Hence Poe's law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The plaintiffs challenging Trump’s eligibility in Michigan filed an appeal to that state’s high court on Monday.'

Michigan Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal, leaving Trump on the ballot.

 

[wing2000]

Michigan Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal, leaving Trump on the ballot.

The earlier Michigan Court of Appeals' ruling seemed to suggest the 14th Ammendment, Article III, would not be applicable for a primary?


"As the Court of Claims recognized, it would be improper to decide whether to grant a declaration that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States at this time," the court wrote.

"At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot. Thus, with respect to the presidential primary election, there is no actual controversy, as the only purported basis for removing Trump from the presidential primary ballot would not be a sufficient basis for removal of Trump's name from that ballot," the court said.

Michigan Court of Appeals rules Trump can remain on 2024 GOP primary ballot

Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Donald Trump could remain on the state’s 2024 GOP primary ballot.

abcnews.go.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

The earlier Michigan Court of Appeals' ruling seemed to suggest the 14th Ammendment, Article III, would not be applicable for a primary?

That does seem to be the gist of it. It's a bit vague on when and how disqualification would/could be applied, but for now "whether Trump prevails in the primary process" is hypothetical, and hypothetical injuries are not a cause for controversy.

The timing of that disqualification is certainly a potential cause for disaster. In the lower court ruling [first whole paragraph on page 6] it notes that even if Trump were elected in the general election, Congress could remove his ineligibility [as also allowed by the 14th Amendment (by a two-thirds vote)]. So when will we ever know if Trump is actually disqualified? Presumably sometime between the general election and the inauguration. It seems unlikely that Trump can get a two-thirds vote, so if he 'wins' but is ineligible, what do we do? Call a mulligan?

 

[Arcangl86]

That does seem to be the gist of it. It's a bit vague on when and how disqualification would/could be applied, but for now "whether Trump prevails in the primary process" is hypothetical, and hypothetical injuries are not a cause for controversy.

The timing of that disqualification is certainly a potential cause for disaster. In the lower court ruling [first whole paragraph on page 6] it notes that even if Trump were elected in the general election, Congress could remove his ineligibility [as also allowed by the 14th Amendment (by a two-thirds vote)]. So when will we ever know if Trump is actually disqualified? Presumably sometime between the general election and the inauguration. It seems unlikely that Trump can get a two-thirds vote, so if he 'wins' but is ineligible, what do we do? Call a mulligan?

I think in that case the VP would act as President until the President qualified according to the 20th. Though I'm not sure I like the idea of 4 years of Acting President.

 

[Pommer]

Michigan Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal, leaving Trump on the ballot.

The “Sir Robin” court?