Colorado bursts Trump bubble

[VitaMan]

I don't follow the Colorado process.


But I believe their discussion was whether a "President" could be disqualified from the ballot due to insurrection. And the final answer from Colorado was.....yes.

[eyecu2]

What is more important here? State's rights or Constitutional Rights, or Amendments? I will defer to those who's legal knowledge is non-partisan in nature, (if you can find one of those) (even Jonathan Turley has become a talking head for the majority of FOX viewers- he's not on any other non GOP network regularly) as they may more specific input. But based on the following, it doesn't seem that a court had to rule on someone's guilt; but rather -if anyone who took an oath to the constitution, (and Trump certainly did- it was on tv while Melania rolled her eyes,) did "Participate" in an insurrection or rebellion,

So the question is:

Was Trump charged with insurrection?

The former president has not been charged explicitly with “insurrection” or “rebellion" in any of his criminal cases, including the D.C. election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Smith's office charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. or in other words, an attempt to stop a transfer of power.

per the following:

The CRS report says, "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."


the statute in question is: 14th, amendment section 3;

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

There is no statement that says you had to be convicted of that crime, but even if that was the case,- I'm betting the Jack Smith is one layer up on this one, and will get his review of whether a POTUS is going to be held accountable as Nixon was, and will he be subject to any legal cases. further, - the Scotus will have to determine if a president is part n parcel to this amendment. Which it is widely believed that the SCOTUS will indeed will determine that POTUS is included and it's valid to hold them accountable even it's at this level ONLY.

If they don't- why even call the office a president, vs. calling them a KING. If that is the case, and any and all presidents are immune to any laws or rebellions or insurrections, then Joe only needs to simply say, we're not having an election this year. Or Trump could try to do that if he were elected to a second term. Or anyone else for that matter who's even more bat-shit crazy drunk with power. .....now or in the future.

Who protects our apparently delicate republic from tyranny or tyrants who hide behind the most basic concepts of truth, and the American way? Who would lie about every aspect of voting and incite an uprising, despite not being able to prove any of it? While that may sound very targeted against Trump, imagine what it would be like it that person was a democrat or anyone else!!

Would you tolerate that? Absolutely not, nor should you tolerate it!

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

That’s laughable, just another pathetic attempt by the idiot left. They already stole the 2020 and now they resort to pissing into the wind.

...

Seeing that NaCl-y ain't beating a beeline to Austin, why don't you get there first and get that $1,000,000 with all that proof stole/fraud/rigged/whatever cockymany (sp) claim. I was let down that they didn't drag Hugo Chavez corpsicle out as proof. Don't let us down. P.S. I want to read all your hobby reviews after you are flush with that cash and partying down with the hookers.

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... See? Situations such as this one happen to lead to
a tit-for-tat type of responce.

Me political "insiders" are reporting that there are six (6)
"red" states that are looking to take Joe Biden off the ballot.

But WE Trump Supporters are BEGGING them not to!

#### Salty

Aw Hell NO! You are the tit-for-tat chief. If you seriously have a problem with that (and i'm stifling the urge to laugh) than all people would have to do is quote from highly factual, near centered vetted sources (HFNCVS).

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... It was a joke - lighten up!

Obviously Trump supporters WANT Joe on the ballot.
He's doing so well ....

#### Salty

MeThinks thou protest too much.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That’s horse manure.

Name ‘em, Salty.

*pb looks if the one that protest about tit-for-tat response will stop such by posting from HFNCVS*

Originally Posted by ManSlut

And that’s exactly how I interpreted what you posted - facetious sarcasm.

And also, I view all of your posts as ‘jokes’ with no punchlines or substance of facts.

That what happens when someone is scared to post HFNCVS.

Originally Posted by texassapper

As long as it is appealed to SCOTUS, the ruling is stayed and Trump is on the ballot regardless of when or if SCOTUS rules, unless SCOTUS were to rule against Trump before the last date to print, Jan 5 - which is not going to happen.

IOW's, the clowns on the Colorado court made a headline, and that was it. Which is what lawfare is all about.



Yes, that’s correct. As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely. The Colorado primary ballots printed, and the primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

Who cares if he is on the ballot in Colorado or not? Let the voters determine it. Worse thing that can happen is Colorado goes for another person and all the donny crowd cries AGAIN that the election was <insert whatever lie fits the rightie right narrative here>

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

Be truthful, or don't bother posting.

Evidently, YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

WHAT THE COLORADO court did was election. They ,4 people declared Trump Guilty of insurrection, something even Smith hasn’t charged him with or any other of those dim chargers. Last In the constitution and a republic they aren’t afforded that option. They through the constitution out the window. That is the reason it will be struck down.

All they accomplished was add more wind beneath Trumps wings.

HEY! Weren't you guys touting state rights or something? Why you now pissing on them by being critical of them exercising them? Go figure.

[VitaMan]

Martial law !


Trump couldn't even call out the National Guard.

[Salty Again]

... No worrys there, lads - leave it to yer mate Salty
to surely resolve this whole dispute.

IF the Colorado Supreme court does force Trump off the ballot
- then the Republican Party heads there can just Caucus
their party and simply declare Trump as their candidate
in the General Election... All Republican votes will
go to Trump. ... See? ... Problem SOLVED!

#### Salty

[oilfieldace]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

I don't follow the Colorado process.


But I believe their discussion was whether a "President" could be disqualified from the ballot due to insurrection. And the final answer from Colorado was.....yes.

When was Trump proved guilty of insurrection? Since when in America are you punished before a verdict? BTW, Trump has never been charged with insurrection. Another law breaking collection of activists judges on display.

Their ruling was based on the USC , not any Colorado law

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

When was Trump proved guilty of insurrection?

You should understand by now that the Rule of Law is not a concept leftards can comprehend let alone value.

[eccieuser9500]

The constitution doesn't say anyone has to be convicted.

Period.

[ManSlut]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

When was Trump proved guilty of insurrection? Since when in America are you punished before a verdict? BTW, Trump has never been charged with insurrection. Another law breaking collection of activists judges on display.

Their ruling was based on the USC , not any Colorado law

Come on Man, are you serious with that MAGA KoolAid you’re drinking?! He was proven guilty on Jan. 6, 2021, the story every fucking news media in the country covered and reported what took place that day. That amendment was enacted after the Civil War to keep former loyalists to the racist Confederacy regime, who had previously been in office and taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution from infiltrating the United States of America’s Democratic Republic again, where all men (races) were to be treated as equals. There was nothing written that they needed to be found guilty of anything in a court of law. This is why Trump has recently stated he did not swear to an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, because that’s how he intends to keep himself on the ballots. He thinks that statement is his loophole.

“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’s the same reason the Congress & Senate can impeach a sitting President, or expel a sitting Congressman or Senator with a vote, he or she doesn’t have to be found guilty in a court of law about their transgression(s)…Just ask George Santos, Donald J. Trump, William Jefferson Clinton, etc…There doesn’t have to be a criminal or civil conviction to necessitate removal from a sworn office…You MAGAts need to brush up on your Conspiracy Correspondence Training courses, I hear QAnon is still looking for a few good men, or retards!

[darthvader6969]

I love all the MAGA tears from this. They can count up to the 2nd amendment, but not the 14th. And for those who can count up to 14, not all of them can read what it says.

Remind me again, who filed this case? Oh yeah.

#lockhimup

[ManSlut]

The Oath:
ArtII.S1.C8.1 Oath of Office for the Presidency

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

Trump and legal team claiming he did not swear to an oath to “support” the Constitution:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...20Constitution.

He’s a greasy slimeball, even worse than his slumlord Daddy, way worse. His corrupt, greasiness doesn’t wash off and it permeates an entire country, one who’s form of government has been the ‘light on the hill’ for an entire world until his sorryass came along.

[Precious_b]

I love how there Red State performed a mercy flush on the orange turd and all the maggies are forgetting their states rights slogan.

Be still my babies. The people will ultimately speak.

Are we gonna hold our collective breath if it doesn't go their way AGAIN?

[DNinja69]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

That’s laughable, just another pathetic attempt by the idiot left. They already stole the 2020 and now they resort to pissing into the wind.

THAT OLD DOG WANT HUNT, , THE SUPREMES WILL SHOOT HOLES I. THAT ANTI AMERICAN RULING. THEIR FEABLE ATTEMPTS ARE LAUGHABLE, UP UP UP IM THE POLLS GOES DJT

The Colorado ruling is just the jump off point and I expect Trump's qualifications to be challenged in another dozen states once we get into 2024 a little deeper. Is it political? Yup. Is the ruling without merit? No. Trump is known to have attempted an overturn of the election and is charged with doing so illegally. A partisan move and a legit legal injunction are not mutually exclusive concepts

[Precious_b]

Political or not, it is in the Constitution.

Doesn't word kindly to insurrectionist.

Ain't nobody can convince me what happened Jan 6 was organic. That was a mob called up by the Big Cheato.

[eccieuser9500]

The Supreme Court will have their reputation on the line again. Like the Roe v Wade case. They have no shame and it will shock no-one if precedence is reversed.