Colorado Judge lets Trump stay on ballot, but he did engage in an insurrection

I sense the hot potato was too hot for her, so she tossed it to a higher court.

She said he did incite, and engage in, an insurrection.

But, he's 'not an officer' per a literal reading of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

That's nuts, no way in hell can you tell me that the framers, if they didn't want rebels to hold public office, but they thought it would be okay if they were president.

What I think is happening here is she's passing the hot potato up to a higher court.

She knows what would have happened if she ruled against Trump. the insults, death threats, I think she couldn't handle it.

But, we have a Judge on record stating Trump incited and engaged in an insurrection, so, that's one for Smith and Willis, in the upcoming trials.


Colorado judge rules Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ — but can still run for president

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/...tion-but-can-still-run-for-president-00127909

A Colorado judge has turned away a challenge looking to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for president under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that argued he engaged in an insurrection against the United States on Jan. 6, 2021.
The ruling came in a case brought by progressive activists who sued the state, arguing that Trump was barred from returning to the office. A handful of courts in other states turned away similar challenges.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

 

Yeah, these cases were going to end up in front of SCOTUS no matter how they were sliced but her ruling appears conflicted.

 

this is crazy, you remove him as he does not qualify to run, per the constitution

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213...gaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

"DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

 

The judge had no right to say he engaged in insurrection. He was not on trial for insurrection. Indeed this wasn't even a criminal trial period. Saying such is an abuse of the judges power and taints jury pools if such a charge was ever actually brought forth.

 

The 14th A's error in not expressly forbidding a former prez who engaged in an insurrection from running for office is an illustration of a broad lack of imagination by it's writers, and the framers more generally, in not having the capacity to contemplate a figure like the Stable Genius. It is not the only instance in which he has been advantaged by the absence of language prohibiting actions he has taken simply because no one so antithetical to our democracy had been anticipated. Something we need to remedy.

The Failure of Presidential Reform for a Second Trump Presidency

Yes, “a second Trump administration would be much worse,” as the Vox headline said after Trump’s CNN town hall meeting. And yes, “Trump’s Second-Term Goal” would be to “Shatter[] the Norms He Didn’t Already Break,” as the New York Times reported following the same event.

Yet the “news” in the CNN town hall has long been obvious. Trump’s norm-breaking grew during his presidency (and Trump got better over time at manipulating the bureaucracy). It continued after the 2020 presidential vote and before President Biden was inaugurated, most notably on Jan. 6, but not just then. It has persisted and grown in his post-presidency, most notably (but not exclusively) in how Trump handled classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. And as Isaac Arnsdorf and Jeff Stein at the Washington Post have documented, Trump in videos and speeches has been outlining a second-term agenda that portends a very aggressive and in many ways novel conception of the presidency.

Of course Trump’s second term will be worse on the norms and legal compliance front.

And yet while the nation has been on clear notice of this possibility, it has done very little since Trump left office to build up the institutions of government and put guardrails on the presidency to check these tendencies. The major exception is the Electoral Count Reform Act, a crucial improvement of the presidential selection process. Other modest but important reforms of the presidency include new protections for inspectors general from opportunistic removal and replacement by the president, and power-of-the-purse reform.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...idential-reform-for-a-second-trump-presidency

 

He has every right.

Section 3 is not a criminal sanction, nor is the evaluation a criminal sanction, but, section 3, as administrative action, does call for an evaluation of the circumstances pertinent to it (section 3) which calls for a judge to evaluate whether or not Trump engaged in and incited an insurrection. That there is such a thing as a crime called 'insurrection' is an inadvertent fact. I can see that the conflation is easy to make, but it is an error to do it.

That evaluation will, of course, be used against him in his upcoming trials, not as evidence, but in closing and opening arguments, no doubt.

 

Yes, and ain't that the truth. This is why we need a Supreme Court, at least one who understands 'the spirit of the thing', and this idea that section 3 does not apply to the president, is ludicrous. It absurd to believe they wanted to exclude rebels to hold any office, but because they didn't call the Presidency an 'officer' that, therefore, he's exempt? That defies common sense.

What is really happening here is that this judge can't handle the monumental degrees kelvin of this particular hot potato.

I guess I can understand why she wants no part of excluding a former president, one with a base will send death threats your way, so she is kicking this particular hot potato upstairs, and a very hot and big one, at that. It will have to be decided by SCOTUS, no doubt the Colorado Supreme court won't want to handle it, either.

But, as Toqueville noted (quoted in your link)

Laws are always unstable unless they are founded upon the customs of a nation,” Alexis de Tocqueville once said. The laws and norms that govern the presidency work only if a wide swath of the population believes in them, and their legitimacy, and wants them to work.

​

Ahh, that old 'gotcha'-- the 'electorate' that 'wide swath'. Unfortunately, Trump has sprung forth much that was formerly under logs, and all the creatures are crawling about and voting now ,and thus the aggregate electorate now has dumbed down considerably. I see more stupid people shouting out loud their opinion than I've ever seen in past decades, clearly, Trump is the cause of this. Wherever there is chaos, Trump is there, fanning the flames, and his wife doesn't give a damn, let alone other republicans.

It might mean all hope is lost and America will decline as all empires have, in the past, for very similar reasons; petty infighting, lowering of standards, people at each others throats and aggregate violence on the rise, diminishing rule of law and growing rule my men, until, finally, the nation crumbles and all the cockroaches infesting the land scatter, and what's left are buildings left to ruin and our enemies swoop in and occupy the land. Many an empire has fallen thusly.

Thanks a lot, Donald Trump. Thanks a lot, Republicans for putting this monster in power.

I hope you are happy.

​

 

The 102 page ruling...
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-11ee-9303-c31290947a48/6557fe7e65094.pdf.pdf

Strange.... the court ruled on the cherry picking "fight like hell" phrase.... which the brain dead lefty's cling to for dear life, and looks like this court does also..

There is no mention of "peacefully and patriotically" or the "be peaceful' tweets... this judge is showing her biased interpretation of the event..

 

Insurrection IS a crime, no matter how you want to spin things. A judge claiming that he committed a crime, without a trial, goes against the very foundations of our ENTIRE Justice system. Its one thing if Congress does it, or the media. Quite an entirely different matter when a JUDGE says it. But we get it. You don't give a damn because its against someone you hate. Justice be damned. Feelings are more important.

 

Speaking of clinging, you cling to the belief that there is evidence on Joe Biden. Yet those people who matter such as David Weiss and Jonathan Turley they disagree with you.

 

Section 3 is not a criminal sanction and any pertinent evaluation is not a criminal sanction. That an evaluation coincides with a crime descriptively Is an inadvertant and unavoidable fact and an unwarranted conflation on your part. Not only that,. Historically speaking, we have several cases where individuals were excluded from the ballot by virtue of their participation in an insurrection without a conviction. Simply put, the facts do not support your argument.

Section three of the fourteenth amendment is an administrative action and a constitutional act. By this fact it falls under the large umbrella called democracy. Love it or leave it. Democracy sucks but all others suck even worse so deal with it.

I think the judge knows more about this than some anonymous dude on the internet with a political agenda.

But I get it, you are shilling for the most corrupt criminal and dangerous threat to national security in the history of the United States. And you don't give a damn

Taking this monster off the ballot and sent to prison is justice long overdue.

 

We told you that, immediately and repeatedly. Everyone with a brain already knows this.

Do you think that the liars pushing this on you, and you were very good about repeating it and spreading it, were unaware of this, when we all knew in five minutes?

Or more pointedly, are they complete fools or confident that the folks that listen to them are? You have allowed them to play you over and over and over again, from Russian Collusion all the way through.

Do you really keep falling for their lies, or are you part of their con?

 

A JUDGE calling someone a criminal without a trial goes against the very foundations of our entire Justice system. And that is exactly what this judge did. No matter how you try to spin or hide it behind a long list of words.

And I have plenty of posts stating that I'm not voting for him again. As such there is more evidence for you not caring about Justice than there is for me "shilling" for...well... anyone.

 

Again You can not strike him from the ballot for insurrection without first convicting him of one. You are now 0 for 3 or worse. time to stuff your wet dream back in your pants and find another dead horse to flog.

 

So what does this lady have a say if it is "Section 3 is not a criminal sanction and any pertinent evaluation is not a criminal sanction"... if it is not criminal why is it in a court room?

 

Who testified in her court he did so and what evidence was produced and who represented Trump against these charges? She is declaring him guilty of a FEDERAL crime over which she has no jurisdiction, a crime of which the FEDERAL government has never charged him let alone convicted him.

 

Because this isn't about the law it is about trying to use the legal system to strip trump of his money by keeping tied up fighting all these legal brush fires. In the end they are souless corrupt little minded twits whose only real goal is to rule America even if they have to destroy it in the process.

 

14A is not in 'error'. What was 'in error' was this crazed claim that 14A supported this portion of the Left's unconstitutional attempt to bar Trump from office based on their rather foolish reading of section 3. We told you immediately and repeatedly that you were wrong.

To start off with, the President is not an "officer of the United States."

• 'The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President "shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.'

Now who with at least a double digit IQ fails to note that ALL Officers of the US are appointed positions?

• 'The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President and Vice President from the category of "civil Officers of the United States:" "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4.'

In your own words please explain your understanding of the term "seperates".

'• The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the President "shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.'

In your own words, explain your understanding of what ALL means.

• 'In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes "[t]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States." US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.'

In your own words explain what EXPLICABLY ABSENT means to you.

•' Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from "Officers of the United States" because the oath taken by the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.'

In your own words, what does DISTINGUISHING mean?

'312. The Court agrees with Intervenors that all five of those Constitutional provisions lead towards the same conclusion—that the drafters of the Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to include the President as "an officer of the United States."'

What does DID NOT INCLUDE mean to you, in your own words?

'315. As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump.'

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/1...fourteenth-amendment-does-not-apply-to-trump/

We figured this out in about 5 minutes, 3 years ago, and repeatedly and constantly and even step by step explained this. How is it that so many remained under this delusion all this time?

 

Fake News. All you had to do was read the damn thing and you'd see that that the president wasn't included in the list that it applies to. We told you this, over and over again. What's ludicrous is that you couldn't read it and see the same. It's written in English, the words are small. What was your problem?

 

Well, it’s official: the Orange Stain engaged in insurrection.

I wonder if this will help Smith’s trial in DC ?

 

That's false and in fact, there are three or four historical examples of people being excluded from the ballot without having been convicted of a crime first.

 

For what reason.

 

Yep... if Big Fanni or Smith were to pay for this, it would never happen....TAX PAYER MONEY.... that is exactly who so many plead out because the courts have endless cash and play in the court room sandbox every day... THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE THEIR LIVING... when you loose your house and job and family then you literally have no chose... guilty or not...

 

Ever heard of a civil case?

That's why it's in a courtroom.

Duh.

 

Let's see these ""three or four historical examples""