Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/...ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

This looks like the correct decision to me.

She made a finding of fact that he engaged in an insurrection. Anyone who is blinded by partisan MAGA point of view will know that is true.

But there also seems to be legal precedent saying that the term “officer” in 14A doesn’t include elected officials. Bizarre, but the right result given the previous cases.

 

seems odd that one can't run for office if they were an officer, but if they were an elected official already when they engaged in an insurrection, they can run for President later

 

Indeed she did. And she articulated it very well. But he is still on the ballot for the election.

One would think that his anti democratic behavior would have disqualified him.....but not so. ergo the "people will decide with their votes."..
My goodness, his legal proceedings and his comments take up a LOT of oxygen.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-but-he-did-engage-in-an-insurrection.614844/

 

You are right. It is more than odd. Doesn't make much sense.

 

Yeah - this is a Current Event.

 

I'm not sure how it was determined that he did engage in insurrection. Opinion? Was he given a chance to defend himself against that accusation in this hearing?

I hate when the left makes me have to defend Trump, I truly do. It's like having to defend a bot fly larva that's burrowed into your skin.

But defend him here I must. He has not been tried for what took place on Jan 6th. You can't just go around assuming he's guilty of insurrection because it makes a different trial easier. Yes, we as citizens are free to make as many assumptions as we want, but not the court system.

And all of that before we even get to the folly of trying to bar him from the ballot in the first place and thinking this will have a desirable outcome.

There were certainly a small minority of morons who entered the capital that day who did intend to engage in insurrection. Most did not. They were there because they are simpletons who were easily led by a self-obsessed man who was mad that his ego was hurt after losing an election. He filled their heads with lies and they loved him for it. They were not capable of the complex thought necessary to actually rebel against your country. And if you're about to say it doesn't take much thought, you're right. Exactly.

 

No one is 'making " you defend trump. You are choosing to do it all by yourself.
She supported her remarks . and they covered what has been OBVIOUS to anyone . If you choose to believe trump and his lies.. fine....
He has been given a LOT of latitude as it is. More than anyone else would have been granted.

 

I thought it would have been obvious from my post that I am not a Trump fan nor do I believe a word he says. But that changes nothing. This judge took it upon herself to declare him guilty of a crime he has not been tried for. That is wrong.

 

I think this was always going to be appealed no matter what and really it is less about Trump than it is about setting a legal precedent

 

I am going to split a hair here. She didn’t find him guilty but she did find he committed it.

 

OK. Maybe she made those comments to indicate that even though she was ruling that he can be on the ballot.....he is still responsible for the events of Jan 6......which he is. And that should have disqualified him. Maybe it is just too hot a potato. But still the law should apply the same way for everyone.

 

exactly!! (and is RESPONSIBLES for that anti democratic event ) That is so blatantly obvious.

 

This will be appealed and if they are serious it will set legal precedent

 

Same thing. That's like saying there's a difference between committing a bank robbery and being guilty of robbing a bank.

 

Did you miss the part where he's not been charged with that and there has been no trial or conviction?

That means it is nothing more than the judges unfounded opinion which is completely worthless in this context

 

She didn't find him guilty because he's not been charged with it much less had an opportunity to answer for said charge in a court of law.

Her opinion is nothing more than her opinion.

 

Judges can't declare someone guilty of a crime. Her personal opinion that he engaged in insurrection is just that, her personal opinion.

 

She didn't bar him from the ballot, because she knows she can't just declare someone guilty. Her "finding he committed" treason doesn't mean ****...lol

 

So because there was no trial it’s only the judges opinion, I agree. Does that mean you are going to accept the results of the upcoming trials or will there just be new excuses?

You don’t have to reapond, we already know the answer

 

Trump isn't charged with insurrection in any of the current cases. There won't be a subsequent trial to charge him with treason.

There's a big difference between arguing that a trial is a sham and that there has been no trial at all...lol

Will you accept an acquittal, or dismissal of charges in any of the upcoming trials and admit Trump is innocent of the crimes charged in said trials?

 

Just because he wasn't charged, does not mean he is not RESPONSIBLE for that insurrection. The judge is correct in her assessment. She is not proclaiming his guilt or sentencing him.

 

He hasn't even been held "responsible" by a court, civil, nor criminal.

Just because you believe it, doesn't make it a legal decision.

 

Whether he engaged in insurrection was one of the issues before her. It was an integral part of the case. She had to determine whether he engaged in insurrection.

 

It is, literally, a legal decision.

A court has determined that he engaged in insurrection, after having heard evidence on that issue.

Live with it. Embrace the traitor.