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

I don't know why this is hard for progressives to understand. This is the Salem Witch Hunt trials, all over again. The 'guilty verdict' is what the masses want, justice or fairness be damned. And I thought, we as a country were better than that. I thought we were past that.

What this judge did, was impugn on and defame the character of Donald. J. Trump, under the color of the judiciary(I'm not even going to say 'law' for hers was not a lawful action.). And so doing, brought more shame to this judiciary.

 

There are thousands of dictionaries that get edited all the time. That's why courts rely on statutes and precedent. There's not just "a" dictionary definition. There have been a bazillion dictionary definitions over the years. You don't get to cherry-pick dictionary definitions to remove someone's rights. It can only be useful as a frame of reference. Some of the posts in this thread are blowing my mind from people saying voters don't have a right to free and fair elections to ignoring precedent and legal requirements to remove someone's rights. What a time to be alive.

 

What this judge did, was defame define the character of Donald. J. Trump

Sorry, but I had to fix that up for you... sure you won't mind

 

I'm sorry, exactly what precedent was ignored and what rights were removed here?

It WOULD be a great time to be alive if we didn't have people spouting lies 24x7...

 

The witch hunt continues. Leftist fascism at its worst.

 

That's not the job of a judge. Like others said, in this very post right here you admit that regular order wasn't followed. Are you really okay with courts trying not offenses(or civil disputes as it were) but instead people's characters?

That is a harm to Western democracy that will outlive Donald Trump. It will affect all of us equally.

 

Was being humorous, but if you don't want to be judged an insurrectionist, there IS an easy solution

And who admitted "regular order" wasn't followed? Certainly not moi...

I'm perfectly fine with what the judge was asked to do and mostly fine with her ruling...

 

She determined that his actions amounted to engaging in insurrection. Not the crime but the general usage definition.

That was one of the issues in the case. Don’t complain about her doing her job.

 

Yes, the left would to have a one person jury who is a biased Democrat rule Trump was responsible for an insurrection that wasn't even an insurrection.

 

By that logic she used her own bias and arbitrarily made up definition to determine not only an issurrection happened but he engaged in it lmao.

Thats democrat logic for sure. Judges can just rule however they want based on any made up definition, no matter how unreasonable as long as it goes in the direction the left wants lol.

The reality is however, she overstepped in her irrational arbitrary judgement and made a false claim. But ultimately ruled correctly despite her false claim.

 

Yes....your point?

"One person juries" (IE a judge) have been around since before America was America.... especially in civil cases/lawsuits

Shall I point out recent decisions made by a MAGA one person jury that are also being appealed?

 

Another case is dismissed. Fourth loss for the fascists this month.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/27/trump-wins-another-ballot-challenge-federal-judge-/

So many people were so sure that the 14th Amendment was the final nail on the coffin when in reality it has nothing to do with Trump, like some of us have been saying for quite some time. Other judges aren't making a ruling on insurrection because it is immaterial to the case.

 

FFS, I would have dismissed this case too, and for the same reason.... lack of standing from the plaintiff

SNIP
U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. dismissed the lawsuit brought by write-in Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, of Texas, based on a 1st Circuit Court Appeals ruling from Nov. 21, concluding that Castro lacked standing in a nearly identical case in New Hampshire.

The court found that Castro failed to show he was a “direct and current competitor at the time that he filed his complaint,” and that as a result, he could not establish that he would suffer an injury-in-fact if Trump remained on the ballot.
ENDSNIP

https://www.providencejournal.com/s...-be-on-presidential-ballot-in-ri/71720185007/

Who TF is John Anthony Castro??

Judge never even considered the merits, so this is neither a win or loss for democracy..... just simple and obvious jurisprudence...

Colorado is the only case that matters and you do know that will end up at the SCOTUS, right?

 

Keep making excuses for the worst POTUS ever. Now they claim he never swore an oath to the US Constitution !!!

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-legal-...th-to-support-the-constitution-201628633.html
In a filing made to the Colorado Supreme Court, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say that he never took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States’’ and should therefore not be banned from the state’s presidential ballots in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

My disdain for MAGAs increases every day when this is supported. !!!!

 

Gee , I guess the Orange Stain was never president:

"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."

But the MAGA types will immediately point out that the word "support" isn't in that oath.
LMAO

 

Well, if he took that oath (I'm sure he'll claim he didn't if it suited his purpose), to execute the OFFICE of POTUS, wouldn't that make him an OFFICER of the US??

That's what Wallace said prevented him from being removed...