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

It’s not just her opinion. She was asked to determine that issue and she has determined, after hearing evidence and argument, that he engaged in insurrection.

 

No she didn't... this was a civil case/lawsuit. For the purposes of that case, she made a factual legal determination, much like Engoran did in his fraud trial and the other judge did in his sexual assault trial.

And Mango had capable counsel to present witnesses and evidence in this case that he didn't do what was claimed, even if this wasn't a criminal trial.

His personal freedom, or other penalties from the crime of insurrection, were not in play here..

 

The judge is an idiot. There was no insurrection nor was Trump involved in one lol. Astounding the levels of corruption in our judicial system.

 

Its absolutely her personal opinion. She heard opinions presented as evidence and then determined her own.

 

She made a finding of opinion lol. Anyone who isnt blinded by Trump hate could see that opinion is one based on emotion and certainly not fact.

 

She supported her remarks, with opinion. Opinion, derived by hearing other opinions lol.

 

She gave an opinion he committed it, based on the same opinions everyone else has heard. Her opinion is just that, an opinion.

 

Again nothing about her findings/opinion was based on anything factual lol.

 

That isn't how criminal trials work in The United States.

 

If it's a "legal decision", then it's unconstitutional because Trump didn't get the chance to defend himself. His rights were deprived under color of law. That's a Federal crime.

 

It wasn’t a criminal trial.

 

An insurrection for which no one ESPECIALLY Trump has been charged? Was he allowed to defend himself against this "finding of fact" and cross examine her witnesses? What evidence of his "intent" to cause violence and the riot did she present that refutes the fact that the riot infact interceded into his plan to challenge the voting?

 

Yet she is declaring him from the bench guilty of a federal crime.

 

What evidence did she hear that the FBI and DOJ did not? Who argued on Trump's behalf?

 

Trump's absolutely guilty of relishing in the storming of the capital building by those he called his patriotic and loved supporters.


187 Minutes: Jan. 6 Witnesses Describe What Trump Did

People
https://people.com › politics › 187-minutes-jan-6-wit...

Jul 21, 2022 — 6 Witnesses Describe What Trump Did — and Didn't Do — While Riot Raged at Capitol. "Those on Capitol Hill and across the nation begged President ...

 

I don't recognize this court's opinion. An opinion is like an *******, everyone has one, and the court's opinion is not based on historical fact or precedent on what insurrection actually is.

 

It's as if none of them read the Navarro plan! The committee itself was the first to leak the plan! In order to make claims of insurrection stick, you'd have to throw out elements that contradict the accusation.

 

However, his ability to be on the ballot was. That's pretty important because election integrity is pretty important. The judge should not be able to arbitrarily decide his guilt on something so serious.

I realize he wasn't barred from the ballot but that's not really the point. If he had been, the same determination of guilt would have been used as the basis.

 

What this does for the Left, is very similar to the '2 times impeached' thing.(though not actually convicted, so he was never actually impeached, but neither here or there). It's basically a dunce hat for Trump to wear.

The problem for the Left is that all of the screaming and hollaring about how evil he is, is not actually a detracting point. The same way Trump attacks don't actually gravitate voters either: It's the economy, stupid.

How can they make things better? Or both sides can just fling dung all day and ignore the rest of us.

 

Cite the ones who claimed they witnessed him engage in an insurrection.

 

Exactly the point I was making. Since it wasn't a criminal trial, the judge can't declare someone guilty of a crime.

 

She wasn’t declaring him guilty of a crime. Civil trials do not apply criminal sanctions. They apply civil sanctions.

OJ was acquitted of killing his wife in a criminal court, but found to have done it in a civil trial. A civil sanction was imposed.

She had the obligation to determine whether he engaged in insurrection. You obviously don’t like the result … but a court has determined that he did.

Live with it.

 

No. She is declaring that he engaged in insurrection on a balance of probabilities.

 

A criminal standard is higher. Probably determined to be too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That was not the standard that applied in her court.

 

He was a party in the case so his lawyers argued on his behalf. And the judge heard whatever evidence his lawyers wanted to present.