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

I don't know why people are so confused by this. Insurrection is a federal statute. She has no jurisdiction for a "finding of fact" on whether or not an unconvicted person committed a federal crime. It's merely her opinion. And her opinion is worthless considering she refused to recuse herself despite donating to Trump's political opponents who were trying to keep him off the ballot and to organizations seeking to go after people involved in the 1/6 riot. Her mind was made up well before the trial began on that point and the only reason to include it in her ruling was because she's a far left activist judge who was forced to admit the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump after two other state courts have laid the legal groundwork on the issue. She's just trying to save face among her lefty activist friends.

 

Lmao so true.

 

It isn’t “an appeal to authority”. It is a judgment from the Colorado legal system.

It IS authority.

 

As I have said elsewhere, whether he engaged in insurrection was one of the key issues of this case. She was required to decide that issue.

This wasn’t a criminal trial, but that issue was part of the case.

 

No she wasn't. In fact, she has no authority to do so.

 

Yes she did have jurisdiction. 14A mentions insurrection. She had to determine whether he engaged in it. 14A does not refer to a criminal conviction for insurrection.

Your post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between criminal trials and other proceedings.

For example, if a person is sued for negligence after a traffic accident, the court can find that they were speeding. Even if they were never given a ticket for speeding.

 

The issue was part of the case. It was specifically one of the issues that was in dispute.

 

She's not a federal judge. Insurrection is a federal crime. You're confusing jurisdiction and standing. A federal judge could interject on that issue. A state judge has no standing to make a ruling based on a violation of a federal statute absent a federal ruling. She's an activist judge and did what activist judges do... exceeded her position to advocate for her political biases.

 

So you're saying if someone sues you in state court for negligence, the state judge can look to state statutes to make a determination? I agree.

 

If Trump committing a federal crime was in dispute the correct venue is federal court, not the court of an activist state judge who has no jurisdiction or standing to make a ruling based on it. She took it on because she's a partisan hack who never should have heard the case in the first place. Her extrajudicial personal opinions in her ruling were a gift to those who share her political ideology... nothing more. Her hands were tied due to legal precedent, she's just trying to give her political allies a straw to grasp on to for appeal to harm Trump and force him to keep the legal games and expenses going.

The correct ruling was: the SCOTUS has said repeatedly that section 3 of the 14th amendment does not pertain to president. If you want to take up an insurrection claim make it with a federal court. A state judge has no jurisdiction or standing to make a determination on that absent a federal court ruling.

Extrajudicial opinions have no business being included in a ruling.

 

This is false. She very well could have made the ruling WITHOUT making a determination of supposed guilt for a federal crime. Courts do such in civil cases all the time. Just like the other two court cases on this very same issue have done.

This "ruling" of hers for supposed guilt was nothing more than a political stunt to taint jury pools and further a political agenda.

 

Judges never have standing. Parties have (or don’t) have) standing.

Your post shows a profound lack of understanding of the legal system.

 

Whether or not Trump committed a federal crime was not an issue in the case. She was not asked to decide whether or not he engaged in insurrection.

There may also be a federal crime of insurrection, but that would be a different question for a federal court.

 

If she was not asked to decide whether or not he engaged in insurrection then her making a ruling on it IS IN FACT an extrajudicial ruling that she had no authority to judge on. Thank you for admitting that.

 

You show a deep misunderstanding of the legal system.

 

So, can't dispute so you just insult. Got it.

 

I already answered. Whether or not he engaged in insurrection was specifically part of the case. Whether he had bee convicted of the crime of insurrection was NOT an issue in the case.

There’s a difference, and your inability to see that difference reveals your misunderstanding of the legal system.

Not an insult. Just reality.

 

Projection at its finest.

 

And I already responded to your spurious claim. Which you ignored.

Or are you going to try and claim that the other two judges deciding on the same exact issue were wrong in how they ruled?

Not to mention you are now backtracking from what you said earlier:

Your attempt to spin is noted. But dismissed. Insurrection IS a crime. No judge can make a determination that a person committed a crime without a criminal trial. The lefts attempt to make the claim that this wasn't about whether he committed a crime is BS. You cannot separate the fact that we are talking about a CRIME from this attempt to go around the Constitution.

 

So let me see if I have straight, the deal you are offering @cd8ed : if Trump is found "not guilty"-- what about if there is a hung jury?-- you think he should (publicly?) declare Trump "innocent" of the crimes charged. If Trump is convicted, however, you will claim that the trial had been a sham? That sounds fair-- LOL.

You realize that "not guilty," is not the same as "innocent," right? And, obviously, if you were to call a trial a "sham," before the verdict is delivered, that would invalidate the result, regardless of which way the jury would find. Yet, if a trial is a sham, one would certainly be able to tell from the proceedings, themselves. That is, by the time the jury heads in to deliberations, one should be able to say whether or not the trial has been a sham. If it has been, that would mean that its subsequent "not guilty," judgement, would be a sham verdict. If the trial had not been a sham, then you should be willing to accept the accuracy of a jury's guilty verdict, equally as you would, a decision of "not guilty."

 

I'd like to point out that the reason the words "not guilty" are used is because the person being charged with a crime is "presumed innocent". As such the only verdicts capable of being found is "guilty" or "not guilty". There can be no other verdicts possible. One cannot find one innocent when they are already presumed to be innocent. So, when a person is found "not guilty" they retain their status of "innocent".

 

Not backtracking. Not spin. Don’t know what happened with my other post. She was not asked to decide whether or not he engaged in the federal crime of insurrection.

The issue of whether he engaged in insurrection (not the federal crime, just as a fact) was central to the case.

I’m only aware of one other decision and yes I said I thought it was wrongly decided. Not the wrong ultimate decision, just the reasoning for it. However, I accept it and recognize that the judge’s decision must actually be considered correct, unless and until it’s overturned on appeal.

One of the biggest things that trump has done to damage America is to erode confidence in its institutions. Every time he attacks the court system, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA etc as being corrupt, he is, in a very real sense, helping America’s enemies. Russia and China and Iran etc would love to be able to sew the level of internal distrust that trump does. Trump is attacking America every time he opens his mouth. Not only do his supporters not see it, they cheer him on.

 

While I have opined that an interpretation of this part of the Amendment, which would allow any state to just declare any candidate as ineligible to run, would be a mess, and something to be avoided-- so that, there should be a requirement of some criminal conviction, from among various charges that could qualify as "insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution, in order to apply this ballot disqualifier-- it is not as straightforward and simple as you depict it. As conservative Judge Luttig had explained (see Patricio DaSilva's thread), the finding is actually NOT of having committed any federal crime (because of the wording, "against the Constitution," as opposed to "against the United States"). I am not sure if this had been intentional, or had merely been sloppy writing. Regardless, I think it's clear this was a case of law being poorly defined.

If we, however, go by the actual text, and we realize that elections are run by each state, individually, then the judge is not ruling that a person had violated federal law, but only that he or she did not meet the qualifications for placement on the ballot. Naturally, if a state has full authority over it's election, that would include the deciding of who had not met the qualifications. While that might be the legally correct interpretation-- I repeat that, pragmatically speaking, this would seem potentially very problematic.

 

Good points. And T has also exposited these "holes" in the contrition. Just as he has with the legal system.

If those aren't red flags, of an unfit person for POTUS......not sure what would be.

 

Chance of that is between none and Buckley’s