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

I have a hard time getting my head around this ruling. To me, Trump either did or didn’t. The 14th seems all encompassing. I know it stays no person shall be a senator or representative in congress, both elected positions as is state legislatures, governors, other elected offices in the states. It’s true the 14th unlike senators and representatives didn’t specify the president. Although it did specify electors of the president.


The ruling makes no sense to me. Outside of punting the problem to a higher court. Or perhaps allowing Trump on the ballot for the primaries which isn’t electing anyone to office. The ruling allowed Trump to run for the GOP nomination in Colorado, but that’s all. But left open whether he could run in the general election or not or if even winning or being elected to the presidency, whether the 14th would allow him to serve or not.


It seems this ruling didn’t mean much as to Trump running for the presidency, but it did rule or classify Trump as being an insurrectionist. Only in the state of Colorado, not the rest. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will have to decide all of this. So, I guess I just sit back, relax, have a cup of coffee or two and wait and see what happens.

 

You cannot determine whether or not he engaged in insurrection simply as "just a fact" without putting him through a criminal trial and hearing ALL evidence. There can be no finding of fact without such. To try otherwise is to ignore how our Justice system as established by our Constitution works.

Actually there have been several already.

LINK: Where efforts to disqualify Trump from 2024 ballot stand (axios.com)

And not a single one declared that he engaged in insurrection...until this judge.

Talk about projection. The left has for years claimed that the Supreme Court is broken and needs "fixed" by adding more Justices (added by Democrats of course) to the bench ever since Garland was not appointed. Not to mention spent a whole year tearing down LEO's and calling for them to be defunded (now they've just rephrased what they want, but in effect the end result will be the same). And it wasn't Trump that used a fake dossier to have himself investigated. It isn't Trump calling their political opponents "racist", "xenophobic", "bigoted", "Nazi's", "transphobic", "homophobic", "misogynist", "terrorists", "white supremacists", and a slew of other names. And while yes, Trump did call the media "fake news" and "enemy of the people", the left has for years called any and all media sources that even slightly show a tendency to lean to the right as not being trustworthy. Even before Trump came along. So don't talk to me about how Trump has eroded confidence in our institutions. Leftists have been doing that just fine and dandy all on their own, even before he came along.

 

Do you not see a problem with a judge, one person, declaring someone as having committed a crime without a criminal trial having been conducted?

 

She didn’t say he had committed a crime. She did not impose any criminal sanctions.

 

Still, came within about 4 hours from achieving the first milestone.. not bad for a last ditch Hail Donnie..

 

Is engaging in an insurrection a crime?
This is a simple yes or no question.

But I'm betting that you're going to twist it and you're not going to give a yes or a no...

 

No, Browerbird asked another poster if he would accept a guilty verdict.

I asked him if he would accept an acquittal, or dismissal of charges.

I'm going to call the trial a sham, no matter what...lol

 

It can be. If all of the elements of committing the crime of insurrection are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if all of the elements are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the insurrection will not amount to a crime. Even if the insurrection actually happened.

It isn’t a simple yes or no. It’s like asking have you stopped raping your daughter? Yes or no?

 

Luttig has gone off the deep end and bases his position with a false underlying pretense. He claims the 14th Amendment says an "office" of the United States rather than an "officer." It's a lie and intentionally misleading.

"It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.” It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that's possible, that the former president did not take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” within the meaning of Section 3 when he took took the presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Loony bin nonsense. I'm noticing people keep referencing him on this forum recently, but don't actually quote his arguments because they're nonsensical and easily dismissed as the rantings of a lunatic.

States do not have full authority when it comes to federal elections. The "qualification" for the office of the Presidency is generally considered a federal matter. This is the third court to issue a ruling on this and these challenges were largely brought in liberal friendly courts to test the waters for a larger attempt to remove Trump from the ballot. And these liberal courts were forced to actually investigate this issue and came to a conclusion that disagrees with Luttig. Their personal biases don't want to disagree with him, but the law is clear and Luttig's arguments are clear as mud.

 

She largely based her determination on dictionary definitions rather than legal statutes and how they were applied based on legal precedent. She just wanted to put in her ruling that Trump engaged in an insurrection because she's a partisan hack.

 

People bring issues to state courts that are outside their jurisdiction all the time, and judges usually do what they're supposed to do... tell them to take it up in the appropriate venue. Many states rightly dismissed this nonsense from the start on that basis.

 

Exactly...

A state judge was asked to issue a state ruling using the Constitution as the basis for the lawsuit.

A federal judge cannot issue a state ruling, so this is the only place this original ruling could have occurred.

Next up will be the State Supreme Court, thence to ??

This is all interesting because judges/courts seem to only be deciding whether this particular insurrectionist can be on the PRIMARY ballot in the state. Winning the primary only gets you on the general ballot, which is where the real decision needs to be made. Nobody goes into office winning a primary ballot.

 

Yes, she did. Insurrection is a crime. Period. She said he committed insurrection. Therefore, she is saying that he committed a crime. Its simple English.

You're applying two different standards. What you're doing here is making it abstract without personifying it. The judge personified it. That makes a world of difference and I'm sure you know that. Try making your statement personalized by adding Trumps name to what you just said. Don't change the wording. Just add his name to it.

Seriously, this is stupid. If a judge called you a rapist because a woman had been raped and there had not been any trial to determine such you know damn good and well that would be an unjust ruling. Especially if you know that an actual trial would exonerate you. Do you deny this? Yes or no? Stop trying to twist the words.

 

Because she can't. I'm sure she would have loved to. But, this is not under her purview.

 

Sexual abuse is a crime... A jury said Trump committed sexual abuse.

Therefore, did Trump commit the crime of sexual abuse?

If so, why isn't he serving time?

 

You don’t get it. A civil court can rule that you raped someone, and hold you liable for it, even if you were acquitted of the crime.

See OJ and killing his ex.

 

Exactly... well done!!

 

There is a difference between a jury and a judge. Do you not know the difference?

 

Another one that doesn't know the difference between a jury and a judge.

And I see you failed to answer my question or apply the standard equally rather than trying to make it abstract.

 

The difference you are still struggling with is not the difference between judge and jury.... it's between civil and criminal.

Until you get that ironed out, you will make no progress understanding the multi-tiered system of justice we have in the USA...

 

There is no justice in a judge unilaterally declaring someone committed a crime when there has been no trial to determine such.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Because you are supporting this judge here and claiming there are witnesses to what the judge alleged. So what was this new evidence which PROVED Trump engaged in an insurrection and why didn't the DOJ and FBI and even the Jan 6 committee find it? Why hasn't one Jan 6th defendant claimed they were incited by Trump into do anything?

 

The purpose of the case was whether ANY President would be subject to a 14th amendment prohibition NOT to try Trump for insurrection. The judge has no jurisdiction to try him for that and issue a legal judgement. Trump was not indicted by a grand jury and put before her to stand trial, how could that happen she has no jurisdiction. Trump was not given an opportunity to refute and such evidence before the court or cross-examine it. She should have noted in her ruling that there had NOT been a finding by ANY federal court nor had he even been indicted by any federal authority for such a criminal act there and if it did have any bearing here is was AGAINST such a denial of ballot access.

 

If you have something to add from your link then add it.

 

So you ARE claiming she found him guilty of violating a federal law for which he has never been charged and over which she has no jurisdiction? AGAIN what witness testified he incited them, what evidence was presented that proved he did? Nothing but the assertions in the filing by this group.