Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

[Rigby5]

By "facist," you mean in accordance with existing precedence.

The only thing close to an "existing precedence" was then the confederates declared themselves to in a state of insurrection.
There is nothing like that now, since Trump did not declare himself in a state of insurrection, and there were not a half a million deaths over it in the Civil War.

 

[Nostra]

Poor Dumbfuck.

Are you really so stupid you think that will convince anyone here you didn’t get caught being a lying sack?

 

[konradv]

Only by dumbass lying libtard sheeple….

…and people with TVs.

 

[Faun]

The only thing close to an "existing precedence" was then the confederates declared themselves to in a state of insurrection.
There is nothing like that now, since Trump did not declare himself in a state of insurrection, and there were not a half a million deaths over it in the Civil War.

None of them were allowed to hold public office.

None of them were convicted of insurrection or rebellion.

 

[konradv]

But he didn't. You're not the decider.

I know I’m not, the COSC is.

 

[Rigby5]

No one was charged criminally, dope.
Trump was found, by judges in three separate CO courts, to have engaged in insurrection by the preponderance of the evidence presented in a civil trial.

And that is the whole point in why the CO judges are in violation of the law.
With a civil case, the verdict has to go to one or the other of the litigants, so 51% of confidence is all that is necessary.
But if one wants to infringe upon rights when there is no other litigant whose rights are in conflict, then you need absolute proof beyond a shadow of doubt.
And that standard has never been met against Trump.
So punishing him by taking his right to be on the ballot, is about the single worst crime one could imagine.
That truely is an insurrection.

 

[konradv]

Sure, when you cite the ruling on violent speech.

What about it? You need to be more specific.

 

[Rigby5]

None of them were allowed to hold public office.

None of them were convicted of insurrection or rebellion.

Wrong.
They all admitted to insurrection, when they signed the papers of secession.

Trying to apply that to Trump is beyond absurd.

There is not even a hint of possible criminal action by Trump.
Whether or not he actually believed there was voter fraud or not, there was no "insurrection", and the claim of voter fraud is more than plausible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And that is the whole point in why the CO judges are in violation of the law.
With a civil case, the verdict has to go to one or the other of the litigants, so 51% of confidence is all that is necessary.
But if one wants to infringe upon rights when there is no other litigant whose rights are in conflict, then you need absolute proof beyond a shadow of doubt.
And that standard has never been met against Trump.
So punishing him by taking his right to be on the ballot, is about the single worst crime one could imagine.
That truely is an insurrection.

The idea that somehow you know more than the judges in Colorado strikes me as, well…stupid.

Most life changing cases that SCOTUS has historically ruled on came from the findings of a civil trial.
Of lawsuits.

 

[otto105]

Here are the states I checked on for certain. This shows 6 but i think i went a tad deeper.

Narrow Wins In These Key States Powered Biden To The Presidency

Joe Biden topped President Trump by nearly 7 million votes, and 74 votes in the Electoral College, but his victory really was stitched together with narrow margins in key states.

www.npr.org

Great, what results from that deeper dive can you present that would refute those states certification.

 

[Faun]

Are you really so stupid you think that will convince anyone here you didn’t get caught being a lying sack?

Dumbfuck, your complaint was that the Colorado Supreme is wrong because Trump wasn't convicted of insurrection in a criminal trial.

But I gave you an example why that's a bullshit defense; in that OJ lost a civil case about being responsible for Ron Goldman's death even though OJ was ACQUITTED of murder in criminal court.

No response from you on that other than your usual twitching.

 

[Rigby5]

That is silly

The idea that somehow you know more than the judges in Colorado strikes me as, well…stupid.

That is silly.
Of course the judges in CO know what they are doing is totally illegal.
The law is obvious.
Politicians have always been deliberately exempt from exactly this sort of legal abuse.
Those CO judges are not stupid and they do know full well they are deliberately violating the law.

 

[Faun]

And that is the whole point in why the CO judges are in violation of the law.
With a civil case, the verdict has to go to one or the other of the litigants, so 51% of confidence is all that is necessary.
But if one wants to infringe upon rights when there is no other litigant whose rights are in conflict, then you need absolute proof beyond a shadow of doubt.
And that standard has never been met against Trump.
So punishing him by taking his right to be on the ballot, is about the single worst crime one could imagine.
That truely is an insurrection.

You're clearly not an American. Either that or you're just flat out ignorant of the Judicial branch.

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
They all admitted to insurrection, when they signed the papers of secession.

Trying to apply that to Trump is beyond absurd.

There is not even a hint of possible criminal action by Trump.
Whether or not he actually believed there was voter fraud or not, there was no "insurrection", and the claim of voter fraud is more than plausible.

Link to them signing papers of secession...

 

[otto105]

I would not say that about Dinesh myself. I studied either 7 or 8 states some weeks back. These were key states. Where the votes were very close. States that were soundly for either Trump or Biden were not examined by me. The dispute is not over all of the 50 states. I posted my results here on the forum and will try to locate that result.

Why do you believe Democrats claims of voter suppression yet you reject voters jamming votes in that do not belong counted?

Look, do not make this personal. Are you that devoted to the Biden cult???

When you're presented with information like this.

Wisconsin Elections Commission member bragged about GOP plan to suppress Milwaukee votes - Wisconsin Watch

 

[Rigby5]

Dumbfuck, your complaint was that the Colorado Supreme is wrong because Trump wasn't convicted of insurrection in a criminal trial.

But I gave you an example why that's a bullshit defense; in that OJ lost a civil case about being responsible for Ron Goldman's death even though OJ was ACQUITTED of murder in criminal court.

No response from you on that other than your usual twitching.

Wrong.
The civil trial against OJ was to compensate those who were damaged.
The standards of a civil case are only 51% because you have a balance between two litigants who you do not want either to be harmed.
With this case, it is criminal because there is no other litigant whose rights have to be taken into account in a balance.
This case is about a one sided penalty to only cause harm as a punishment, and there is no other litigant to justify it.
This is then a criminal case, which should then have the much higher standard of a criminal trial.

 

[Rigby5]

Link to them signing g papers of secession...

Ok.

{...
An Ordinance of Secession was the name given to multiple resolutions[1] drafted and ratified in 1860 and 1861, at or near the beginning of the Civil War, by which each seceding Southern state or territory formally declared secession from the United States of America. South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas also issued separate documents purporting to justify secession.
...}

Ordinance of Secession - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scruffy]

There was clearly a goal . “stop the Steal”… stop the count…

That was the goal.

A riot with a goal/agenda sure sounds like an insurrection… especially when that agenda has o do with control of the government

Stupid fucking libtard. ^^^

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
The civil trial against OJ was to compensate those who were damaged.
The standards of a civil case are only 51% because you have a balance between two litigants who you do not want either to be harmed.
With this case, it is criminal because there is no other litigant whose rights have to be taken into account in a balance.
This case is about a one sided penalty to only cause harm as a punishment, and there is no other litigant to justify it.
This is then a criminal case, which should then have the much higher standard of a criminal trial.

Retard, this was a civil case, not a criminal case.

 

[scruffy]

Incompetence.

Try, a speck on the eyelash of a flea.

What's incompetent is you morons bleating the same lies and bullshit you've been trying for EIGHT YEARS now, starting even before the pee tapes.

You leftwipes are completely clueless, you don't know the FIRST fucking thing about our Constitution, you're arrogant, snotty, and inconsiderate. Yet you consider yourselves the arbiters of reality. I salute you with a giant middle finger, arbiters.

These are the same fucktards that insisted on calling burning cities a "mostly peaceful protest", now these world class hypotards get bent out of shape over a 4 hour stroll in the park.

The SCOTUS is going to bitch slap these idiot leftards, HARD. That, and I don't ever want to hear another leftard bitching about voter suppression, whoever tries that is going to end up with six or seven assholes, and each will be more painful than the last.