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

[j-mac]

Schumer's trial happens when you Republicans stop being such little bitches and do something.

Gotta love the internet...eh, tough guy?

 

[Curried Goats]

Huh, you were discussing the Jan 6 committee, let’s stay focused on the posts. Now answer to the post

No you dipshit, I was discussing the hearing that happened in Colorado to hear evidence about whether Trump "engaged in" the insurrection.

 

[Curried Goats]

Gotta love the internet...eh, tough guy?

That's you guys. In real life we're prosecuting Trump. You're only fantasizing about doing the same to Schumer.

 

[Hum Dinger]

4 Dimtards.

The lower court found the same.

Even Mitch McConnel said Trump was guilty.

 

[BS Filter]

Trump said to go to the Capitol peacefully, which they did. Once they were there, his instructions were to 'fight like Hell', which they also did.

His intentions were clear. If there was any doubt, his inactions while the Capitol was being attacked, removed that doubt.

His Dereliction of Duty proved that he supported the insurrection.

Ok. Then democrats are also guilty of insurrection.

 

[j-mac]

That's you guys. In real life we're prosecuting Trump. You're only fantasizing about doing the same to Schumer.

Yea! Two tiered justice!

 

[Curried Goats]

Yea! Two tiered justice!

No, snowflake. Same justice system it just requires evidence rather than fantasy.

 

[j-mac]

No, snowflake. Same justice system it just requires evidence rather than fantasy.

That why Smith just got bitch slapped by SCOTUS?

 

[Curried Goats]

That why Smith just got bitch slapped by SCOTUS?

When did that happen? There you go confusing fantasy with reality again.

 

[bripat9643]

The Colorado courts.

A kangaroo court, in other words.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Ok. Then democrats are also guilty of insurrection.

Yes, the trump supporters were grasping at straws by trying to equate Trump's order to attack the Capitol with other politicians' rhetoric that did not directly threaten anyone or direct anyone to attack a government institution.

No news here.

 

[j-mac]

When did that happen? There you go confusing fantasy with reality again.

You really need to get better news sources...

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, the trump supporters were grasping at straws by trying to equate Trump's order to attack the Capitol with other politicians' rhetoric that did not directly threaten anyone or direct anyone to attack a government institution.

No news here.

Trump did not order anyone to attack the capitol, Nimrod.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That why Smith just got bitch slapped by SCOTUS?

SCOTUS refused to expedite Smith's request because they know that there is no rush to get Trump's trial started.

Can you guess why?

 

[j-mac]

SCOTUS refused to expedite Smith's request because they know that there is no rush to get Trump's trial started.

Can you guess why?

Sure, because they saw through Smith's political Calander...

 

[bripat9643]

SCOTUS refused to expedite Smith's request because they know that there is no rush to get Trump's trial started.

Can you guess why?

Because they know that Jack Smith is a filthy sleazebag.

 

[Care4all]

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirdsremovesucdisability

Congress involvement in this section 3, is only if Congress wants to disable the disqualification by 2/3s vote in the house and senate, does congress get involved.

Theoretically, yes. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

nope. It gives congress only the power to reinstate the disqualified candidate, by 2/3s vote.

But since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency. It's

all persons, and all officers taken an oath to support the constitution.... There is no common sense in giving a president the right to over throw the constitution via a coup de'tat, insurrection....and disqualify EVERYONE else.

Yet no one, other than hearsay has, proven he was engaged.

the Colorado supreme court found that there was proof that trump was engaged in the 1/6 insurrection through incitement in his speech, through inviting them to DC, then sending them down to the Capitol illegally with no permit to march there, and by aiding and abetting the enemy by inaction for 187 minutes while cops and the Capitol were beat up and broken in to, to stop the constitutional duty of certification of the electoral college vote.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Sure, because they saw through Smith's political Calander...

No. Because they know Trump will not be on the 2024 election ballot.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Yes, the trump supporters were grasping at straws by trying to equate Trump's order to attack the Capitol with other politicians' rhetoric that did not directly threaten anyone or direct anyone to attack a government institution.

No news here.

Trump did NOT give such orders, liar!
I'd like to know exactly who gave the orders for the Capitol Police to LET PROTESTORS INTO THE BUILDING!!!!

 

[Hum Dinger]

Because they know that Jack Smith is a filthy sleazebag.

'Kangaroo court', 'Filthy Sleazbag'.

What grade are you in?