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

[Nuthin' Fancy]

So who besides these 4 judges said that Trump engaged in an insurrection?

WTF?
Insurrection or rebellion.

Trump is entitled to what we call "due process" in a court of LAW.

He had due process, numbnuts.

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but ...​

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › legal › colorado-judges-allows...
Nov 18, 2023 — A Colorado judge on Friday allowed Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in the state's election next year.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Okay my fellow MAGAs and law abiding citizens. Should they be given the treatment like Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett got outside their homes by radical leftists? They've been identified. They've committed treachery!

Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The unelected justices of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the people of Colorado cannot vote for former President Donald Trump on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Party which is a true threat to Democracy uses its power above the people to steal an election.

 

[SeaMajor7]

This nonsense will go to the Supremes quickly, and will be overturned, likely summarily (or whatever the USSC calls it when they don't even need to hear arguments). Then the wokesters will cry until their mascara runs into their five o'clock shadows about the "Trump Court."

The mascara runs into their five o'clock shadow, bwahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!

 

[ColonelAngus]

What a travesty.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

What do you think? Should they be tormented outside their homes?

That’s impossible. Conservatives don’t have blue haired losers with nose rings that live with their parents.

 

[Frankenstein]

What do you think? Should they be tormented outside their homes?

No because I do not wantconservative people to act like asshat democrats!

 

[AMart]

They followed the law and the constitution. IS that a crime now?

Yes it's a crime of white supremacy, right?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It was a Supreme Court ruling. Over 200 pages. Did you read them? Sounds like you’re making a lazy dismissal calling it all Political

Four Supreme Court justices that used the insurrection clause against a candidate that was neither charged with nor found guilty of insurrection. What would you call it?

 

[Frankenstein]

'"or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"..

Wait so now those who protested are enemies of the country?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Gee, do you also have their home addresses? Phone numbers? Names of family members? Shameful thread.

Ask your ilk, Lakookta....they are into terrorism and have a complete list.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Wait so now those who protested are enemies of the country?

No.
Those that tried to overthrow the election, tried to submit false electors and interfered in the election are ENEMIES of the country.

 

[Resnic]

Grow up asshole.

So instead of engaging in conversation, giving insight, acting like a mature person and so on your option you chose is some closed ended 3 word comment and name calling? No wonder no one takes you seriously.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They followed the law and the constitution. IS that a crime now?

No, it is not. No matter how strongly I might disagree with their opinion.

Nor was it a crime, and certainly not an "insurrection," for Trump to tell his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol.

Exorting the crowds to unlawfully go into the Capitol was a crime, but the DOJ/FBI have not chosen to arrest or prosecute Ray Epps for it.

Hard to imagine why . . .

 

[ThisIsMe]

Does somebody need to be convicted of insurrection for the amendment to apply to them? I don’t think that how the amendment is written. Where would they need to be charged and convicted?

I thought about this, “if someone is found to have committed insurrection…”, does that require a conviction. The short answer is..yes, it does, because without a charge and conviction, then it could simply be left up to the interpretation of any given court if someone has committed insurrection. That interpretation could change from person to person. Some would be much more lenient in their definition, some would be more harsh. Also, not charging with the relative statute means someone could charge with any statute they think they could get a conviction on, and just call it insurrection and force a disqual.

Without the relevant charge, a republican Supreme Court could just as easily say that Biden, by not securing the border, is preventing the laws of the U.S. from being carried out and thus assisting in overthrowing the laws of the country. Is this how we want law to work?

The question is always ask is, if insurrection is so cut and clear, then why is it that nobody has charged him with insurrection? There has to be a reason they are avoiding that. You’d think it would have been the first charge levied. Yet, they seem to be shying away from it. Could it be that they know they might not be able to get a conviction on 18 US 2383, so they are going with lesser charges, but, are painting this narrative that “it’s all the same and he should be disqualified”?

 

[DBA]

Congress impeached him for it but the senate kicked it with the excuse that it was a case for the courts

The Democratic controlled House impeached Trump, without evidence, for insurrection on purely partisan basis. The Republican controlled Senate acquitted Trump of impeachment as there was insufficient evidence to convict.

See how easy it is to spin things to sound better?

 

[Lesh]

No, they shouldn’t. The proper place to petition your government, state, or federal, for the redress of grievances, is AT the government, not at their homes. In other words, picket the courthouse…but their homes should be off limits.

Besides, their neighbors shouldn’t have to suffer a mob shouting for hours on end because of something a judge did.

No, I think it should go through the appeals process and work through the system legally. Protesting outside of someone’s home isn’t killed going to have any affect other than to galvanize them.

I understand playing the lefts game the same as they do, but not at someone’s house…

If they follow the constitution, this should be overturned easily ..

Sorry but public spaces are public. Protest is allowed

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I thought about this, “if someone is found to have committed insurrection…”, does that require a conviction. The short answer is..yes, it does, because without a charge and conviction, then it could simply be left up to the interpretation of any given court if someone has committed insurrection.

We are told the original intent of this part of the 14th was to keep former members of the Confederacy from holding national office, yet those same people were never tried and found guilty

 

[Lesh]

I thought about this, “if someone is found to have committed insurrection…”, does that require a conviction. The short answer is..yes, it does, because without a charge and conviction, then it could simply be left up to the interpretation of any given court if someone has committed insurrection. That interpretation could change from person to person. Some would be much more lenient in their definition, some would be more harsh. Also, not charging with the relative statute means someone could charge with any statute they think they could get a conviction on, and just call it insurrection and force a disqual.

Without the relevant charge, a republican Supreme Court could just as easily say that Biden, by not securing the border, is preventing the laws of the U.S. from being carried out and thus assisting in overthrowing the laws of the country. Is this how we want law to work?

The question is always ask is, if insurrection is so cut and clear, then why is it that nobody has charged him with insurrection? There has to be a reason they are avoiding that. You’d think it would have been the first charge levied. Yet, they seem to be shying away from it. Could it be that they know they might not be able to get a conviction on 18 US 2383, so they are going with lesser charges, but, are painting this narrative that “it’s all the same and he should be disqualified”?

Was there any doubt that Jeff Davis engaged in insurrection?

His membership in a government that was engaged in that act removes that doubt.

The same is true of those who fought in the Confederate armies.

As I have said, it is less clear in the case of Trump.

 

[kyzr]

WTF?
Insurrection or rebellion.
He had due process, numbnuts.

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but ...​

Because a judge "declared" Trump engaged in an insurrection, without a trial or "due process" means nothing. Besides, she let Trump on the ballot after declaring he engaged in an insurrection. So that link means nothing.

Try again. Due process means a real trial with defense attorneys numbnuts.

 

[22lcidw]

BS.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, 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-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The president took an oath January 20 2017.



Trump violated the oath.

Trump makes fresh bid to toss Georgia election ...​

View attachment 875887
The Hill
https://thehill.com › regulation › court-battles › 43660...
2 days ago — Attorneys for former President Trump on Monday formally asked a judge to toss Trump's Georgia 2020 election criminal racketeering case on ...

Trump fake elector scheme: where do seven states' ...​

View attachment 875888
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › oct › trump...
Oct 22, 2023 — Several states are investigating the scheme created by Trump allies to cast fake electoral votes in 2020 election.


View attachment 875890

You keep this up and there will be people running for office in the Democracy you promote who are nasty in political views. Radical as Progs worst and will use the system to silence their enemies as you do now. This is doable and logical. A civil discourse is possible when this happens. At this point no one is rising up to Progs. They keep warning that you are destroying the experiment and there is no other place to go in this world. Unless people go to the new world of Antarctica.