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

[Nostra]

18 US Code 2383

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Sorry. That is the federal criminal statute, not a Colorado civil code

 

[scruffy]

Nope. That’s the CRIMINAL code. One of your fellow libtards said Trump was declared an insurrectionist in a CIVIL trial. So what is the CIVIL code?

Oh. Well, that would be interesting. The only thing I can find on that is a bunch of "acts of God" decisions by insurance companies.

 

[Lisa558]

Oh. Well, that would be interesting. The only thing I can find on that is a bunch of "acts of God" decisions by insurance companies.

There is no civil code, just as there was no civil trial.

Insurrection is a serious federal crime. And since there was no insurrection, Trump cannot be an insurrectionist.

The Democrats in CO are not only making fools of themselves, they are showing voters - most of whom are moderate or independent - how they are willing to toss away a free and fair election in order to keep Trump from winning.

 

[Robert W]

Did your orange Jesus swear an oath to the Constitution?

Not one that denies the right to assembly. How about your pasty face Jesus? Didn't he swear an oath to defend the USA and broke it at the Southern Border?

 

[skye]

POS the four of them Colorado Judges.

 

[Robert W]

Because he should be on trial for treason and if found guilty should be put to death. So he should consider himself lucky. Two courts have said he is a insurrectionist and insurrectionist can't be candidate , its simple , If you are a criminal piece of shit like Trump you can't be a candidate , Just follow the constitution. We aren't the feeling nation like the MAGA maggots.

Did you let Jack Smith know yet? Jack the prosecutor is so confused he is asking the Supreme Court to explain it to him! That dude doing the job on the Estate of Trump.

 

[scruffy]

There is no civil code, just as there was no civil trial.

Insurrection is a serious federal crime. And since there was no insurrection, Trump cannot be an insurrectionist.

The Democrats in CO are not only making fools of themselves, they are showing voters - most of whom are moderate or independent - how they are willing to toss away a free and fair election in order to keep Trump from winning.

It is still surprising that four supreme idiots ruled the lower court was "not wrong" in deciding Trump participated in an insurrection. These leftards are odd creatures, they're like little bots. They see what they want to see and nothing else.

 

[bripat9643]

Words of a person who lacks character and principle. Makes you no better than “them”

You're saying I lack character? You, an unscrupulous prog who voted for a criminal child molester?

 

[bripat9643]

What part didn't they follow?

Threatening the safety of a SC justice is not following the law, dumbass.

 

[BackAgain]

Derp…

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado​

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado | CNN Politics

The 14th Amendment disqualification trial against Donald Trump began Monday in Colorado with a group of voters tying to use the Civil War-era amendment to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot, citing his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

amp.cnn.com

There was no trial.

So there cannot have been a takeaway from day 1 of that “trial.”

This is what you get for relying on shitty propaganda like cnn.

CNN and the Colorado courts disagree on the claim that it was a “trial,” but sub-imbeciles like you buy the nonsense from CNN.

 

[BackAgain]

Really? You are in charge of defining HOW the board works?

No The Dainty, you imbecile. It’s in their own rules.

Go change your scream name again, .

that’s of course is none of your business. I’ve had three. You’ve had two. You jealous or just a retarded hypocrite?

 

[BackAgain]

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.


The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude
and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn
duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public
reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

Here we once again see The Dainty repeating the irrational behavior of using the disputed decision under debate as his support for that very decision. What a stupid twat he always is.

The Dainty could be dumber, I guess. But it’s impossible to see how.

 

[lantern2814]

You think independents are as enamored with a sexual abuser as MAGAts are?

Well you fat retard, Xiden has only 24% approval among independents. So yes, Trump will have majority support from independents.

 

[Care4all]

What juridiction does Colorado have in DC ?

Constitutionally.... States run elections....they vet candidates as to whether they can qualify and be on their state ballots, not the federal govt.

 

[Crepitus]

Threatening the safety of a SC justice is not following the law, dumbass.

Who did that?

 

[Lisa558]

Constitutionally.... States run elections....they vet candidates as to whether they can qualify and be on their state ballots, not the federal govt.

But they can‘t violate the Constitution and determine their own eligibility rules. You think if they wanted to keep Vivek off the ballot, they could just decide age 40 is the minimum?

 

[bodecea]

Asshat you're going to be very disappointed soon

How so?

 

[Lisa558]

What we see here is that Democrats will do ANYTHING to keep Trump from winning back the WH. We all need to be prepared for the massive cheating they will do once again.

 

[bodecea]

You're saying I lack character? You, an unscrupulous prog who voted for a criminal child molester?

I doubt he voted for the orange sexual abuser... Did you?

 

[Robert W]

Constitutionally.... States run elections....they vet candidates as to whether they can qualify and be on their state ballots, not the federal govt.

Well in this case, since the Supreme CT in DC is Federal, it will be the Feds.