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

[Faun]

No. YOU called it a “trial.” Explain how it constituted a trial without the accused getting due process.

I gave you a link to the lawsuit which initiated the trial.

 

[Lisa558]

Ah, it appears you’re talking out your ass and just saying things without knowing why you believe it.

Trump had a trial. He had lawyers. He filed motions. He called witnesses. It was a trial.

I want a link to the trial you’re talking about, and the conviction for insurrection.

 

[Faun]

Let’s start from the beginning, lunatic: Quote me admitting what you just claimed i admitted. Try to find some actual words this time, vermin.

GO!

I already explained, Dumbfuck. It's just a shame you're too stupid to understand.

 

[Lesh]

I gave a link to the lawsuit which initiated the trial.

Lisa is not very bright

 

[kyzr]

Ah, it appears you’re talking out your ass and just saying things without knowing why you believe it.

Trump had a trial. He had lawyers. He filed motions. He called witnesses. It was a trial.

Actually you are talking out your ass. The CO Chief Justice said there was no "due process", in a 4-3 decision.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

"Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

 

[Faun]

I want a link to the trial you’re talking about, and the conviction for insurrection.

I gave you the link.

 

[Faun]

Actually you are talking out your ass. The CO Chief Justice said there was no "due process", in a 4-3 decision.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

"Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

And they're wrong. Trump had due process.

 

[Nostra]

I already explained, Dumbfuck. It's just a shame you're too stupid to understand.

I didn’t ask for your lunatic spin, vermin.

Bring a quote.

 

[Lesh]

Actually you are talking out your ass. The CO Chief Justice said there was no "due process", in a 4-3 decision.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

"Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

That was written by a Justice on the wrong side of a 4-3 decision

 

[Lisa558]

Actually you are talking out your ass. The CO Chief Justice said there was no "due process", in a 4-3 decision.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

"Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

Yup. It’s pretty bad that Democrat judges from Ivy League law schools are so biased against one particular candidate that they knowingly (they know) deprive him of his Constitutional rights in order to keep him off the ballot.

This is how low Democrats have fallen. Also tells us they will do anything and everything, legal or not, to keep the people from choosing their president.

 

[DBA]

Ah, it appears you’re talking out your ass and just saying things without knowing why you believe it.

Trump had a trial. He had lawyers. He filed motions. He called witnesses. It was a trial.

So every state could have a "trial" for Biden(treason) and Trump(insurrection) and remove either one if found guilty? Biden could be guilty of treason in Alabama but not guilty in NY. Same for Trump in reverse. This would put the election in the hands of each state's SC instead of voters. It is a ridiculous and untenable precedent.

 

[Faun]

I didn’t SS for your lunatic spin, vermin.

Bring a quote.

Asked and answered.

 

[Hollie]

And they're wrong. Trump had due process.

Nonsense.

Due process is not served by political appointees making partisan decisions.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

“Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal.”

 

[Rawley]

No. YOU called it a “trial.” Explain how it constituted a trial without the accused getting due process.

Her ignorance is only surpassed by her arrogance.

 

[Nostra]

Asked and answered.

It is too easy to prove you are a lying sack of vermin shit.

Dismissed.

 

[ColonelAngus]

And they're wrong. Trump had due process.

What was he convicted of? What was his sentence?

 

[Faun]

Nonsense.

Due process is not served by political appointees making partisan decisions.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

“Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal.”

His due process was the trial he lost.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Looks like other candidates, are not too happy about the ruling as well.


"American voters, rather than courts, should determine the outcome of elections."

Cornel West issues warning about Colorado's Donald Trump ruling

Independent presidential candidate Cornel West weighed in Wednesday on the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.

www.newsweek.com

 

[forkup]

So a state court can judge that Trump is a murderer, and keep him off the ballot that way?

Your bias against Trump, as with the case of so many on the left, has caused you to support ANY MEANS to keep him off the ballot.

According to you, every blue state can now “judge” to be an insurrectionist - even though an insurrection did not occur and he was not charged with it - and keep Trump from running for president.

And then, every red state can “judge” Biden to be a traitor due to his inviting in an invasion at the border, and keep HI! from running.

And then we no longer have the people elect the president, and America is destroyed.

Strawman much? No every state can't just judge somebody to be an insurrectionist. It has to fit with the legal understanding of the term. In fact.

As my personal opinion, I think those judges are right. I also think SCOTUS is likely to overturn. Finding a way to interpret the text in another way than how it was set up. That's something I'm fine with. Because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of using a statute in the Constitution, put in in response to the Civil War to now prevent Trump from running. I have a problem with the amendment not the interpretation of those judges.

I'm on record stating that even if Trump is an insurrectionist. I still wouldn't want it used to keep him of the ballot.


I do want to state how hollow the treat of " if you do this we'll retaliate" sounds.

First of, the notion that a judge can simply define "insurrectionist" however they please is ridiculous. Even IF you find a judge who judges at that level of bad faith, the ruling has no chance on appeal.

Second, at the moment Trump is arguing that he's immune from criminal prosecution for anything he did during his presidency. An assertion that puts a president above the law. Completely unsupported, yet an accepted argument by every single rightwing person I know. Trump asserted that a president can pardon himself for crimes. Again, completely unsupported and unprecedented yet supported. He has also asserted that the Vice-President has the right to ignore the certified election results in favor of his own opinion. Not a peep.

Not only does the pearl clutching ring hollow. The idea that the right will become unreasonable because Trump is banned from the ballot makes no sense. "Don't make me yell at you", after you shot a person is no threat at all.

 

[Hollie]

What was he convicted of? What was his sentence?

Exactly. Where is the transcript of the trial? What witnesses were heard? There was a trial with no testimony?

That reads like a trial out of some third world backwater.