Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Subduction Zone]

You make the suggestion that the Trump rioters did not take over enough government buildings to take over the government. That wasn't the plan. The intent was to stop the counting of the electors from all 50 states, which HAD to be done on Jan 6. Their hope was that if the counting wasn't done that the election process is stopped, and then nullified, or something. They had two options, on that the fake electors would be allowed to cast their votes AFTER various courts ruled that certain swing states would throw out some ballots, or all of them due to claims of fraud. Of course these fraud claims were baseless. Their alternative hope was that if the process wasn't followed, with the electors being counted on Jan 6 (which is required via the constitution), then the election is irrelevant and Trump stays president until some resolution. The ideal option was that the House gets a republican majority, and they decide who wins the presidency instead of the vote count, which is what happens if a candidate does not get 270 elector votes.

The aim was to sabotage the elector count, and then allow Trump an opportunity to win when he actually lost.

Trump supporters are very weird. The love the judges decision, which I am very sure will not be the last one, that the amendment does not apply to the Presidency. I wonder what they think about this:

"

‘Trump engaged in an insurrection’​

In her ruling, Wallace agreed with almost everything that the challengers argued, except on the critical question of whether a president can be disqualified by the 14th Amendment.

But she largely backed their interpretation of Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election and, importantly, in his January 6 speech and during the riot.

“Such incendiary rhetoric, issued by a speaker who routinely embraced political violence and had inflamed the anger of his supporters leading up to the certification, was likely to incite imminent lawlessness and disorder,” she wrote."


https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

In the same article CREW (the plaintiff) said that they were very sure that when they brought this suit that it would not be ending at this level. And that they would be filing an appeal. What the Republicans won't admit is that they lost on all aspects but one. For this judge it was the most important aspect, but it is a bit dubious, that the amendment does not apply to the office of the Presidency but it does apply to all others. And I have heard some of the arguments for her decision and they sound somewhat reasonable. But now that the essential guilt of Trump has been satisfied and it is only the interpretation of the the amendment that must be settled I wonder what each side's argument is going to be in the next case.

 

[F1fan]

Trump supporters are very weird. The love the judges decision, which I am very sure will not be the last one, that the amendment does not apply to the Presidency. I wonder what they think about this:

"

‘Trump engaged in an insurrection’​

In her ruling, Wallace agreed with almost everything that the challengers argued, except on the critical question of whether a president can be disqualified by the 14th Amendment.

But she largely backed their interpretation of Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election and, importantly, in his January 6 speech and during the riot.

“Such incendiary rhetoric, issued by a speaker who routinely embraced political violence and had inflamed the anger of his supporters leading up to the certification, was likely to incite imminent lawlessness and disorder,” she wrote."


https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

In the same article CREW (the plaintiff) said that they were very sure that when they brought this suit that it would not be ending at this level. And that they would be filing an appeal. What the Republicans won't admit is that they lost on all aspects but one. For this judge it was the most important aspect, but it is a bit dubious, that the amendment does not apply to the office of the Presidency but it does apply to all others. And I have heard some of the arguments for her decision and they sound somewhat reasonable. But now that the essential guilt of Trump has been satisfied and it is only the interpretation of the the amendment that must be settled I wonder what each side's argument is going to be in the next case.

I think some judges worry about the effect of removing Trump from ballots, namely violence from Trump supporters. And it would be a controversial decision no matter how the amendment was written and intended, and then interpreted. I don't think I'd want to be the judge that ruled against Trump and then try to go about living a safe and secure life, at least until Trump's death and his followers lose their deity, and become aimless.

I have seen interviews by legal experts who think Trump is disqualified but should be left on the ballots due to the threat of his followers. But they also have questions about the amendment since it was written in response to the Civil War and that depth of threat to the USA. It seems most favor allowing Trump on the ballots due to uncertainty and to avoid the threat of his followers, who have a history of violence.

The republicans are in chaos, and I say let them collapse under their own weight. Democrats have their own problems, but threats to democracy isn't one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think some judges worry about the effect of removing Trump from ballots, namely violence from Trump supporters. And it would be a controversial decision no matter how the amendment was written and intended, and then interpreted. I don't think I'd want to be the judge that ruled against Trump and then try to go about living a safe and secure life, at least until Trump's death and his followers lose their deity, and become aimless.

I have seen interviews by legal experts who think Trump is disqualified but should be left on the ballots due to the threat of his followers. But they also have questions about the amendment since it was written in response to the Civil War and that depth of threat to the USA. It seems most favor allowing Trump on the ballots due to uncertainty and to avoid the threat of his followers, who have a history of violence.

The republicans are in chaos, and I say let them collapse under their own weight. Democrats have their own problems, but threats to democracy isn't one of them.

Yes, part of me wants to see the party crash and burn under their sever TDS (conservative version) but I was also a Republican for many years, though an ever increasing disappointed one, and I know that the parties have worked together in the past and have been very efficient and the country seemed to prosper as a result. Ideally we should have input from both sides, but right now we are only seeing insanity from the Republicans. Did you see the conspiracy theories that Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republicans were bringing up to the leader of the FBI that they appointed? I could probably find some video for you. They were accusing the FBI of bringing in secret operatives on January 6.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you understand the word (Fixation) in the acronym TFS friend - has something to do being fixated on Trump I believe ?

Quaglet af tersing.

 

[fantome profane]

`Well, who would have believed it? I have to admit that @Sargonski was right. The Colorado court is a kangaroo court:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Okay, to be serious now. The judge found that Trump was guilty of being an insurrectionist but said that the language of the 14th Amendment specifically did not include the President. Is this the end of this? Almost certainly not. It will be appealed, and this may have made it worse for Trump because the judge made it more than clear that Trump was guilty of all of the wrong doings that he was charged with. It was only in her interpretation of the 14th that Trump got off. This won't end until it gets to the USSC.

Finally reality sinks in ! better late than never though, congratulations. For a moment there I thought you were going to go with the appeal to authority fallacy "cause a Judge says so it must be true" .. instead of understanding it is the definition of Kangaroo

The ruling is an interesting read.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Judge Wallace not only made it clear that what happened on Jan 6th was an insurrection, but also that Trump was involved and responsible for that insurrection.

Also, although the phrase "mens rea" the ruling makes it clear that Trump knew what he was doing, he knew what would happen, and it was his intention.

She also makes it clear that a criminal conviction or lack thereof was irrelevant. It was not necessary.

This decision was made based only on the meaning of the word "officer", and whether the person who holds the office of President is an officer. That was it.

 

[Sargonski]

You make the suggestion that the Trump rioters did not take over enough government buildings to take over the government. That wasn't the plan. The intent was to stop the counting of the electors from all 50 states, which HAD to be done on Jan 6. Their hope was that if the counting wasn't done that the election process is stopped, and then nullified, or something. They had two options, on that the fake electors would be allowed to cast their votes AFTER various courts ruled that certain swing states would throw out some ballots, or all of them due to claims of fraud. Of course these fraud claims were baseless. Their alternative hope was that if the process wasn't followed, with the electors being counted on Jan 6 (which is required via the constitution), then the election is irrelevant and Trump stays president until some resolution. The ideal option was that the House gets a republican majority, and they decide who wins the presidency instead of the vote count, which is what happens if a candidate does not get 270 elector votes.

The aim was to sabotage the elector count, and then allow Trump an opportunity to win when he actually lost.

If the Plan was not to take over the Gov't via violent insurrection .. then it wasn't an insurrection now was it ... having no chance at taking over the entire US Gov't.

Effecting a change at the ballot box is something completly different and unrelated .. occupying a building is not going to do that either.

Bottom line - the capital protest was not an insurrection .. no mens rea .. and to be sure .. no actus rea either -- Both are required for criminal conviction of "Insurrection" .. and we have neither. .. so what the heck are these Blue Kangaroo pundit clowns talking about ??

Don't buy the Lie ..

 

[tytlyf]

This could stir up a **** storm.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

"The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

I think Donald should stay on the ballot and be the nominee. He's blowing everyone away in the polls.

 

[F1fan]

If the Plan was not to take over the Gov't via violent insurrection ..

It wasn't, it was to interupt the elector vote count, which HAD to be done that day to be constitutional. Their aim was creating a problem that might have led to Trump remaining president.

then it wasn't an insurrection now was it ... having no chance at taking over the entire US Gov't.

I would think any disruption of the voting/election process is an intent to sabotage democracy. They didn't have to take over the government, they had their leader in the top spot already. They wanted him to stay there.

 

[We Never Know]

It wasn't, it was to interupt the elector vote count, which HAD to be done that day to be constitutional. Their aim was creating a problem that might have led to Trump remaining president.

I would think any disruption of the voting/election process is an intent to sabotage democracy. They didn't have to take over the government, they had their leader in the top spot already. They wanted him to stay there.

If the Plan was not to take over the Gov't via violent insurrection ..

"It wasn't"

Well there ya go. Even you admit it wasn't an insurrection.
If it wasn't an insurrection then the second impeachment and the people trying to keep him off the ballot are witch hunts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Finally reality sinks in ! better late than never though, congratulations. For a moment there I thought you were going to go with the appeal to authority fallacy "cause a Judge says so it must be true" .. instead of understanding it is the definition of Kangaroo

Nope, you do not get to change you mind. It is a kangaroo corut.

Do you really think that this is a win for Trump? Since his guilt in this is a legal finding her decision that he was an insurrectionist and the fact that your definition of mens rea was shown to be total BS by it means that they could refer to her for the DC charges at the very least.

And as I said from the start, these lower courts cannot decided it. They can give an opinion but the Colorado just knew that there would be appeals no matter which way that she decided.

Do you even understand the decision? I have my doubts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"It wasn't"

Well there ya go. Even you admit it wasn't an insurrection.
If it wasn't an insurrection then the second impeachment and the people trying to keep him off the ballot are witch hunts.

I think that you need to take it in context. The judge said that it was an insurrection. Read the decision. And that Trump was responsible for it. What @F1fan is saying that the plan of the insurrection was not to "take over the government". That is a strawman. The plan of the insurrection was to illegally delay the vote in hopes of keeping trump in place.

You should read the Britannica's definition of insurrection. It is a violent uprising against the government. Taking over need not be part of it. Oh, and they refer to this court decision already:

Insurrection | Definition, Laws, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

Insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.

www.britannica.com

 

[wellwisher]

Has anyone heard the latest. Congress has finally got the 40,000 hours of Capital security video footing from the Jan 6 incident they requested two years ago. Originally this block of material was given to Tucker Carlson, just before he was dismissed at FOX in April this year. That was the same month the first Trump indictment happened. Weird coincidence. I wonder if that dismissal was related. Was FOX preventing Carlson from reporting this data through FOX. FOX may not have wanted the injustice system down their throat, seeing how the Swamp had no fear indicating a former President. Carlson also went silent so the thugs must have visited him.

Now 95% of the data is being made available through the House web site. It may also be on the internet. I watched a little bit this afternoon, but it was boring, with people calmly walking about. I remember seeing a tape, the first week after Jan 6, of the Capital police calmly giving a tour to that guy with the horned helmet, who was l later called a ring leader. I was not expecting everyone to be so calm and polite, at any point, based on the Fake News narrative of a storm the castle invasion. That video disappeared soon after and was dismissed as propaganda. I may have written about on this site, after I saw it in Jan that year. I report the facts like good old fashion news.

It also turns out that a substantial block of Jan 6 trial transcripts, from the Jan 6, Kangaroo Court, is now missing. This is not normal. It is unlawful to destroy investigation records, even if Hillary got away with it. This may not work this time. The Jan 6 narrative we all have heard, may have to been based on half the truth; the half needed to favor the Democrat narrative. The rumors are with Trumps Jan 6 trial coming up in Jan, he and his team will have subpoena power. This missing data must have been helpful to Trump, and may have been hidden for delayed access, to undermine his case; run out the clock. Then crooks are in panic mode.

One Congressman says every record from 911 and other such important Congressional investigations are fully accounted for, so such a loss of a Terabyte of data is not normal. I am sure there is a fall guy to protect the criminals. The Congressman also said there should be backups since the data is stored redundantly, and if these are also gone, there would be a felony investigation. If Trump was to win, this may be a good place to to set the record straight.

They never interviewed Pelosi or did they? This was never part of the selectively released Narrative. This may have been the type of information that would have made it harder to railroad jan 6, and could have backfired if released. Now we may never know, until Pelosi is subpoena by the Trump team. Trump has got through three hurdles and not it is do or die for team crook.

It remind me of the Collusion Coup where the entire Democrats leadership lied about collusion on TV, while the Congressional records could show they knew there was no collusion, based on top level FBI and CIA testimony. This is why it ended as it did. It too bad so many Democrats are willing to go down with the ship. There is still time to repent.

House Republicans to release most of Jan. 6 footage

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has anyone heard the latest. Congress has finally got the 40,000 hours of Capital security video footing from the Jan 6 incident they requested two years ago. Originally this block of material was given to Tucker Carlson, just before he was dismissed at FOX in April this year. That was the same month the first Trump indictment happened. Weird coincidence. I wonder if that dismissal was related. Was FOX preventing Carlson from reporting this data through FOX. FOX may not have wanted the injustice system down their throat, seeing how the Swamp had no fear indicating a former President. Carlson also went silent so the thugs must have visited him.

Now 95% of the data is being made available through the House web site. It may also be on the internet. I watched a little bit this afternoon, but it was boring, with people calmly walking about. I remember seeing a tape, the first week after Jan 6, of the Capital police calmly giving a tour to that guy with the horned helmet, who was l later called a ring leader. I was not expecting everyone to be so calm and polite, at any point, based on the Fake News narrative of a storm the castle invasion. That video disappeared soon after and was dismissed as propaganda. I may have written about on this site, after I saw it in Jan that year. I report the facts like good old fashion news.

It also turns out that a substantial block of Jan 6 trial transcripts, from the Jan 6, Kangaroo Court, is now missing. This is not normal. It is unlawful to destroy investigation records, even if Hillary got away with it. This may not work this time. The Jan 6 narrative we all have heard, may have to been based on half the truth; the half needed to favor the Democrat narrative. The rumors are with Trumps Jan 6 trial coming up in Jan, he and his team will have subpoena power. This missing data must have been helpful to Trump, and may have been hidden for delayed access, to undermine his case; run out the clock. Then crooks are in panic mode.

One Congressman says every record from 911 and other such important Congressional investigations are fully accounted for, so such a loss of a Terabyte of data is not normal. I am sure there is a fall guy to protect the criminals. The Congressman also said there should be backups since the data is stored redundantly, and if these are also gone, there would be a felony investigation. If Trump was to win, this may be a good place to to set the record straight.

They never interviewed Pelosi or did they? This was never part of the selectively released Narrative. This may have been the type of information that would have made it harder to railroad jan 6, and could have backfired if released. Now we may never know, until Pelosi is subpoena by the Trump team. Trump has got through three hurdles and not it is do or die for team crook.

It remind me of the Collusion Coup where the entire Democrats leadership lied about collusion on TV, while the Congressional records could show they knew there was no collusion, based on top level FBI and CIA testimony. This is why it ended as it did. It too bad so many Democrats are willing to go down with the ship. There is still time to repent.

House Republicans to release most of Jan. 6 footage

I didn't know that Trump ran a court on January 6.

And if Tucker actually had that video how did he get it? And do you trust a man known for idiocy and lying? Oh wait, you are a Trump supporter, never mind.

 

[We Never Know]

Has anyone heard the latest. Congress has finally got the 40,000 hours of Capital security video footing from the Jan 6 incident they requested two years ago. Originally this block of material was given to Tucker Carlson, just before he was dismissed at FOX in April this year. That was the same month the first Trump indictment happened. Weird coincidence. I wonder if that dismissal was related. Was FOX preventing Carlson from reporting this data through FOX. FOX may not have wanted the injustice system down their throat, seeing how the Swamp had no fear indicating a former President. Carlson also went silent so the thugs must have visited him.

Now 95% of the data is being made available through the House web site. It may also be on the internet. I watched a little bit this afternoon, but it was boring, with people calmly walking about. I remember seeing a tape, the first week after Jan 6, of the Capital police calmly giving a tour to that guy with the horned helmet, who was l later called a ring leader. I was not expecting everyone to be so calm and polite, at any point, based on the Fake News narrative of a storm the castle invasion. That video disappeared soon after and was dismissed as propaganda. I may have written about on this site, after I saw it in Jan that year. I report the facts like good old fashion news.

It also turns out that a substantial block of Jan 6 trial transcripts, from the Jan 6, Kangaroo Court, is now missing. This is not normal. It is unlawful to destroy investigation records, even if Hillary got away with it. This may not work this time. The Jan 6 narrative we all have heard, may have to been based on half the truth; the half needed to favor the Democrat narrative. The rumors are with Trumps Jan 6 trial coming up in Jan, he and his team will have subpoena power. This missing data must have been helpful to Trump, and may have been hidden for delayed access, to undermine his case; run out the clock. Then crooks are in panic mode.

One Congressman says every record from 911 and other such important Congressional investigations are fully accounted for, so such a loss of a Terabyte of data is not normal. I am sure there is a fall guy to protect the criminals. The Congressman also said there should be backups since the data is stored redundantly, and if these are also gone, there would be a felony investigation. If Trump was to win, this may be a good place to to set the record straight.

They never interviewed Pelosi or did they? This was never part of the selectively released Narrative. This may have been the type of information that would have made it harder to railroad jan 6, and could have backfired if released. Now we may never know, until Pelosi is subpoena by the Trump team. Trump has got through three hurdles and not it is do or die for team crook.

It remind me of the Collusion Coup where the entire Democrats leadership lied about collusion on TV, while the Congressional records could show they knew there was no collusion, based on top level FBI and CIA testimony. This is why it ended as it did. It too bad so many Democrats are willing to go down with the ship. There is still time to repent.

House Republicans to release most of Jan. 6 footage

It was the new house speaker Mike Johnson who released it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was the new house speaker Mike Johnson who released it.

That makes a lot more sense that Tucker Carlson.

 

[Sargonski]

"It wasn't"

Well there ya go. Even you admit it wasn't an insurrection.
If it wasn't an insurrection then the second impeachment and the people trying to keep him off the ballot are witch hunts.

Is a total witch hunt ---but also an example of Gov't using "fear" of some big external or internal threat .. to get the people to trade liberty for security .. increase police state power. Protesters and/or dissidents and/or dissenters can now be classified as "Terrorists" .. the normal rules of justice no longer apply -- like with Martial Law - the Espionage act - Rico and lest we not forget - Gitmo and Assange.

Obama went after Whistle-blowers like no president before -- those who outed Gov't crimes got the major state spanking.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope, you do not get to change you mind. It is a kangaroo corut.

Do you really think that this is a win for Trump? Since his guilt in this is a legal finding her decision that he was an insurrectionist and the fact that your definition of mens rea was shown to be total BS by it means that they could refer to her for the DC charges at the very least.

And as I said from the start, these lower courts cannot decided it. They can give an opinion but the Colorado just knew that there would be appeals no matter which way that she decided.

Do you even understand the decision? I have my doubts.

I didn't change my mind ?! -- you are confused and making things up again .. The Judge made a kangaroo claim .. "insurrection" - fully agree and have never held a different position.

You then spout another falsehood .. claiming my definition of mens rea was shown to be BS -- a claim which you have made over and over but never supported.. you are not even able to state what definition of mens rea you are refuting never mind show where your link refutes this unknown definition and thus pure made up pure falsehood .. of the intentional variety as we have been over your inability to support this false claim numerous times .. yet you continue to peddle the same lie.

 

[Sargonski]

No, you just abused it. Just clean up your game if you don't want to always make yourself look foolish here.

I did not abuse the term "Typo Nazism" You were the one who lacked understanding of the term - thinking it had to do with actual Nazism - and thus again it is you who ends up looking foolish .. and not I.. once again projecting your failing onto others.

Do you now understand why running around after typo - spelling - grammar - in an internet chat room is so foolish - or are you still having trouble understanding the answer to your assertion "don't want to always make yourself look foolish here"

Who is the one who did not undertand that running around after spelling mistakes in an internet chat room was not a valid argument .. for anything other than the the lack of understanding of what an argument is ..

What claim - other than that of Ad Hom fallacy - do you think is supported by typo chasing ? Humor us please with a well thought out response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not abuse the term "Typo Nazism" You were the one who lacked understanding of the term - thinking it had to do with actual Nazism - and thus again it is you who ends up looking foolish .. and not I.. once again projecting your failing onto others.

Do you now understand why running around after typo - spelling - grammar - in an internet chat room is so foolish - or are you still having trouble understanding the answer to your assertion "don't want to always make yourself look foolish here"

Who is the one who did not undertand that running around after spelling mistakes in an internet chat room was not a valid argument .. for anything other than the the lack of understanding of what an argument is ..

What claim - other than that of Ad Hom fallacy - do you think is supported by typo chasing ? Humor us please with a well thought out response.

Nope, you are projecting again. Don't assume that others make your mistakes.

And even though I know you are not a creationist you argue just like one. You do not seem to know what an ad hominem fallacy is either.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope, you are projecting again. Don't assume that others make your mistakes.

And even though I know you are not a creationist you argue just like one. You do not seem to know what an ad hominem fallacy is either.

Posts consisting of nothing but unqualifield personal invective do not constitute an argument Brother Sub .. you keep telling us you of this mens rea definition your article has rendered "Bogus" .. but have failed to show where in the article this claim of yours happened... yet run around pretending you have .. so as the saying goes friend .. tis time to "Put up - or Shut up" .. Show us the goods friend .. your bluff has been called.

and you did guess correctly that I am not a creationist though .. kudo's for that much .. not for much else though .. your arguments hovering at the creationist level you are trying to project on to my good nature.

Keep that stank to yourself friend .. and what is this Ad Hom fallacy you want to tell us about .. after you are done putting up ..