Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Watchmen]

I have doubts about that. You seem to be immune to certain aspects of the law. Or, and this happens to some very competent people, your own personal bias is getting in the way of you reasoning rationally.

Trump is scum. What personal bias do you speak of. Wrong again!

I couldn’t care less if you have doubts. I’d share more about my legal experience and work I do, but don’t need you tracking me down and trolling me in my personal life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I don’t have it handy. You can Google as fast as I can.

See what I said about you not reasoning rationally? If you were you would have realized that the burden of proof is upon you and you would have provided that link.

When I mentioned the legal precedents that I linked you never admitted to not reading them. like both @fantome profane and I have admitted not reading the dissents. If you had been honest enough to do that I would have linked the legal precents for you to read.

Perhaps your problem is excessive arrogance due to your training. You seem to think that a Trump has to be convicted of a crime when the amendment does not state that and legal precedent does not support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah just call somebody Confederate and call it a day.

Then take them to Judge Judy Court.

And what are you ignoring now with your strawman argument?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And what are you ignoring now with your strawman argument?

Strawman my ***.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump is scum. What personal bias do you speak of. Wrong again!

I couldn’t care less if you have doubts. I’d share more about my legal experience and work I do, but don’t need you tracking me down and trolling me in my personal life.

Then I cannot explain your inabilities to reason here. You have not properly supported your claims, and lawyer would know how to do that. You have not checked for legal precedent and a lawyer would certainly know how to do that. Something is causing you to not reason like a lawyer here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman my ***.

LMAO, it is still there whether you do not realize it or not. Too bad that you did not ask politely what you got wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice try. You’re stuck because you never answered. lol. What a joke!

Since you have done the same I do not feel as if I am the one that has failed. If anything you need to hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold others to. Again you are not thinking like a lawyer.

 

[Watchmen]

See what I said about you not reasoning rationally? If you were you would have realized that the burden of proof is upon you and you would have provided that link.

When I mentioned the legal precedents that I linked you never admitted to not reading them. like both @fantome profane and I have admitted not reading the dissents. If you had been honest enough to do that I would have linked the legal precents for you to read.

Perhaps your problem is excessive arrogance due to your training. You seem to think that a Trump has to be convicted of a crime when the amendment does not state that and legal precedent does not support it.

He asked for a link. I said find it yourself. It’s readily available. Once again you prove you’re ridiculous.

I asked you for the post for these legal precedents. Very different than the readily available dissents. You going to share the post number or not

I do NOT believe Trump needs to be criminally convicted. I’ve said that multiple times now. Don’t confuse me with Twilight Hue. His reasoning and arguments are flawed.

 

[Watchmen]

Since you have done the same I do not feel as if I am the one that has failed. If anything you need to hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold others to. Again you are not thinking like a lawyer.

I’m not writing legal briefs here. I’ve already explained that nothing I say is going to influence anyone here. We can’t even get past the basic issue of having elements for “insurrection.”

 

[fantome profane]

He asked for a link. I said find it yourself. It’s readily available.

And I have no complaint about that. I will probably do that tomorrow.

And I am sure I will have lots of questions for you afterwards.

 

[Twilight Hue]

LMAO, it is still there whether you do not realize it or not. Too bad that you did not ask politely what you got wrong.

All of you think Trump was essentially right there at the building basically when all of it happened. I wonder if you can see him anywhere on the grounds on camera?

For some reason that makes him an insurrectionist by not being physically there with your type of crazy logic.

None of you can't even give a straight answer what qualifies Trump is an insurrectionist when asked what makes an insurrectionist by definition.

It's absolutely hilarious.

 

[Watchmen]

And I have no complaint about that. I will probably do that tomorrow.

And I am sure I will have lots of questions for you afterwards.

I would love to discuss once you do and hope for a productive conversation. Thank you and good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He asked for a link. I said find it yourself. It’s readily available. Once again you prove you’re ridiculous.

I asked you for the post for these legal precedents. Very different than the readily available dissents. You going to share the post number or not

I do NOT believe Trump needs to be criminally convicted. I’ve said that multiple times now. Don’t confuse me with Twilight Hue. His reasoning and arguments are flawed.

Dude, your claim, your burden of proof. They making an unsupported claim in court and see how well it is received.

"Plaintiff can Google that for himself". I am sure the judge would love that.

I do not remember you asking me. If anything I do remember the exact opposite. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and link the post Civil War cases that show that people were removed from positions after it was determined that they participated in the Civil War by some means. One man was just a sheriff during the time and he was removed from office. They fought these removals and lost them in court:

It is also written by lawyers so it may answer some of the questions that you have been asking:

The case for Donald Trump's disqualification under the 14th Amendment - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

By attempting to overturn the election and inciting the January 6th attack, Donald Trump disqualified himself from holding public office.

www.citizensforethics.org

Granted they are on the team against Trump, but the lawsuits that they site are real. Their reasoning does not appear to be flawed.

EDIT: Here is the shorter version that I was trying to link:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of you think Trump was essentially right there at the building basically when all of it happened. I wonder if you can see him anywhere on the grounds on camera?

For some reason that makes him an insurrectionist by not being physically there with your type of crazy logic.

None of you can't even give a straight answer what qualifies Trump is an insurrectionist when asked what makes an insurrectionist by definition.

It's absolutely hilarious.

That was not needed. You seem to have ignored the speech that he gave. Without the speech where he lied to the people listening there would have been no insurrection. A person can lie in his private life and that is not illegal. But one cannot lie to goad someone into doing something illegal for you. That is what Trump has been charged with. The results of his lies was an insurrection.

EDIT: You should check out the link that has precedent and legal arguments for the removal of Trump for the ballot as well:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

 

[Watchmen]

Dude, your claim, your burden of proof. They making an unsupported claim in court and see how well it is received.

"Plaintiff can Google that for himself". I am sure the judge would love that.

I do not remember you asking me. If anything I do remember the exact opposite. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and link the post Civil War cases that show that people were removed from positions after it was determined that they participated in the Civil War by some means. One man was just a sheriff during the time and he was removed from office. They fought these removals and lost them in court:

It is also written by lawyers so it may answer some of the questions that you have been asking:

ttps://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/donald-trumps-disqualification-from-office-14th-amendment/

Granted they are on the team against Trump, but the lawsuits that they site are real. Their reasoning does not appear to be flawed.

There’s no link. Or the “link” you posted doesn’t work. I get an error message. Was that intentional?

 

[Watchmen]

Dude, your claim, your burden of proof. They making an unsupported claim in court and see how well it is received.

"Plaintiff can Google that for himself". I am sure the judge would love that.

I do not remember you asking me. If anything I do remember the exact opposite. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and link the post Civil War cases that show that people were removed from positions after it was determined that they participated in the Civil War by some means. One man was just a sheriff during the time and he was removed from office. They fought these removals and lost them in court:

It is also written by lawyers so it may answer some of the questions that you have been asking:

ttps://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/donald-trumps-disqualification-from-office-14th-amendment/

Granted they are on the team against Trump, but the lawsuits that they site are real. Their reasoning does not appear to be flawed.

I figured out the link. The report is 90 pages. This might take awhile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s no link. Or the “link” you posted doesn’t work. I get an error message. Was that intentional?

My apologies. That was my fault. The link was missing the "h" at the very start due to my bad job at doing a "copy".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I figured out the link. The report is 90 pages. This might take awhile.

That is so weird. I thought that I might have screwed up. That is the right group. And the information is probably there. But that is not what I have been trying to link. The link that I want to give is a much shorter version of that by the same people:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

Okay, finally. I am not usually that incompetent when it comes to links.

 

[Watchmen]

That is so weird. I thought that I might have screwed up. That is the right group. And the information is probably there. But that is not what I have been trying to link. The link that I want to give is a much shorter version of that by the same people:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

Okay, finally. I am not usually that incompetent when it comes to links.

Thank you. I’ll take a look.

 

[McBell]

Strawman my ***.

I am guessing that is where from you pulled it...