Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Sargonski]

You appear to be not following the debate. Barr gave no reasons in the article, just a vague hand waving to "due process". But again he, like you, appears to be ignoring legal precedent.

Barr gave very specific Reasons .. lack of due process being cited as primary .. as stated in the post you are responding to.

No legal precident that you have cited has been ignored by Barr citing lack of due process. Support this vapid claim and show us this legal precident Barr has ignored - and explain how it was ignored.

 

[Sargonski]

You appear to be not following the debate. Barr gave no reasons in the article, just a vague hand waving to "due process". But again he, like you, appears to be ignoring legal precedent.

Barr gave very specific Reasons .. lack of due process being cited as primary .. as stated in the post you are responding to.

No legal precident that you have cited has been ignored by Barr citing lack of due process. Support this vapid claim and show us this legal precident Barr has ignored - and explain how it was ignored.

 

[Copernicus]

And now Maine, removed him.
View attachment 86295
CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › 2023/12/28 › politics › trump-m...



46 minutes ago — Maine's top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, in a surprise decision based on the ...

Unlike Colorado, this was only the first step in the process of removal. The decision to remove was suspended, pending a court ruling. However, the fact that two states have now officially started the process makes it more difficult for the conservative majority to finesse its way around the issue by claiming that the Colorado courts made some procedural error in coming to their decision.

The claim that Congress had to have defined "insurrection" for the purposes of the implementing this ban has no historical precedent, as has been pointed out repeatedly. So the claim that Trump wasn't given due process doesn't seem to have much traction. The Colorado courts made a legal ruling that Trump's behavior met the criteria of the 14th amendment under any reasonable interpretation. Trump's lawyers had every opportunity to pursue that defense, but they didn't bother. They argued that Trump was not an "officer" of the US government, and the lower court agreed with his argument. It lost on appeal. The US Supreme Court is unlikely to resurrect the claim of a need for a criminal conviction, since it was never raised as a defense, but you never know with that bunch. They will be grasping at straws to keep Trump on the ballot in states that ban him.

I seem to recall that Barr was the one who claimed that a president couldn't be investigated or prosecuted for criminal behavior while in office, but he would be liable for criminal acts once out of office. Now Trump is pursuing the claim that he is still immune from prosecution even after leaving office.

 

[metis]

To start, I think Congress should establish elements for what an “insurrection” is under the 14th.

That would take a constitutional amendment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Barr gave very specific Reasons .. lack of due process being cited as primary .. as stated in the post you are responding to.

No legal precident that you have cited has been ignored by Barr citing lack of due process. Support this vapid claim and show us this legal precident Barr has ignored - and explain how it was ignored.

That is a vague claim. How was due process not followed? And yes, the precedents that I linked showed that this sort of "due process" was not required. I have posted it at least five times now. Go back to the posts from late yesterday and you will find the link.

 

[fantome profane]

To start, I think Congress should establish elements for what an “insurrection” is under the 14th.

That would take a constitutional amendment.

Maybe Congress should have done an investigation into this. Gather information about what happened, interview witnesses and experts. Then they could have presented the information to the public, and since this is such an important issue maybe they could have even presented their findings on TV and on the internet, even in prime time.

It would have been good if they did something like that.

 

[metis]

Maybe Congress should have done an investigation into this. Gather information about what happened, interview witnesses and experts. Then they could have presented the information to the public, and since this is such an important issue maybe they could have even presented their findings on TV and on the internet, even in prime time.

It would have been good if they did something like that.

And maybe call it the "January 6th Committee" or something like that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You appear to be not following the debate. Barr gave no reasons in the article, just a vague hand waving to "due process". But again he, like you, appears to be ignoring legal precedent.

Still on repeat in spite of people including myself repeatedly telling you time and time again that there is a due process clause in the same Amendment you are implying isn't there.

Of course, I know ignorant denial can be a very hard pill to swallow for some people.

 

[Left Coast]

The state of Maine is now following suit:

Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

Activists and voters have filed numerous lawsuits around the country claiming the former president is barred from office under the “insurrection clause.”

www.politico.com

Interestingly in my state of California, the Sec of State opted not to remove Trump from the ballot.

Deep blue California keeps Trump on the presidential ballot

Several leading Democratic officials had tried to remove him from the California ballot.

www.politico.com

 

[Bthoth]

This has nothing to do with Trump. It's those ignorant of due process and constitutional protections that you have to watch out for.

The whole topic is about trump.

If it was not for the ignorant, this debate would not exist.

Due process does not mean, be stupid and allow business to put that POS back in office.

The world watched what trump did on jan 6. there is no excuse and no defense!

 

[Bthoth]

Unlike Colorado, this was only the first step in the process of removal. The decision to remove was suspended, pending a court ruling. However, the fact that two states have now officially started the process makes it more difficult for the conservative majority to finesse its way around the issue by claiming that the Colorado courts made some procedural error in coming to their decision.

The GOP has not been conservative for a long long time.

The claim that Congress had to have defined "insurrection" for the purposes of the implementing this ban has no historical precedent, as has been pointed out repeatedly. So the claim that Trump wasn't given due process doesn't seem to have much traction.

Due process is a legal term that attorneys love to use. Them few will end up disbarred too.

The Colorado courts made a legal ruling that Trump's behavior met the criteria of the 14th amendment under any reasonable interpretation.

Good for them.

Trump's lawyers had every opportunity to pursue that defense, but they didn't bother.

Because their client was perhaps unwilling to pay them for the additional work.

They argued that Trump was not an "officer" of the US government,

He has never been an officer for US. No matter what oath he took.

and the lower court agreed with his argument. It lost on appeal.

"WE the people" lost to ever allow him to be in office.

The US Supreme Court is unlikely to resurrect the claim of a need for a criminal conviction, since it was never raised as a defense, but you never know with that bunch. They will be grasping at straws to keep Trump on the ballot in states that ban him.

What would be sad, is if he won without the two states.

I seem to recall that Barr was the one who claimed that a president couldn't be investigated or prosecuted for criminal behavior while in office, but he would be liable for criminal acts once out of office.

Treason while in office and criminal the majority of his life.

Now Trump is pursuing the claim that he is still immune from prosecution even after leaving office.

Of course, his arrogance knows no bounds. I am waiting for him to declare himself a god!

 

[Wandering Monk]

Meanwhile his brown shirt minions are doing things like this:

FBI probes threats to Colorado judges in Trump ballot case – DW – 12/27/2023

Local authorities and the FBI are investigating threats against Colorado Supreme Court judges. This comes a week after they barred former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot.

www.dw.com

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-sics-followers-on-maine-secretary-of-state-after-disqualification

 

[Subduction Zone]

The state of Maine is now following suit:

Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

Activists and voters have filed numerous lawsuits around the country claiming the former president is barred from office under the “insurrection clause.”

www.politico.com

Interestingly in my state of California, the Sec of State opted not to remove Trump from the ballot.

Deep blue California keeps Trump on the presidential ballot

Several leading Democratic officials had tried to remove him from the California ballot.

www.politico.com

They may think that Trump is a handicap to the Republican party and I think that they may be right in that regard.

 

[Watchmen]

That would take a constitutional amendment.

No it wouldn’t.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it wouldn’t.

Great! In that case, I look forward to Congress also establishing what "arms" means in the Second Amendment.

 

[Watchmen]

Great! In that case, I look forward to Congress also establishing what "arms" means in the Second Amendment.

Different scenario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still on repeat in spite of people including myself repeatedly telling you time and time again that there is a due process clause in the same Amendment you are implying isn't there.

Of course, I know ignorant denial can be a very hard pill to swallow for some people.

I asked you this before and didn't get a response. I don't expect I'll be more successful this time, but here goes...

That clause prohibits depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Do you think that eligibility for the presidency is:

1. Life
2. Liberty, or
3. Property?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Different scenario.

"Different" as in "inconvenient for your argument?"

How is it different?

 

[Bthoth]

Meanwhile his brown shirt minions are doing things like this:

FBI probes threats to Colorado judges in Trump ballot case – DW – 12/27/2023

Local authorities and the FBI are investigating threats against Colorado Supreme Court judges. This comes a week after they barred former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot.

www.dw.com

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-sics-followers-on-maine-secretary-of-state-after-disqualification

Basically trumps voting base are criminal too. Nothing conservative about trump0craps.

 

[Left Coast]

They may think that Trump is a handicap to the Republican party and I think that they may be right in that regard.

Their argument seems to be more of a legal one re: what the powers of the Sec of State in California are. Apparently we have unique rules.