Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Sargonski]

If he was precise then why couldn't you quote him? The lack of quotes indicate that the opposite is the case.

I not only linked to Barr but, did quote him.. That you are complaining that the citation was not extensive enough does not change the fact that the details are in the link .. nor the fact that these details show that your claim about being vague and general is false .. just like your claim to have refuted Barrs argument .. "No due Process" is false.

 

[Copernicus]

I not only linked to Barr but, did quote him.. That you are complaining that the citation was not extensive enough does not change the fact that the details are in the link .. nor the fact that these details show that your claim about being vague and general is false .. just like your claim to have refuted Barrs argument .. "No due Process" is false.

I tried following the conversation back to find out where you quoted Barr, but it must have been buried somewhere else in this long thread. Could you give us a link to the post where you quoted him?

Barr's argument consisted of two questions, which he felt went unanswered:

1) Was January 6 an insurrection?
2) Did Trump do anything to violate his oath of office?

Both questions were addressed by the state-prescribed procedural methods in Colorado and Maine. Trump had lawyers presenting his defense in both cases. The questions were answered affirmatively in both cases. Barr's problem is that he didn't like the processes in place, so he is claiming "no due process". However, these were not criminal trials. They were state-mandated processes for determining eligibility to be on an election ballot distributed by the state. Trump's lawyers simply failed to convince the authorities that at least one of those two questions should be answered negatively, and that is really hard to do in light of the rather widespread evidence and a common sense reading of the Constitution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I not only linked to Barr but, did quote him.. That you are complaining that the citation was not extensive enough does not change the fact that the details are in the link .. nor the fact that these details show that your claim about being vague and general is false .. just like your claim to have refuted Barrs argument .. "No due Process" is false.

I remember, I both read your quote and the article and did not find anything of substance. It was just as I stated vague unsupported claims. That is only opinion even if it comes from someone like Barr. It is no better and actually worse than what I posted from a far more well respected Professor of Harvard (or some similar very limited title) who stated the opposite.

If you go by name dropping wars then I won that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tried following the conversation back to find out where you quoted Barr, but it must have been buried somewhere else in this long thread. Could you give us a link to the post where you quoted him?

Barr's argument consisted of two questions, which he felt went unanswered:

1) Was January 6 an insurrection?
2) Did Trump do anything to violate his oath of office?

Both questions were addressed by the state-prescribed procedural methods in Colorado and Maine. Trump had lawyers presenting his defense in both cases. The questions were answered affirmatively in both cases. Barr's problem is that he didn't like the processes in place, so he is claiming "no due process". However, these were not criminal trials. They were state-mandated processes for determining eligibility to be on an election ballot distributed by the state. Trump's lawyers simply failed to convince the authorities that at least one of those two questions should be answered negatively, and that is really hard to do in light of the rather widespread evidence and a common sense reading of the Constitution.

Those opposing this keep hanging their hat on the idea that a criminal trial has to occur and yet the actual cases where people were not allowed to take office quite often did not have any criminal trial at all. The only response that I have had to that fact to date is mostly the ostrich defense.

And when it comes to Trump being involved in the insurrection even the judges that voted against taking him off of the ballot for some reason agreed that he was involved with that.

 

[McBell]

I not only linked to Barr but, did quote him.. That you are complaining that the citation was not extensive enough does not change the fact that the details are in the link .. nor the fact that these details show that your claim about being vague and general is false .. just like your claim to have refuted Barrs argument .. "No due Process" is false.

You seem to have a much different definition of the word "details" than most.

Here is the the link.
Sadly it is rather short and has not much of Barr saying anything other than he disagrees with the decision, disagrees with the procedure and hopes it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As for details, they are severely lacking.

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to have a much different definition of the word "details" than most.

Here is the the link.
Sadly it is rather short and has not much of Barr saying anything other than he disagrees with the decision, disagrees with the procedure and hopes it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As for details, they are severely lacking.

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

His post was just name dropping. And though Barr is a well known lawyer, and I will even admit fairly honest at times, he sill does not have the credibility of the Professor of Harvard (a title that has been given less than 75 times over Harvard's history) that was interviewed for this article:

‘No easy exit ramp’ for SCOTUS on Trump, Harvard scholar says— Harvard Gazette

Historic 4-3 decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar former president from the state’s primary ballot has turned up the heat on the 2024 presidential race.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Sargonski]

I tried following the conversation back to find out where you quoted Barr, but it must have been buried somewhere else in this long thread. Could you give us a link to the post where you quoted him?

Here is the link - with extra's in the citation ..

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’​

sdfs

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

Barr refused to say whether he agrees with the merits of the case, later implying that he believes Trump is responsible for Jan. 6, but he lodged his complaints with how the case was managed. The Colorado case had a short trial featuring five days of argument and was decided without a jury.

“I disagree with the court’s ability to make those findings,” he said. “The core problem here is the denial of due process.

So here we do not even address the merits of the case .. which I claim questionable .. "illegitimate" no mens rea nor actus rea is established .. and problematic on a number of other fronts .. including Barr's procedural argument .. simple denial of due process .. the Judge using an arbitrary definition of insurrection .. one not tested in trial .. and no actus rea nor mens rea established.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the link - with extra's in the citation ..

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’​

sdfs

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

So here we do not even address the merits of the case .. which I claim questionable .. "illegitimate" no mens rea nor actus rea is established .. and problematic on a number of other fronts .. including Barr's procedural argument .. simple denial of due process .. the Judge using an arbitrary definition of insurrection .. one not tested in trial .. and no actus rea nor mens rea established.

And all he says is "the denial of due process". He does not say what that "due process" is or why it is required. You appear to be conflating a criminal charge with a determination of disqualification. Then are not one and the same. I even posted a link from a case where a person tried to fight his disqualification in court.

What "due process" is required and why? And please note. Even Barr acknowledged that Trump was behind the insurrection.

 

[Sargonski]

You seem to have a much different definition of the word "details" than most.

Here is the the link.
Sadly it is rather short and has not much of Barr saying anything other than he disagrees with the decision, disagrees with the procedure and hopes it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As for details, they are severely lacking.

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

The details are not lacking - and he does say other than he disagree's .. listing specifics which you have apparently not understaood thus the severely lacking is not on the part of the article ..

Barr refused to say whether he agrees with the merits of the case, later implying that he believes Trump is responsible for Jan. 6, but he lodged his complaints with how the case was managed. The Colorado case had a short trial featuring five days of argument and was decided without a jury.

“I disagree with the court’s ability to make those findings,” he said. “The core problem here is the denial of due process.

Did you not understand the core problem Barr is discussing ? "Denial of due process" - this is saying more than one disagree's friend .. Barr has explained to you the basis for his disagreement - told you Why he disagrees.. contrary to your claim.

His post was just name dropping. And though Barr is a well known lawyer, and I will even admit fairly honest at times, he sill does not have the credibility of the Professor of Harvard (a title that has been given less than 75 times over Harvard's history) that was interviewed for this article:

‘No easy exit ramp’ for SCOTUS on Trump, Harvard scholar says— Harvard Gazette

Historic 4-3 decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar former president from the state’s primary ballot has turned up the heat on the 2024 presidential race.

news.harvard.edu

Talk about Ad Hom Fallacy x Appeal to Authority Fallacy .. Yikes Sub D .. that diction of yours is nothing but fallacy.

Do you you know what a citation is friend .. and the purpose of citing from links posted .. in conjuction with making an argument if you wish to be taken seriously

 

[Subduction Zone]

The details are not lacking - and he does say other than he disagree's .. listing specifics which you have apparently not understaood thus the severely lacking is not on the part of the article ..

Barr refused to say whether he agrees with the merits of the case, later implying that he believes Trump is responsible for Jan. 6, but he lodged his complaints with how the case was managed. The Colorado case had a short trial featuring five days of argument and was decided without a jury.

“I disagree with the court’s ability to make those findings,” he said. “The core problem here is the denial of due process.

Did you not understand the core problem Barr is discussing ? "Denial of due process" - this is saying more than one disagree's friend .. Barr has explained to you the basis for his disagreement - told you Why he disagrees.. contrary to your claim.



Talk about Ad Hom Fallacy x Appeal to Authority Fallacy .. Yikes Sub D .. that diction of yours is nothing but fallacy.

Do you you know what a citation is friend .. and the purpose of citing from links posted .. in conjuction with making an argument if you wish to be taken seriously

Oh my! You sound like a creationist in how you got every fallacy wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here is the link - with extra's in the citation ..

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’​

sdfs

Barr says Colorado court’s Trump ruling ‘legally wrong,’ will ‘backfire’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to prohibit former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot Wednesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court is…

thehill.com

So here we do not even address the merits of the case .. which I claim questionable .. "illegitimate" no mens rea nor actus rea is established .. and problematic on a number of other fronts .. including Barr's procedural argument .. simple denial of due process .. the Judge using an arbitrary definition of insurrection .. one not tested in trial .. and no actus rea nor mens rea established.

Considering that this isn't a matter of criminal law, what makes you think that it would need to follow a criminal process?

And if you think that Trump's actus reus and mens rea haven't been established, I'd say you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Sargonski]

Considering that this isn't a matter of criminal law, what makes you think that it would need to follow a criminal process?

And if you think that Trump's actus reus and mens rea haven't been established, I'd say you haven't been paying attention.

Who says this is not a matter of criminal law ? is insurrection not a criminal offence now .. in this made up kangaroo world of law .. don't believe it friend .. the Rule of Law is still alive .. and how do we have mens or actus rea .. if insurrection is not defined through the trial process .. as needs be done via "Due Process" .. part of what Barr is arguing.

Pardon the pun but .. you can't establish mens rea nor actus rea if the Bar has not been established ? can't have courts willy nilly making making up what ever bar they wish .. as is happening now .. as other states join in .. violating core principle of equal Justice under the law.

The Bar has not been established - via lack of due process - and yes .. the charge in question is a criminal charge .. as it should be to remove someone from political participation.

Otherwise every protester can be barred from holding office .. anyone who speaks out against the established order branded a Terrorist .. as is happening due to this Woke Blue Cancel Crew .. Canceling the Rule of Law .. principles of Justice .. when ever it suits them .. this being one of those cases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who says this is not a matter of criminal law ?

I do.

is insurrection not a criminal offence now ..

It is both a criminal offense and grounds for ineligibility for public office. It's probably grounds for other things, too (e.g. civil liability).

Criminal penalties are addressed through criminal law. Electoral penalties are addressed through electoral law. Both work in parallel.

 

[Copernicus]

...

It is both a criminal offense and grounds for ineligibility for public office. It's probably grounds for other things, too (e.g. civil liability).

Criminal penalties are addressed through criminal law. Electoral penalties are addressed through electoral law. Both work in parallel.

Exactly right. "Due process" refers to a process that the state is obliged to administer. In both cases, the states afforded Trump due process concerning his eligibility to be on the ballot--not a criminal matter. Trump was not "due" the same process as that a criminal defendant would be entitled to. He was allowed the only process that he was due, and that is why his lawyers were present during that process to defend his right to be on the ballot. They failed. In Maine, at least, they can appeal the determination in the court system. The Colorado decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court, and many press commentators think that it will be overturned on political grounds. If so, it won't be the first time that the Supreme Court has inserted itself into the outcome of a presidential election.

 

[Sargonski]

Oh my! You sound like a creationist in how you got every fallacy wrong.

Look friend --- the earth is not flat and no amount of repetition of naked claim is going to alter that reality

 

[McBell]

The details are not lacking - and he does say other than he disagree's .. listing specifics which you have apparently not understaood thus the severely lacking is not on the part of the article ..

Barr refused to say whether he agrees with the merits of the case, later implying that he believes Trump is responsible for Jan. 6, but he lodged his complaints with how the case was managed. The Colorado case had a short trial featuring five days of argument and was decided without a jury.

“I disagree with the court’s ability to make those findings,” he said. “The core problem here is the denial of due process.

Did you not understand the core problem Barr is discussing ? "Denial of due process" - this is saying more than one disagree's friend .. Barr has explained to you the basis for his disagreement - told you Why he disagrees.. contrary to your claim.

You seem to have a much different definition of the word "details" than most.

Sadly, you merely repeated the same old detail free spiel you already presented.

Could it be that in your heightened emotional state you completely failed to notice that the thread has progress beyond the bare minimum claims of "lack of due process" and is looking for the specifics of that claim of lack of due process and instead of stepping up your game you decided to double down on your rather vague and detail free article that you for some reason seem to think is some sort of ace in the hole?

But hey, if you are content sitting at the kiddy table whining for attention, by all means, feel free.

 

[Sargonski]

You seem to have a much different definition of the word "details" than most.

Sadly, you merely repeated the same old detail free spiel you already presented.

Could it be that in your heightened emotional state you completely failed to notice that the thread has progress beyond the bare minimum claims of "lack of due process" and is looking for the specifics of that claim of lack of due process and instead of stepping up your game you decided to double down on your rather vague and detail free article that you for some reason seem to think is some sort of ace in the hole?

But hey, if you are content sitting at the kiddy table whining for attention, by all means, feel free.

There are more details than what I presented .. but you have yet to deal with those presented so far .. nor addressed your false claim that Barr did nothing but disagree.

Just as your new claim that you were not given specifics relating to the lack of due process is false. followed by you spewing some nonsense about " sitting at the kiddy table whiing for attention" - The failure to correct previous false accusation .. an additional false accusation .. followed by personal invective.

Barr gave specific details as to why due process was violated .. and have posted some of these .. the link providing others .. now address the details provided, and quit pretending they were not given .. because you have no response .. no Jury .. no time .. no mens rea .. nor actus rea .. no established bar for the definition of insurrection.

now let us move on .. beyond as you say "sitting at the kiddy table whiining for attention" - and give coherent response ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look friend --- the earth is not flat and no amount of repetition of naked claim is going to alter that reality

Coming from the champion flat earther. Please note, you do not get to just claim "logical fallacy". That is a tactic of creationists. You have to be able to demonstrate it. You failed when challenged, that only demonstrates that my charge of arguing like a creationist was correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are more details than what I presented .. but you have yet to deal with those presented so far .. nor addressed your false claim that Barr did nothing but disagree.

Just as your new claim that you were not given specifics relating to the lack of due process is false. followed by you spewing some nonsense about " sitting at the kiddy table whiing for attention" - The failure to correct previous false accusation .. an additional false accusation .. followed by personal invective.

Barr gave specific details as to why due process was violated .. and have posted some of these .. the link providing others .. now address the details provided, and quit pretending they were not given .. because you have no response .. no Jury .. no time .. no mens rea .. nor actus rea .. no established bar for the definition of insurrection.

now let us move on .. beyond as you say "sitting at the kiddy table whiining for attention" - and give coherent response ..

No, "specific details" would tell exactly how due process was violated. That was never shown. It was only claimed. All that he said was "denial of due process" without saying what the due process was.

By the way, why do you think that a jury was needed for a trial? Please give your reasons.

 

[Sargonski]

Coming from the champion flat earther. Please note, you do not get to just claim "logical fallacy". That is a tactic of creationists. You have to be able to demonstrate it. You failed when challenged, that only demonstrates that my charge of arguing like a creationist was correct.

Why are you running around calling folks creationists .. then going on and on about how creationists are this and that .. as if this constitutes an argument for something ?

I am not a creationist friend .. and so these flat Earth Arguments of yours don't hold water .. and have zero to do with the topic constituting but mere deflection .. unable to deal with the hard cold reality that Kangaroodom is afoot .. "Illegitimacy of Authority" if you want a more technical term .. not that understanding is in the cards .. but just sayin