Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Sargonski]

People here are openly denying that Insurrection is a civil matter when in reality it's a criminal matter, so they can't use Insurrection, a criminal offense, as a means of removing a political opponent in a civil court unless that opponent has been first convicted of the same criminal offense in a criminal court. Then and only then can they use the civil court address it and have that person removed.

Does that make any sense?

This is in addition to the fact that the bar for this offense has not yet been determined in precedent at all so the colorado Judge arbitrarily set the bar at civil -- when this has not yet been determined through due process .. same with the definition of insurrection .. in keeping with Section 3 - the rebels guilty mass sedition .. trying to take over the Gov't through military force .. having a legitimate chance to do so.

Instead we have an arbitrarily chosen definition that turns the Cop City Protestors into Terrorists . already in use as Precedent .. killing future free speech. or should we say "Cancelling" Free speech.

 

[Sargonski]

Strawman again. No one denied that it is a criminal matter. It is also a civil one. A person can be tried for each separately.

Bull Twaddle .. you are the one who has been denying it is a criminal matter .. start to finish. What the heck is this flip flop ?

For the purposes of barring someone from the ballot .. it is one or the other .. not both

 

[Twilight Hue]

Strawman again. No one denied that it is a criminal matter. It is also a civil one. A person can be tried for each separately.

Strawman my ***.

Show me one case where a criminal charge was used in a civil court before a criminal conviction of the same exact offense occurred.

Show me that, or go get yourself a proper education on what due process is because you obviously are against it in your left wing banana republic wonderland.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bull Twaddle .. you are the one who has been denying it is a criminal matter .. start to finish. What the heck is this flip flop ?

I think a fish out of water does less flopping than what we are seeing here.

 

[Sargonski]

Wow! You have some sort of mental block going on. There have been murderers that got off on the legal charges, but were still found liable under civil law. You seem to think that a criminal trial and conviction are needed. Past cases show that is not the case.

No one said murderers have not been liable for civil after beating criminal charge ?? The question is what bar applies for this case .. and while darn tootin I think a criminal conviction is needed .. as the charge is criminal ... it matters not what I think .. or what you think .. to the fact that this bar has not been determined via due process .. it has been arbitrarily dictated .. your claim of "Past Cases" is completely false .. there is no precedent for this case .. for use of Section 3 .. and this is exactly what Barr told you .. he said straight out he was not commenting on the merits of the case (a whole separate matter of Kangarooland) .. simply that due process has not been followed .. we can't have Judges arbitrarily making up the rules .. definitions .. and so on .. as was done by the Colorado Judge .. working of the Kangaroo Script.

Consequences .. have you any idea of the consequences of allowing this kangaroo nonsense ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bull Twaddle .. you are the one who has been denying it is a criminal matter .. start to finish. What the heck is this flip flop ?

For the purposes of barring someone from the ballot .. it is one or the other .. not both

You have to know that you have shown that you have not understood the arguments against you. You will not find a post where anyone denied that it was a criminal matter too. This is your poor reading comprehension, I did not flip flop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one said murderers have not been liable for civil after beating criminal charge ?? The question is what bar applies for this case .. and while darn tootin I think a criminal conviction is needed .. as the charge is criminal ... it matters not what I think .. or what you think .. to the fact that this bar has not been determined via due process .. it has been arbitrarily dictated .. your claim of "Past Cases" is completely false .. there is no precedent for this case .. for use of Section 3 .. and this is exactly what Barr told you .. he said straight out he was not commenting on the merits of the case (a whole separate matter of Kangarooland) .. simply that due process has not been followed .. we can't have Judges arbitrarily making up the rules .. definitions .. and so on .. as was done by the Colorado Judge .. working of the Kangaroo Script.

Consequences .. have you any idea of the consequences of allowing this kangaroo nonsense ?

Both bars can apply.

And you need to drop the false accusations of "kangaroo court". Just because you don't understand the law does not make it a kangaroo court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman my ***.

Show me one case where a criminal charge was used in a civil court before a criminal conviction of the same exact offense occurred.

Show me that, or go get yourself a proper education on what due process is because you obviously are against it in your left wing banana republic wonderland.

I don't need to. I can do better. I can show a case where a person was found not guilty and then sued for muder.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't need to. I can do better. I can show a case where a person was found not guilty and then sued for muder.

Hey Mr strawman, tell me.

Was the civil trial before the criminal trial?

If that's your version of doing 'better' it's about the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey Mr strawman, tell me.

Was the civil trial before the criminal trial?

If that's your version of doing 'better' it's about the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

Try again without the name calling. And an apology is needed as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Try again without the name calling. And an apology is needed as well.

No. That was just a cute harmless nickname because your the one with the strawman that you routinely accuse me and others with multiple times. The apology should be coming from you actually.

Anyways, you still wont and can't answer my valid question as a result of your post that you erroneously and ignorantly claim is better...

Did the civil travel proceed the criminal trial?

A simple yes or no will suffice

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gotta have that conviction, or some equivalence first.

You do have the equivalent. The powers that be in two states have made that determination. They, like the J6 Committee and most of the world, have already judged Trump guilty based on the evidence that he is guilty. Several of you Trump apologists insist on a jury conviction, but that's only needed to deprive a person of living among the rest of us or of his property.

All Trump wanted to do was have a parade around the Capital, with some signs. He didn't mean for people to storm the building.

Jack Smith will convince a jury otherwise, and Trump will be convicted and incarcerated for his crimes once they are officially adjudicated and Trump officially becomes a felon. If you don't think so, you probably aren't aware of what Smith has on Trump that the public is privy to, and there is likely much more yet to be revealed in court. You might not like that, but unless Trump drops dead or becomes a fugitive first, it's a foregone conclusion that Trump is guilty of spearheading the effort to illegally retain power and will be convicted and punished for it.

Sooooo.... No "coup".

It was a failed self-coup, of which the violent uprising at the Capitol was only one part. Trump will also be convicted of that. He'll be convicted of inciting violence AND for his nonviolent crimes as well involving fake electors and inappropriate telephone calls to state level officials.

It was the Qanan weirdos who went cukoo for coco puffs.

Yes, at the behest of their leaders, who were liaisons between Trump and the soldiers, and several of which have already been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

But realistically, Donald Trump has had ZERO contact with any of the Jan, 6 "insurrectionists". He does not know them. He has never spoken to any of them, not even in secret.

The same was true for Mafia dons and what the RICO statutes were created for.

If Trump is guilty of insurrection, then why is he still walking free 3 years after the incident? How can we prove he was involved?

Through this very time-consuming RICO investigation followed by trials and jury verdicts. As I said, these types of cases take years to develop. It began with prosecuting the foot soldiers, who have flipped on their Proud Boys and Oath Keeper leaders, who were in turn convicted in the Spring of 2023. These presumably flipped on Trump's consiglieres, which include names like Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows, Stone, and Flynn. And these are the people whose testimony will lead to Trump's convictions.

End your witch hunts

This has been a hunt for criminals, and as noted, hundreds have already been identified and convicted beginning at the lowest levels with more to follow. The main criminal is in the crosshairs of multiple prosecutors, and will wind up losing everything including his freedom, his wealth including his children's inheritance, his reputation and legacy, and it seems his rapidly decompensating mind as well. All he will be left with is incessant, five-alarm rage over his humiliation and his impotence at exacting revenge on the world as the world outside jeers him. One can't imagine a worst outcome for a person who is addicted to power and adulation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Strawman my ***.

Show me one case where a criminal charge was used in a civil court before a criminal conviction of the same exact offense occurred.

Show me that, or go get yourself a proper education on what due process is because you obviously are against it in your left wing banana republic wonderland.

OJ Simpson comes to mind: not guilty for murder in criminal court, liable in civil court for wrongful death.

Civil trials usually follow criminal trials because it's easier and cheaper to do it that way. If you were a victim of crime and wanted to sue the perpetrator, which would you prefer to do?

1. Hire private investigators and forensic labs at your own expense, or
2. Let the police do that at no cost to you, then just use the evidence from the criminal trial in your civil case.

The Trump case is a bit different for a couple of reasons:

• Time is of the essence. Trump’s criminal trial might not be done before the election. It definitely won't be done before candidates are chosen.
• Election officials are bound by the law. The law says Trump is ineligible, so - depending on state rules - they're duty-bound to refuse his nomination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OJ Simpson comes to mind: not guilty for murder in criminal court, liable in civil court for wrongful death.

Civil trials usually follow criminal trials because it's easier and cheaper to do it that way. If you were a victim of crime and wanted to sue the perpetrator, which would you prefer to do?

1. Hire private investigators and forensic labs at your own expense, or
2. Let the police do that at no cost to you, then just use the evidence from the criminal trial in your civil case.

The Trump case is a bit different for a couple of reasons:

• Time is of the essence. Trump’s criminal trial might not be done before the election. It definitely won't be done before candidates are chosen.
• Election officials are bound by the law. The law says Trump is ineligible, so - depending on state rules - they're duty-bound to refuse his nomination.

Well it's still a mockery of justice in the OJ Simpson trial whether you think he's guilty of murder, which I do personally , the civil trial showing guiltiness when he was actually proven innocent by the judge and jury shows a serious systemic flaw on how our justice system works.

Still, I have never heard of any civil trial preceding a criminal trial ever, in the history of our nation, which is why in this case is so controversial for which obviously, the pending Supreme Court decision will be very interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That was just a cute harmless nickname because your the one with the strawman that you routinely accuse me and others with multiple times. The apology should be coming from you actually.

Anyways, you still wont and can't answer my valid question as a result of your post that you erroneously and ignorantly claim is better...

Did the civil travel proceed the criminal trial?

A simple yes or no will suffice

That is because you use strawman arguments in this thread all of the time. I have even explained how you used them just before you did the name calling.

When one is excessively rude, as you were and still are, you lose the right to demand answers. Also in answer to your silly illogical question, it does not matter if it was before or after. In fact it is even worse for you if it was after. Think about it, see if you can figure out why.

Did you get it? The case that I know of is after the criminal trial where the man was found not guilty. But in a civil trial he was found to be guilty. He could not be imprisoned, but he could be stripped of most of his wealth.

That tells us that a criminal trial is not necessary for this action to go forward. Voter disqualification is a civil matter and by the standard you demanded even if Trump was found not guilty in a criminal court he could still be found guilty in a civil court and be disqualified. The criminal court case would not matter. That is why it is not necessary.

You may wonder how that can be. And the answer is that there are different legal standards for civil and criminal trials. When one is going to lock someone up it takes a lot more evidence than if one is merely going to take away his things or prevent him from running for office. As you know the standard for a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but for a civil one it is merely the preponderance of the evidence.

Nor does double jeopardy apply because even if found not guilty in a criminal court we are not locking up someone in a civil trial.

Like it or not the courts have been far from Kangaroo courts. They know that until their judgements are confirmed or rejected that that it is not over. None of them said that they were the last word. The only court where it can be a "kangaroo court" is the USSC.

 

[VoidCat]

This was made by a lawyer might help folk

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well it's still a mockery of justice in the OJ Simpson trial whether you think he's guilty of murder, which I do personally , the civil trial showing guiltiness when he was actually proven innocent by the judge and jury shows a serious systemic flaw on how our justice system works.

Still, I have never heard of any civil trial preceding a criminal trial ever, in the history of our nation, which is why in this case is so controversial for which obviously, the pending Supreme Court decision will be very interesting.

And now you have shown that you do not understand criminal trials at all. OJ's murder case did not end up in him being "proven innocent". He was found "Not guilty". That is not the same thing at all. Very luckily for defendants they do not have to prove their own innocence. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in criminal trials. It is all upon the prosecution. And if they fail in providing enough evidence the person is found "Not guilty". Which is short for "You did not make your case sufficiently so we cannot justify locking him up".

It is thought that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. The prosecution did not meet the burden of proof. That is not at all being "proven innocent".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well it's still a mockery of justice in the OJ Simpson trial whether you think he's guilty of murder, which I do personally , the civil trial showing guiltiness when he was actually proven innocent by the judge and jury shows a serious systemic flaw on how our justice system works.

The criminal trial didn't "prove innocence." There's a reason the verdicts are "guilty" and "not guilty," not "guilty" and "innocent." A criminal trial is about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of guilty people can't have their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal trials have a higher standard for conviction than civil trials.

Still, I have never heard of any civil trial preceding a criminal trial ever, in the history of our nation, which is why in this case is so controversial for which obviously, the pending Supreme Court decision will be very interesting.

Again: maybe try looking somewhere other than Law & Order re-runs. There are plenty of cases everywhere where police and DAs/Crown Attorneys decline to prosecute someone, but the victims go after the perpetrator in civil court anyhow.

I found out years after the fact that one of the priests at my ex's church was being sued civilly in Michigan for abusing children there decades earlier. The priest certainly hadn't been convicted of any crime; as far as I know, he had never even been charged.

And there's even another case involving Trump: last spring, he was found liable in civil court for criminal acts (sexual abuse), but he hasn't been charged criminally... and I understand will likely never be charged, since it's been too long since the crime:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/civil-trial-trump-carroll-verdict-1.6836967

Edit: another example you probably did hear of is Kyle Rittenhouse: acquitted of criminal charges, but currently in a wrongful death civil case:

Kyle Rittenhouse is being sued by the estate of the man he killed, complains that lawsuits make it 'harder for me to move on with my life'

Kyle Rittenhouse, acquitted of killing two men and injuring a third in 2020, says lawsuits from the survivors make it difficult for him to move on.

www.insider.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

And now you have shown that you do not understand criminal trials at all. OJ's murder case did not end up in him being "proven innocent". He was found "Not guilty". That is not the same thing at all. Very luckily for defendants they do not have to prove their own innocence. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in criminal trials. It is all upon the prosecution. And if they fail in providing enough evidence the person is found "Not guilty". Which is short for "You did not make your case sufficiently so we cannot justify locking him up".

It is thought that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. The prosecution did not meet the burden of proof. That is not at all being "proven innocent".

Not guilty is taken as innocent in the eyes of the law.


Now the court of public opinion may have a differet view and even rightfully so, but it doesn't change the fact that not guilty and innocent are the same in the legal venue.

The fact that he was found guilty in a civil court when innocent in a criminal court tells me just how bad this country has gotten when it comes to how the law is administered and just how weaponized it has become.

It pains me to say that in the OJ Simpson case because I personally believe he was guilty like a lot of people do and even worse was the outcomes of both criminal and civil case which in my own view completely destroyed the Integrity of the legal system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The criminal trial didn't "prove innocence." There's a reason the verdicts are "guilty" and "not guilty," not "guilty" and "innocent." A criminal trial is about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of guilty people can't have their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal trials have a higher standard for conviction than civil trials.


Again: maybe try looking somewhere other than Law & Order re-runs. There are plenty of cases everywhere where police and DAs/Crown Attorneys decline to prosecute someone, but the victims go after the perpetrator in civil court anyhow.

I found out years after the fact that one of the priests at my ex's church was being sued civilly in Michigan for abusing children there decades earlier. The priest certainly hadn't been convicted of any crime; as far as I know, he had never even been charged.

And there's even another case involving Trump: last spring, he was found liable in civil court for criminal acts (sexual abuse), but he hasn't been charged criminally... and I understand will likely never be charged, since it's been too long since the crime:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/civil-trial-trump-carroll-verdict-1.6836967

For some crimes they do need to extend the statute of limitations. Now would Trump have been found guilty of rape if it was just Carroll testifying against him? Probably not. But as in the Cosby case, when multiple people accuse a person independently of a crime then one can accept that the person is guilty. Cosby would have loved to take on all of those cases one at a time since if found not guilty in one the evidence from that case could not be used against him in another. The prosecution had to show good reason for combining those cases and at least some justice was done.