14th Amendment case in Colorado

[just-jim]

.
And then - there is this:

https://mashable.com/video/scottish-peo ... mantha-bee

It’s 5 or 6 years old. But it ages well!
.

[just-jim]

.
By chance…I listened today to a ‘Live Wire’ episode, on NPR, with Timothy Egan. Pulitzer Prize winning author who’s written about a wide variety of topics, including wildfire, natural resources, etc. His newest book ‘A Fever in the Heartland’ is about the KKK in America.

https://www.livewireradio.org/episodes/593

In the episode - about 20 minutes, starting about 9 minutes in - he talks about the rise of the KKK, particularly in Oregon, in the 1920’s. And he draws parallels to the slogans, tactics and beliefs of today’s MAGA crowd.
.

[mister_coffee]

It doesn't really matter what the facts are to Trump supporters. If he was tried and convicted of insurrection that wouldn't matter to them as they would argue that it was a kangaroo court and the verdict was rigged. Or that it wasn't really a court at all and was fake news generated by AI. Or something.

It is extremely easy to "win" any argument if you debate in bad faith.

This whole thing reminds me of the Obama "birth certificate" debate and when the birth certificate was presented, the birthers wanted to see the "long form" birth certificate. When they got that they claimed it was a forgery. There is no satisfying unreasonable people.

I don't think this is about Donald Trump at all. This is about how dangerous his angry and demented mob of supporters are, and their willingness to engage in violent terrorism on behalf of their cult leader. And yes, online death threats against court justices or secretaries of state are terrorism.

[Rideback]

Ken, yes people have been convicted for seditious conspiracy...from the DoJ website:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-add ... tol-breach

The rulings of judges on specific cases relating to the Jan 6 insurrectionists do count. The rulings as well as the juries that have found them guilty have placed them in jail. The appeals court decisions count as well, they are making rulings on matters before the court.

[dorankj]

So we agree that he did accept the election (because he left) and no one has been convicted of sedition (especially the one you want to hold the standard to). Opinions of judges NOT ruling on actual questions of law in cases before their court are not how we determine guilt (innocent until proven guilty).

[Rideback]

Ken, the 14th does not state that a candidate must be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified.
We now have multiple judges and states that have determined that the actions of those surrounding J6 participated in an insurrection. We have juries that have found J6 participants guilty of sedition, of obstruction of an official proceeding, of causing physical harm to police and damaging the Peoples' House.

Trump's role, the role of his campaign and of his enablers and supporters was wide spread. Take a listen to the tapes of his attorney Ken Cheseboro and his email evidence as he lays out the fake elector scam. Take a look at the 60+ cases that Trump lost in courts after the election. Take a look at Rudy G admitting that he lied about the GA election. Take a look at the PA, AZ, Wisconsin and Michigan cases where the fake electors have admitted their role.

There is no possible way that Trump's scam had any scintilla of legality to it. You can now be permitted to change your mind and recognize that Trump and all those lawyers who enabled him are not just lawbreakers but they chose to break an even bigger standard, our Constitution.

[dorankj]

Funny, isn’t dementia Joe in the White House currently? If Trump didn’t “accept “ then why did he leave on Jan 20th? You think it’s ’democracy’ to just remove people who you don’t agree with politically? And don’t start with your “insurrection” fairy tale, in this country you have to actually be charged with that and found guilty, they haven’t even done that with the J6 protesters and Trump never took up any arms and fought like the confederates who the 14th was created for!

[just-jim]

.
I like Brooks and Capehart on PBS. Tonite they discussed just this. Although they differed….they both made good points.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... ary-ballot
.

[PAL]

I am thinking the same thing. Or pressuring those that are counting ballots, or any number of threats, election fraud, etc.
Let the voter's decide? Let the courts decide using the evidence provided.

[mister_coffee]

I know some people are saying that the way to "solve" this problem is to defeat Trump in the election.

My question is, isn't that what happened in 2020? And what is to stop him and his supporters from making up some crazy garbage about Italian satellites and Hugo Chavez? Or more likely this time Hamas and the Ukrainians.

Trump and his cultists will never accept a loss as legitimate.

[Rideback]

The breaking news cycles are happening so fast that it's hard for anyone, including the author at David's link to keep up. At the end of the article he links to his next article which talks about the news that the Maine SoS will not allow Trump on the ballot. Good piece. After the piece was written news broke that the SoS put a pause on the ruling in order to allow Team Trump to appeal, which they have said they will. So, for the moment, both in CO and in ME, Trump remains on the ballot.

https://pintsofhistory.com/2023/12/28/w ... ts-courts/

[mister_coffee]

Nice summary of what the 14th amendment, section 3 deal is all about:

https://pintsofhistory.com/2023/12/27/l ... and-trump/

[Rideback]

I got a kick out of Joe Rogan on his show crowing that once again he had proof that Biden had dementia. When he played the clip one of his coharts said, 'oops' that instead of it showing Biden had flubbed history, it was a commentary by Biden about Trump's flub. Rogan just replied with a 'ok so Trump f**ked up...

So much of the Biden dementia talk is so off base it's laughable, check stuff out rather than just tossing the label out there.

https://themessenger.com/entertainment/ ... st-mistake

[just-jim]

.
BBC America interview with Maine Sec of State: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67837639

Her reasoning is interesting!
.
.

[Rideback]

Yes, Maine has a whole different set of laws that dictate how the SoS must deal with the question and the decision is extraordinarily problematic for SCOTUS to stick their nose into.

[mister_coffee]

Now Maine too.

This will complicate things for the Supreme Court. Largely because the technicalities they could use to block (or more likely modify) the Colorado decision probably wouldn't work with how things work in Maine. My own guess is that things are going to get a bit messy and chaotic.

[mister_coffee]

Maybe we need new candidates besides Dementia Joe and Alzheimer Donnie?

Unless one of them dies or becomes very ill I think that is what we are stuck with. Biden could also earn points by having a more credible running mate this time as well, because there is a very real possibility he could die or be incapacitated during his term if he were re-elected. So in effect we are voting for a two-fer there.

[pasayten]

Maybe we need new candidates besides Dementia Joe and Alzheimer Donnie?

[dorankj]

Don’t let democracy slow down your political persecution! Do you even stop to think about what you’re saying? Let’s throw Dementia Joe and the Hoe off every R state too!

[mister_coffee]

More death threats. Some of them are pretty graphic:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... surrection.

[PAL]

And don't forget election interference and the cases of the poll workers being harassed.

[mister_coffee]

I think the best you can say from the MAGA perspective is that these 14th amendment cases won't hurt Trump very much. It is hard to come up with a plausible universe where they help him.

It isn't like the hard-core Trump supporters who will be activated by something like this can vote more times or vote harder somehow. And it is very hard for me to imagine very many Biden voters or undecided voters where these court decisions would make them decide to support Trump. In the end it is going to be all about the votes.

It is very safe to predict that whatever the Supreme Court decides, it is going to be very contentious and the dissents are going to be withering. If I were to guess the Supremes will split the baby -- probably temporarily overturning the Colorado decision but putting parameters on what it would take to successfully apply section 3 to an election. Then it bounces back through the court system (well, probably through the court system) to do just that and sometime this summer we end up with Mr. Trump being blocked from the ballot in multiple states. If those states include states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona that might well doom his prospects for getting re-elected right there.

Will there be considerable gnashing of teeth and possibly violence from Trump supporters if that happens? Yes, of course. We've already demonstrated that Trump supporters are capable of violent action if Trump loses an election. Chances are there will also be acts of violence if Trump wins an election. The violence is baked in at this point and probably unavoidable.

My bet is going to be that in November of 2024 the Republican nominee will be a convicted felon (possibly under appeal) who is barred from the ballot in multiple states. Leaving the Republicans with no chance of winning.

In a dream world we'd be talking about a Nikki Haley / Gavin Newsom matchup. But I think we'll have to wait for 2028 to see that, if we survive that long and if we suffer relatively few casualties in the coming Civil War.

[Rideback]

Worthwhile to look at the tracking of all the state cases that are in the works to try and keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-pr ... on-tracker

[Rideback]

Legal punditry analysis after the ruling is that SCOTUS will indeed take up the case but will not rush with the process. The way that the ruling is worded it's clear that Trump will be on the primary ballot in March but whether or not he's allowed on the general ballot won't be ruled on until probably June when the SCOTUS releases its opinions.

Meanwhile, there will also be a sooner determination of the presidential immunity appeal case. Trump has hired on a Rhodes scholar to promote his premise on that one, and the guy is not going down any rabbit holes of political conspiracy if his first filing is an example. Still, Smith's choice of Michael Dreeben, who is quite literally at the top of the game having argued more than 100 cases before the court, is going to be hard charging. Without an opinion on this case, the J6 Smith has will be pretty much hamstrung. That case has been set to go forward in March.

There are more cases in more states regarding the 14th which have yet to have their say.

[Fun CH]

If this case goes to SCOTUS, which it will, Trump is still on the Colorado ballet until the case is decided, most likely in his favor.

Keep handing Trump these types of victories where they don't really matter, and he's our next POTUS. In every current poll out there he wins over Biden, especially with young voters.