14th Amendment case in Colorado

[PAL]

Yep Chris, but what do Americans envision as Civil War? And can it happen here? People attacking each other...sure it's been going on for centuries. but can we make a shift?
So these cases could make a difference on whether Trump even gets on the ballot.

[Fun CH]

My own guess is it would look like various semi-organized armed groups attacking mostly innocent bystanders, non-participants, and sometimes each other. But my crystal ball is broken this week so who the hell knows?

You mean exactly what's been happening on this planet,
like forever?

[mister_coffee]

And then one would have to define what "civil war" is. See, the word civil, just doesn't seem to go with war. There would be nothing civil about it.
We can hope that justice really will prevail and the courts will rule against Trump in a least one of the cases.
We havet to wait.

No, there would be nothing civil about it. It would probably be pretty savage though.

My own guess is it would look like various semi-organized armed groups attacking mostly innocent bystanders, non-participants, and sometimes each other. But my crystal ball is broken this week so who the hell knows?

[PAL]

And then one would have to define what "civil war" is. See, the word civil, just doesn't seem to go with war. There would be nothing civil about it.
We can hope that justice really will prevail and the courts will rule against Trump in a least one of the cases.
We havet to wait.

[mister_coffee]

…
Yeah, what would happen if Trump got in again. Much unrest.

Pretty much what is being proposed by Trump for a second term sounds like a sure fire recipe for a civil war.

[PAL]

Sharon, I was looking at the video Chris sent. There was no way I was overcome with laughter on Jan. 6th. I was appalled as you were.
I really liked what you said in your previous post. I had thought well of you. I guess that is the problem posting on BB's. If you miss what I am referring to, it leads to misunderstanding me.
Guess Chris was sending some comic relief.
Yeah, what would happen if Trump got in again. Much unrest.

[SharonLaVonne]

You are welcome Pearl. Were you overcome with laughter while a mob stormed our capital? I found it so very ha-ha as I watched Trump steamroll over rule of law. Why, that hilarious man broke rules we didn't even know we needed laws against. Decency fell by the way side, as tears of laughter rolled down my face. No, nothing funny here, folks.

[PAL]

Thanks for the laugh. Oh gawd, what's going to become of us?

[Fun CH]

Joe Manchin. May be changing to the Republican party. He's not running for re-election. Wonder what he is up to? Could he save us from Donny?

he's in a group that wants to run a non party candidate that appeals to moderate and independent voters. Forgot the name.

Go to around 4:45 in the video where the the panda bear describes what would happen if Trump was re-elected And the reporter asks if he's going to be voting for Biden.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 63HA9y6OIA

[PAL]

Joe Manchin. May be changing to the Republican party. He's not running for re-election. Wonder what he is up to? Could he save us from Donny?

[SharonLaVonne]

All I want is justice. That means the filthy cheater, liar and American terrorist, Donald Trump, goes to jail for life. Just try making him president again and America will have a civil war. I am tired of Republican idiots destroying America. Get the f**k over Donald Trump or America is doomed.

[Rideback]

The appeal has been filed. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/21/politics ... index.html

[mister_coffee]

More precisely, the interpretation of the 14th amendment and actual application of it after the civil war never required a conviction in a court of law.

Generally, when required, all that happened was that federal prosecutors brought a civil action against those standing for election requiring them to prove in court that they were not disqualified. For sure such actions were brought in Tennessee against three state Supreme Court justices and the state Attorney General.

I note that there is a vast difference under the law between having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are disqualified by this amendment, and having to prove in court that you are not disqualified.

One of the objections to this section of the 14th amendment that was raised in the Senate during ratification was that it did not require a criminal conviction to disqualify a man (and they were all men at the time) from any of those positions.

Also, during the debate on section three it was very clear that the language was intended to cover the President and Vice President, so the interpretation in Colorado is likely erroneous.

Sources:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3748639

[Rideback]

The 14th doesn't mention a conviction. The judge didn't deny the case based on Trump not being convicted. Jack Smith already has in hand hundreds of guilty pleas of insurrectionists for obstruction of an official proceeding, the same charge that has been applied against Trump. The foundation for the case against Trump is actually stronger as well as broader than against the members of the mob. Trump created a multi step plot and when he lost in the courts, when state officials, DoJ officials wouldn't go along with him he suckered his base into believing their actions were above the law.

There are seven states that are carrying the case of the 14th to the Courts, each one is a bit different in approach but each one is adding to the case for Jack Smith.

[Fun CH]

I called it, again.

A 1 in 2 chance of being ‘correct’. Congratulations!!! We’re all so proud of you!
.

my prediction was based on a previous court case as I posted in your TDS thread.

Rideback, let me know when Trump is actually convicted and serves jail time for starting an insurrection.

[Rideback]

And now, as the appeals go forward the findings of fact will stand, so that the argument and decisions will focus on whether the holder of the highest office in the land can be held equally accountable as other elected officials who take an oath of office.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1 ... medium=web

[just-jim]

I called it, again.

A 1 in 2 chance of being ‘correct’. Congratulations!!! We’re all so proud of you!
.

[Rideback]

In your rush to 'call it' you overlook the points that now, on the record we have a judge acknowledging Trump's role in the insurrection. That is historical, as Judge Luttig & Lawrence Tribe point out.

That the judge used the most narrow of rulings to say that the oath Trump took did not match the 14th identically doesn't make the lawsuit irrelevant. Instead, these are now solid grounds for Jack Smith's team to use in the DC case and may even fold into the GA case as well. We'll see how this case fares under the appeal process but so far it's not a win for team trump.

[Fun CH]

Good. Let the voters decide who the next president will be. See Ride back and Jim, when you reduce your bias and get rid of TDS you start to think for yourself and use facts as a basis for opinion. I called it, again.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurr ... 7c46621055

"Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge"

"DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state’s primary ballot because it’s unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

[Rideback]

Good explanation by Judge Luttig and Lawrence Tribe: https://www.msnbc.com/velshi

[just-jim]

.
Following the logic of the Judge is a little puzzling. Especially the ‘he’s not an officer’ of the US part…..

Another news source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -on-ballot

I hadn’t realized the previous two cases, already decided, were ONLY about guilty donnies fitness to be on those States’ (Michigan and Minnesota) Primary ballots, not the General Election.

Colorado group who brought the suit intend to appeal.
.

[Rideback]

Interestingly the CO judge's decision expressed that indeed Trump did engage in the insurrection but that the technical definition of the office of the Presidency is not an 'office' so she denied the case. Pretty mind boggling ruling of just how off the rails Trump's actions were. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics ... index.html

[mister_coffee]

It will be most interesting to see how it all plays out.

All I know is that if I was one of the gray eminences behind all of the multi-billion dollar flows of dark money towards a candidate, this whole 14th amendment thing would make me pretty nervous about the risk to my investment in Mr. Trump. While it is very early days, it seems at least the early indications are that the billionaire class might well just sit out the 2024 election. Which in my view wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Rideback]

There are significant factual developments, that's why you're hearing about it.
But you go ahead and sit in that cave of yours.

[Fun CH]

If anyone doesn't understand Trump's behavior by now then they haven't been paying attention and most likely never will.

Trump's echo chamber drama is Big dollars for media corporations. It's always about making money. They need you to help them to do that so they build that drama and play off the division.

If there are significant factual results beyond speculation then we'll hear about it.

Don't be a Russian tool.