The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
The Colorado Supreme Court Ruling
"President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three [of the 14th Amendment]."
"President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three [of the 14th Amendment]."
Last edited:
The CO decision is actually a good thing, since it allows for a 14th Amendment case to be reviewed by SCOTUS. They'll reverse it just like they did Bush v. Gore. Then the desperate Democrats will concoct something else as Trump’s numbers continue to rise and Biden's keep falling.
Agreed.
Let me ask, if SCOTUS upholds the Colorado ruling and bans Trump from serving again as president, would you accept that ruling and result?
That remains to be seen. SCOTUS may well uphold the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. Strong legal arguments exist to support that outcome. Also, as RLENT points out, a re-elected President Trump would be a threat to SCOTUS power as Trump will seek to undermine our system of checks and balances. SCOTUS may find it quite easy to disqualify Trump for the legal reasons, but also to protect the power of the judiciary.
Yes, although there could be serious consequences in the future for both parties. As I've said before, there are other good GOP candidates who could defeat Biden in '24.
There are also several strong constitutional arguments that support the reversal of the CO ruling. We should see which ones prevail fairly quickly.
This talking point is nothing more than baseless liberal fear-mongering straight from the loony pundits on cable TV and their Democrat coaches. They become more desperate with every new poll that comes out showing Biden's approval numbers continuing to sink. Wonder if they would say the same thing about DeSantis or Haley if one of them turns out to be the GOP nominee?
Yes there are, and I might even vote for one of them if Trump was out.
Exactly.
Maybe, but when I say it, it's not because I heard it on TV or read it on the internet. I have been wondering for a long time how long the judiciary will be willing to let Trump unfairly malign that branch of government before they rise to crush him. As his attacks on the courts and court personnel increase in number and severity, it seems to me to be only a matter of time before the judges collectively say "enough."
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Same.
In fact, it is so self-evident that the only ones who might miss it must have really drank the Kool-aid ... or otherwise suffer from some radical (likely rightwing) partisan motivations.
Bingo !
Last edited:
About the Insurrection Conviction Point
A common criticism of the Trump eligibility/14th Amendment lawsuits that are filed in several states is that Trump has not been overtly convicted of the crime of insurrection, so, for that reason, the language of the 14th Amendment does not apply, and since it does not apply, Trump cannot be deemed ineligible to hold the office of president under the 14th Amendment.
People viewing this from the other side reply that the 14th Amendment does not provide criminal requirements, it provides entry requirements, or eligibility requirements.
Obama is disqualified to again be the president because he has already been president for two terms. A person age 23 is disqualified from being president because he/she is not age 35 or above. Arnold Schwarzenegger is disqualified to from being president because he is not a natural born citizen. And Trump is disqualified from again being president because he "engaged in insurrection."
Just as it is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that someone is under age 35, it is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that someone engaged in insurrection. The Colorado plaintiffs argued, and the district court and state supreme court both agreed, that the phrase "engaged in insurrection" is to be used within the meaning of the 14 Amendment, and not in the criminal conviction sense.
Accordingly, these entities say, Trump is "disqualified from holding the office of President."
In other words, it is not required that Trump be convicted of insurrection in a court of law. Courts can find, and two courts have found, that within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, Trump engaged in insurrection, and he is thereby disqualified.
Will the US Supreme Court agree with this "within the meaning of the 14th Amendment" interpenetration, as two lower courts did? We'll find out.
A common criticism of the Trump eligibility/14th Amendment lawsuits that are filed in several states is that Trump has not been overtly convicted of the crime of insurrection, so, for that reason, the language of the 14th Amendment does not apply, and since it does not apply, Trump cannot be deemed ineligible to hold the office of president under the 14th Amendment.
People viewing this from the other side reply that the 14th Amendment does not provide criminal requirements, it provides entry requirements, or eligibility requirements.
Obama is disqualified to again be the president because he has already been president for two terms. A person age 23 is disqualified from being president because he/she is not age 35 or above. Arnold Schwarzenegger is disqualified to from being president because he is not a natural born citizen. And Trump is disqualified from again being president because he "engaged in insurrection."
Just as it is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that someone is under age 35, it is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that someone engaged in insurrection. The Colorado plaintiffs argued, and the district court and state supreme court both agreed, that the phrase "engaged in insurrection" is to be used within the meaning of the 14 Amendment, and not in the criminal conviction sense.
Accordingly, these entities say, Trump is "disqualified from holding the office of President."
In other words, it is not required that Trump be convicted of insurrection in a court of law. Courts can find, and two courts have found, that within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, Trump engaged in insurrection, and he is thereby disqualified.
Will the US Supreme Court agree with this "within the meaning of the 14th Amendment" interpenetration, as two lower courts did? We'll find out.
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation Phil. The only problem I see is that the MAGAmaniacs do not care. They are willing to burn the house down to get their way.
Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot
Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot
The latest round of threats fits a familiar pattern: Trump faces a legal setback, and officials face threats.
www.nbcnews.com
Unfortunately, this is the new normal. Remember Sen. Chuck Schumer's threats against two SCOTUS justices in March 2020?Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot
Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot
The latest round of threats fits a familiar pattern: Trump faces a legal setback, and officials face threats.
“I want to tell you Neil Gorusch, and you Brett Kavanaugh, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said. “You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
And then this happened:
Supreme Court Justices Threatened With Murder if Roe Overturned, DHS Warns
The DHS said that it is committed to working to "prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe."
www.newsweek.com
Vivek has threatened to withdraw from the CO primary if Trump isn't allowed on the ballot. This is an interesting X response from the CO Republican Party:
"You won't have to because we will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand."
"You won't have to because we will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand."
It won't matter in Colorado and it won't matter nationwide if the US Supreme Court upholds the Colorado ruling. The ruling is that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President. This is not about the nomination or primary process. It's about Trump's eligibility to hold the office. If SCOTUS upholds the Colorado ruling, Trump cannot be president, even if he won the majority of the vote on a write-in campaign.
Last edited:
Trump Tanglemouth
In Trump's New York civil fraud trial, Trump loudly proclaimed, under oath, that the value of his properties is much higher than what his statements showed. Now attorneys for Carroll in that defamation case are asking the judge for permission to enter Trump's sworn statements into evidence in the upcoming Carroll trial. They want to do that because when they ask for punitive damages, the size of Trump's actual worth is a factor in determining the amount of the ask.
Trump is on record, under oath, saying his net worth is very high. His words will be used against him in the Carroll trial, and the public may be treated to the humorous show of Trump calling himself a liar when he tries to convince the court that the Carroll damages should be less than what is asked, because he is worth nowhere near what his sworn testimony says it is.
Another example of Trump tanglemouth is his inability to make a motion to move his GA trial to federal court. To do that, he would have to claim he is an officer of the United States. But if he does that, he 100% confirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that uses his officer status as part of the reason he is disqualified from holding the office of President.
The more Trump's court cases proceed, the more of this we will see. That's because Trump's legal teams are not being well coordinated. If there is someone on staff whose job it is to keep Trump's legal arguments consistent with themselves, that person is doing a horse-s**t job. If there is no such person on staff, Trump has only himself to blame for his tanglemouth affliction.
In Trump's New York civil fraud trial, Trump loudly proclaimed, under oath, that the value of his properties is much higher than what his statements showed. Now attorneys for Carroll in that defamation case are asking the judge for permission to enter Trump's sworn statements into evidence in the upcoming Carroll trial. They want to do that because when they ask for punitive damages, the size of Trump's actual worth is a factor in determining the amount of the ask.
Trump is on record, under oath, saying his net worth is very high. His words will be used against him in the Carroll trial, and the public may be treated to the humorous show of Trump calling himself a liar when he tries to convince the court that the Carroll damages should be less than what is asked, because he is worth nowhere near what his sworn testimony says it is.
Another example of Trump tanglemouth is his inability to make a motion to move his GA trial to federal court. To do that, he would have to claim he is an officer of the United States. But if he does that, he 100% confirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that uses his officer status as part of the reason he is disqualified from holding the office of President.
The more Trump's court cases proceed, the more of this we will see. That's because Trump's legal teams are not being well coordinated. If there is someone on staff whose job it is to keep Trump's legal arguments consistent with themselves, that person is doing a horse-s**t job. If there is no such person on staff, Trump has only himself to blame for his tanglemouth affliction.
Last edited:
He’s not too concerned about the Georgia case anyway. The case won’t be taking place anytime soon and he will just pardon himself if need be.
Last edited:
The quote from Schumer was way worse than what Trump said. Trump said to go peacefully and patriotically. That’s actually the opposite of what Schumer was saying.Unfortunately, this is the new normal. Remember Sen. Chuck Schumer's threats against two SCOTUS justices in March 2020?
“I want to tell you Neil Gorusch, and you Brett Kavanaugh, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said. “You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
And then this happened:
Supreme Court Justices Threatened With Murder if Roe Overturned, DHS Warns
The DHS said that it is committed to working to "prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe."