Team Trump v/s Everyone

[kalm]

It’s not as much of a - stretching the law to fit politics - slam dunk as you guys think.

Luttig has been on this crusade since 1/7, but that doesn't make him right. He thinks it's a slam dunk the other way, that Trump is automatically barred from running, and anyone can make that determination. But he addresses absolutely zero of the concerns and points brought up by the dissenters in what was, once again, a very split decision by an all-democrat Colorado court. And again, there's a lot of meat in those dissents that goes far further than just the procedural issue you seem to mention. Luttig is a cheerleader at this point, not a serious Constitutional scholar. He may have been once, but he left that track almost two decades ago.

He even says the biggest thing is to get Trump disqualified, no matter what. I agree, I don't want him running for President either, but we can't just make it up, it needs to be grounded in something real. This case hasn't done that and will be overturned.

Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.

Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?

If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.

So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.

The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.

[kalm]

Right on cue.

Posts have included calls for the justices and Trump opponents to be killed by gunfire, hanging or bombs, while others are encouraging followers to stock up on weapons and ammunition and urging a civil war against Democrats. Many users have been responding directly to Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, with the same violent rhetoric and calls to arms.


"What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court on the bottom of the ocean?" one user wrote. "A good start."

"The Justices should be arrested and sent to GUANTANAMO," another user wrote.

"The country is over anyway," wrote another. "Only thing left is civil war and retribution against those who destroyed it."

Other users suggested that Trump's opponents should be thrown out of helicopters, recreating the method Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet used to kill his political opponents, and others blamed Jews for the court's decision.

The threats against the justices, all seven of whom are Democrats, were first aggregated and analyzed by Advance Democracy, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that conducts public interest research.


The group's president, Daniel J. Jones, remarked in a statement to CBS News that, "We are seeing significant violent language and threats being made against the Colorado justices and others perceived to be behind yesterday's Colorado Supreme Court ruling. The normalization of this type of violent rhetoric is cause for significant concern. Trump's statements, which have sought to delegitimize and politicize the actions of the courts, is serving as a key driver of the violent rhetoric."

Some of the justices who voted in favor of removing Trump from the ballot had their office email addresses, building addresses and photos shared online.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-s ... nst-trump/

[GannonFan]

Luttig has been on this crusade since 1/7, but that doesn't make him right. He thinks it's a slam dunk the other way, that Trump is automatically barred from running, and anyone can make that determination. But he addresses absolutely zero of the concerns and points brought up by the dissenters in what was, once again, a very split decision by an all-democrat Colorado court. And again, there's a lot of meat in those dissents that goes far further than just the procedural issue you seem to mention. Luttig is a cheerleader at this point, not a serious Constitutional scholar. He may have been once, but he left that track almost two decades ago.

He even says the biggest thing is to get Trump disqualified, no matter what. I agree, I don't want him running for President either, but we can't just make it up, it needs to be grounded in something real. This case hasn't done that and will be overturned.

Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.

Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?

If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.

So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.

The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.

Didn't you just champion the idea of due process a couple of posts ago? Insurrection is actually defined in the US Code, so it's not really just a fuzzy concept. Normally, when we're going to not only accuse but convict a person of a crime, that person is first considered innocent, next the government or whomever the plaintiff is brings their case to court trying to prove guilt, and then the defendant gets to challenge that case. Then it goes to a judge or jury and the verdict is rendered. And then either party not happy with the result can appeal it. None of that has happened here. Almost all of the automatically-enacting cheerleaders you've linked to here haven't advocated for any of that path. The dude in New Mexico was first convicted of a crime before the 14th amendment was applied.

Again, we can't just do anything and everything to dump Trump from the ticket just because we don't like him and he's a terrible person. Following the law, and say, trying to convict him of being an insurrectionist before we punish him for being one would seem to be the proper way to do it, that is, if due process is really something you care about. You seem to say you value and cherish it and then you seem ready to brush it aside if it means having to take an easier path, due process be damned. Your values are surprisingly fluid depending on the political question of the moment.

We've been dragging our feet on this for far too long - everyone saw what happened on 1/6/21 - we're almost 3 years from that right now. Congress should've removed him from office then and there, but they didn't. Someone, anyone, should've brought the insurrection charge anytime right after that. Or say after the 1/6 commission finished - almost a year ago now. Politics have stopped us from doing that - politics from Republicans that don't want to upset the populist mob that supports him, and politics from the Democrats who don't really seem to care about driving the train to the edge of the cliff, and maybe over it, as long as their odds of winning the White House improve.

[SeattleGriz]

Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.

Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?

If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.

So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.

The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.

Didn't you just champion the idea of due process a couple of posts ago? Insurrection is actually defined in the US Code, so it's not really just a fuzzy concept. Normally, when we're going to not only accuse but convict a person of a crime, that person is first considered innocent, next the government or whomever the plaintiff is brings their case to court trying to prove guilt, and then the defendant gets to challenge that case. Then it goes to a judge or jury and the verdict is rendered. And then either party not happy with the result can appeal it. None of that has happened here. Almost all of the automatically-enacting cheerleaders you've linked to here haven't advocated for any of that path. The dude in New Mexico was first convicted of a crime before the 14th amendment was applied.

Again, we can't just do anything and everything to dump Trump from the ticket just because we don't like him and he's a terrible person. Following the law, and say, trying to convict him of being an insurrectionist before we punish him for being one would seem to be the proper way to do it, that is, if due process is really something you care about. You seem to say you value and cherish it and then you seem ready to brush it aside if it means having to take an easier path, due process be damned. Your values are surprisingly fluid depending on the political question of the moment.

We've been dragging our feet on this for far too long - everyone saw what happened on 1/6/21 - we're almost 3 years from that right now. Congress should've removed him from office then and there, but they didn't. Someone, anyone, should've brought the insurrection charge anytime right after that. Or say after the 1/6 commission finished - almost a year ago now. Politics have stopped us from doing that - politics from Republicans that don't want to upset the populist mob that supports him, and politics from the Democrats who don't really seem to care about driving the train to the edge of the cliff, and maybe over it, as long as their odds of winning the White House improve.

Really?

You wait until Klam tells you that what you are saying is morally reprehensible and your Catholic card should be revoked.

Not a good look.

[kalm]

Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.

Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?

If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.

So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.

The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.

Didn't you just champion the idea of due process a couple of posts ago? Insurrection is actually defined in the US Code, so it's not really just a fuzzy concept. Normally, when we're going to not only accuse but convict a person of a crime, that person is first considered innocent, next the government or whomever the plaintiff is brings their case to court trying to prove guilt, and then the defendant gets to challenge that case. Then it goes to a judge or jury and the verdict is rendered. And then either party not happy with the result can appeal it. None of that has happened here. Almost all of the automatically-enacting cheerleaders you've linked to here haven't advocated for any of that path. The dude in New Mexico was first convicted of a crime before the 14th amendment was applied.

Again, we can't just do anything and everything to dump Trump from the ticket just because we don't like him and he's a terrible person. Following the law, and say, trying to convict him of being an insurrectionist before we punish him for being one would seem to be the proper way to do it, that is, if due process is really something you care about. You seem to say you value and cherish it and then you seem ready to brush it aside if it means having to take an easier path, due process be damned. Your values are surprisingly fluid depending on the political question of the moment.

We've been dragging our feet on this for far too long - everyone saw what happened on 1/6/21 - we're almost 3 years from that right now. Congress should've removed him from office then and there, but they didn't. Someone, anyone, should've brought the insurrection charge anytime right after that. Or say after the 1/6 commission finished - almost a year ago now. Politics have stopped us from doing that - politics from Republicans that don't want to upset the populist mob that supports him, and politics from the Democrats who don't really seem to care about driving the train to the edge of the cliff, and maybe over it, as long as their odds of winning the White House improve.

Well the plain language of the 14A neither defines insurrection nor a process for determining it. And Trump is not being criminally charged in the Colorado case. He’s not facing criminal sentencing if proven to have participated. The State of Colorado is simply denying his eligibility to run for public office.

I get your argument and you may be proven right in how and on what grounds throws it out. But it seems like the Colorado court system is aware of what due process means and the implications.

[BDKJMU]

Start taking Biden off the ballot in red states for violating the constitution by fomenting an insurrection..

Let's take biden off the ballot in the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and Florida) and trump off the ballot in all the states governed where 14th Amendment claims are brought. Deal?

biden will step down at the Democratic Convention but trump's ego will prevent him from stepping down. The new Democratic nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the Republican nominee won't.

No. Biden’s has allowed an illegal alien invasion to infiltrate all 50 states.

[BDKJMU]

[GannonFan]

Didn't you just champion the idea of due process a couple of posts ago? Insurrection is actually defined in the US Code, so it's not really just a fuzzy concept. Normally, when we're going to not only accuse but convict a person of a crime, that person is first considered innocent, next the government or whomever the plaintiff is brings their case to court trying to prove guilt, and then the defendant gets to challenge that case. Then it goes to a judge or jury and the verdict is rendered. And then either party not happy with the result can appeal it. None of that has happened here. Almost all of the automatically-enacting cheerleaders you've linked to here haven't advocated for any of that path. The dude in New Mexico was first convicted of a crime before the 14th amendment was applied.

Again, we can't just do anything and everything to dump Trump from the ticket just because we don't like him and he's a terrible person. Following the law, and say, trying to convict him of being an insurrectionist before we punish him for being one would seem to be the proper way to do it, that is, if due process is really something you care about. You seem to say you value and cherish it and then you seem ready to brush it aside if it means having to take an easier path, due process be damned. Your values are surprisingly fluid depending on the political question of the moment.

We've been dragging our feet on this for far too long - everyone saw what happened on 1/6/21 - we're almost 3 years from that right now. Congress should've removed him from office then and there, but they didn't. Someone, anyone, should've brought the insurrection charge anytime right after that. Or say after the 1/6 commission finished - almost a year ago now. Politics have stopped us from doing that - politics from Republicans that don't want to upset the populist mob that supports him, and politics from the Democrats who don't really seem to care about driving the train to the edge of the cliff, and maybe over it, as long as their odds of winning the White House improve.

Well the plain language of the 14A neither defines insurrection nor a process for determining it. And Trump is not being criminally charged in the Colorado case. He’s not facing criminal sentencing if proven to have participated. The State of Colorado is simply denying his eligibility to run for public office.

I get your argument and you may be proven right in how and on what grounds throws it out. But it seems like the Colorado court system is aware of what due process means and the implications.

We prohibited alcohol once before in the Constitution, but we still needed a law to put it into practice. Not saying that analogy is perfect, but the sentiment is. We already have Congress, through the US Code, like we did with the Volstead Act, saying that insurrection is a crime and that there are fines and penalties for being convicted for it. Nowhere else would you or anyone else, except when it pertains to Trump, be arguing that we can just skip the actual trial, heck, we can even skip the actual indictment, and we can just assume that a person is guilty of insurrection and move on from there. And it's not like it's a hugely significant majority that supports your position that due process can be disregarded in this case - the same Colorado court system you tout was 4-3 in this matter, and the dissenting 3 made it very clear in their dissents that the majority simply disregarded due process. You can't punish Trump, and you can't punish anyone, without a trial (a real trial, not just a review of information).

Again, we can't short circuit and disregard the legal system because we're worried Trump could be elected and he could do the same thing folks are trying to do now by throwing away due process.

[GannonFan]

You know we're in the end-times when DeSantis actually stumbles into the right side on an issue. Sweet Moses, how did we get to this?!?!?!

[UNI88]

Let's take biden off the ballot in the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and Florida) and trump off the ballot in all the states governed where 14th Amendment claims are brought. Deal?

biden will step down at the Democratic Convention but trump's ego will prevent him from stepping down. The new Democratic nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the Republican nominee won't.

No. Biden’s has allowed an illegal alien invasion to infiltrate all 50 states.

So we keep trump off the ballot in every state that brings a 14th amendment case, every state where anyone convicted for a Jan 6 is a resident, every state with fraudulent elector slates, any state with a direction in its name, and any state trump has ever set foot in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

If it was a real insurrection the participants wouldn’t have acted like they were on a guided tour once inside

[UNI88]

If it was a real insurrection the participants wouldn’t have acted like they were on a guided tour once inside

That’s why I call it sedition.

What kind of idiot goes shirtless in a horned headdress or shits on a desk for a guided tour? He needs a vasectomy, someone that stupid shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

[BDKJMU]

Well looke here. The notion that ‘CREW’ the ‘Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington‘ is non partisan turns out is Fake News. Turns out they are just another Trump hating leftist group..

The Group That Led the Charge for Trump's Removal From the Colorado Ballot Funded Biden's Campaign
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2023/12 ... t-n2167824

[houndawg]

Other examples of attempting to manipulate the law to get your desired outcome:
- Asking the VP to not certify the election results
- Having slates of fraudulent electors
- Claiming that Presidential immunity applies to actions not related to official duties

I don't see you getting your undies in a bunch over those ...

Holy shit. Get therapy for your TDS. Really. You can't go one second without bringing Trump up in some sort of "but Trump" fashion.

Once again he deflects from the subject when confronted with facts.

....never occured to his simple self that somebody with nothing to hide would want his trial to start asap....SeaGulljizz, proof that kids get dumber every year

[kalm]

Well looke here. The notion that ‘CREW’ the ‘Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington‘ is non partisan turns out is Fake News. Turns out they are just another Trump hating leftist group..

The Group That Led the Charge for Trump's Removal From the Colorado Ballot Funded Biden's Campaign
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2023/12 ... t-n2167824

I assumed they were lefties from the start. They’ve also done some good work.

If you’re trying to say money in politics is bad, I fully agree.

[Caribbean Hen]

If it was a real insurrection the participants wouldn’t have acted like they were on a guided tour once inside

That’s why I call it sedition.

What kind of idiot goes shirtless in a horned headdress or shits on a desk for a guided tour? He needs a vasectomy, someone that stupid shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

Hunter says…

Hold my beer

[UNI88]

That’s why I call it sedition.

What kind of idiot goes shirtless in a horned headdress or shits on a desk for a guided tour? He needs a vasectomy, someone that stupid shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

trump says…

Hold my beer

FYP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

trump says…

Hold my beer

FYP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you would. Lol you love Trump apparently… serious crush

[UNI88]

FYP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you would. Lol you love Trump apparently… serious crush

trump by the numbers:
- 4 indictments
- 91 felony charges
- 26+ sexual assaults / rapes
- thousands of civil lawsuits
- 5 children by 3 different women
- 2 known payoffs to coverup extramarital affairs (with a porn star and playboy model to boot)
- incited 1 seditious riot
- I don’t know how many slates of fraudulent electors

The response to criticism of trump is tDS, but trump, and now crush?

Why nothing of substance? Because he and his family are at least as rotten as joey’s crime family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

- 4 indictments
- 91 felony charges

100% political lawfare

26+ sexual assaults / rapes

Accusations/zero criminal convictions

incited 1 seditious riot

Your optinion. Zero conviction of that.

Trump didn’t incite a seditious riot

My opinion. And it is just as vaild as yours

[Caribbean Hen]

Of course you would. Lol you love Trump apparently… serious crush

trump by the numbers:
- 4 indictments
- 91 felony charges
- 26+ sexual assaults / rapes
- thousands of civil lawsuits
- 5 children by 3 different women
- 2 known payoffs to coverup extramarital affairs (with a porn star and playboy model to boot)
- incited 1 seditious riot
- I don’t know how many slates of fraudulent electors

The response to criticism of trump is tDS, but trump, and now crush?

Why nothing of substance? Because he and his family are at least as rotten as joey’s crime family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you and the media are silent on Joey

[UNI88]

- 4 indictments
- 91 felony charges

100% political lawfare

26+ sexual assaults / rapes

Accusations/zero criminal convictions

incited 1 seditious riot

Your optinion. Zero conviction of that.

Trump didn’t incite a seditious riot

My opinion. And it is just as vaild as yours

Yes it’s my opinion that trump:

- Incited a seditious riot just like he’s intentionally said defamatory things about court personnel that has led to threats of violence against them. He has a history on inciting people to violence and then hiding from his own words like the chicken shit bone spurs coward he is.

- In another attempt to subvert American democracy for personnel gain, he instructed his minions to put together slates of fraudulent electors.

- He knowingly and intentionally obstructed the return of classified documents. Putting his ego before American security.

- He tried to cover up a bribe to a porn star (to cover up an extra marital) by calling it a legal expense.

The common theme here is that he puts his own ego and interests before the country.

There’s a whole lot more proof of trump’s wrong doings than there is of joey rotten and the biden crime family’s but that doesn’t stop gym jordan, comer and other MAGAt yahoos from getting their panties all wet talking about it.

I think those investigations and charges are valid. I also find he and his MAGAt yahoo followers complaining about them ironic (ie hypocritical) since trump has been using the courts to harass people for political and personal gain almost his entire adult life.

[UNI88]

trump by the numbers:
- 4 indictments
- 91 felony charges
- 26+ sexual assaults / rapes
- thousands of civil lawsuits
- 5 children by 3 different women
- 2 known payoffs to coverup extramarital affairs (with a porn star and playboy model to boot)
- incited 1 seditious riot
- I don’t know how many slates of fraudulent electors

The response to criticism of trump is tDS, but trump, and now crush?

Why nothing of substance? Because he and his family are at least as rotten as joey’s crime family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you and the media are silent on Joey

No I’m not. I’ve posted several times that I think biden is dirty and has profited from hunter’s activities and both should be investigated. In the end, I don’t think they’ll find enough evidence to convict.

There is certainly more evidence of trump’s malfeasance than there is of biden’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

100% political lawfare


Accusations/zero criminal convictions


Your optinion. Zero conviction of that.


My opinion. And it is just as vaild as yours

Yes it’s my opinion that trump:

-Incited a seditious riot

Lol if there was a shred of evidence that Trump incited a riot, your hero Jack Smith, in his legal assault on Trump, would have charged Trump with incitement. But he didn’t because he’s not stupid- he knows there’s zero chance of getting Trump on an incitement charge because there was no incitement.

[BDKJMU]

100% political lawfare


Accusations/zero criminal convictions


Your optinion. Zero conviction of that.


My opinion. And it is just as vaild as yours

Yes it’s my opinion that trump:

- Incited a seditious riot just like he’s intentionally said defamatory things about court personnel that has led to threats of violence against them. He has a history on inciting people to violence and then hiding from his own words like the chicken shit bone spurs coward he is.

- In another attempt to subvert American democracy for personnel gain, he instructed his minions to put together slates of fraudulent electors.

- He knowingly and intentionally obstructed the return of classified documents. Putting his ego before American security.

- He tried to cover up a bribe to a porn star (to cover up an extra marital) by calling it a legal expense.

The common theme here is that he puts his own ego and interests before the country.

There’s a whole lot more proof of trump’s wrong doings than there is of joey rotten and the biden crime family’s but that doesn’t stop gym jordan, comer and other MAGAt yahoos from getting their panties all wet talking about it.

I think those investigations and charges are valid. I also find he and his MAGAt yahoo followers complaining about them ironic (ie hypocritical) since trump has been using the courts to harass people for political and personal gain almost his entire adult life.

He’s talking about you