Trump disqualified from CO ballot

[UncleMark]

I'll call your Turley and raise you with a Luttig:

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

Haley would be a slam dunk nomination for the Republicans.

I’m not sure she’d get much support from the trump crowd which is a massive group. I’m listening to the patriot right now in the car, on the front line of truth, and tucker and alll of them don’t like her.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I’m not sure she’d get much support from the trump crowd which is a massive group. I’m listening to the patriot right now in the car, on the front line of truth, and tucker and alll of them don’t like her.

Patriot radio doesn't like an ethnic woman. Go figure.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Patriot radio doesn't like an ethnic woman. Go figure.

yup they really don't like her. that's hte meat of the party now. she's a no-go.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I'll call your Turley and raise you with a Luttig:

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

JR

: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all. Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Again, it’s the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the Constitution tells us is anti-democratic.

That’s the lamest non answer answer I’ve ever seen.

It’s NOT undemocratic to keep Trump off the ballot because Trumps CONDUCT was undemocratic.

As determined, of course, by these 4 people.

Therefore, allowing him on the ballot would be undemocratic.

Wait, what?

 

[zeke4ahs]

No he didn't. You morons keep saying that and he did nothing illegal to change the election. Challenges happen all the time.

People try to rob banks all the time and are unsuccessful. We should just let them go so they can try again.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'll call your Turley and raise you with a Luttig:

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

I’d love to go one on one with that guy. According to him, those who advocate and support NPV are engaged in an insurrection. Those who actively protest Dobbs are engaged in an insurrection. “Insurrection” must mean more than speech.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'll call your Turley and raise you with a Luttig:

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

i don't think that judge has it right. his analysis is wrong. to get to insurrection you first have to show that the president falls under section 3 as an officer of the court. But who knows I could have it all wrong

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

yup they really don't like her. that's hte meat of the party now. she's a no-go.

I've been telling you guys since at least 2016 if not earlier that she would make a great president but the Repubs would never nominate her.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I've been telling you guys since at least 2016 if not earlier that she would make a great president but the Repubs would never nominate her.

she's a tater son. can't even carry sc. she's got no chance. personally i don't care. i'd be fine with her. but she won't have the support of the tens of millions operating on the frontlines of truth and the coots back trump so even her own state won't back her

 

[Bloom.]

Trump did much more than "give a speech."

That said, how was he found to have committed insurrection in Colorado? Was there a trial? Witnesses? Does a Colorado state court have jurisdiction to even try him for insurrection?

Do we really think the 14th Amendment set up a process for 50 different trials in 50 different jurisdictions before someone could be placed on the ballot for the Presidency in each state?

Do any of those questions matter if the Constitution dictates he can't hold office?

If it's determined he can't hold office, then why should he be on the ballot?

Each state and territory has criteria to be on the ballot, and I assume each is different to some degree. I would assume some language deals with eligibility issues that separate from viability as a candidate.

 

[Bloom.]

So it's just your opinion.

Not very convincing.

I can imagine you rocking yourself to sleep tonight, saying out loud, "Uncle Mark doesn't have any proof. It'll all be OK."

 

[travlinhoosier]

Is that an appropriate analogy?

Yes. Both engaged in insurrection.

 

[Indyhorn]

Trump never fired a shot against the United States, nor did he command others to do so. All he did was give a speech. Calling that an insurrection will cause problems that we can never solve.

This and the Smith trials will forever change the nature of the office of president. .

Have you never heard of the Green Bay Sweep and Peter Navarro? Fake electors and trying to reverse an electoral defeat is not a mere speech

 

[IU_Hickory]

Have you never heard of the Green Bay Sweep and Peter Navarro? Fake electors and trying to reverse an electoral defeat is not a mere speech

CO will defend anything conservative. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense or even true.

 

[IU_Hickory]

MSN

Republicans want to get revenge and remove Biden from ballots....Now they have to search for a valid reason to do so....just like their circus of an impeachment investigation.

 

[outside shooter]

Wouldn't the secondary job title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" pretty clearly indicate that he, or any president, is indeed an officer of the United States?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Have you never heard of the Green Bay Sweep and Peter Navarro? Fake electors and trying to reverse an electoral defeat is not a mere speech

It wasn’t marching to the Capitol with the pretorian guard either.

Politicians frequently lie about politics, including elections. They did that in 2016. Abusing our system might be a crime, it can’t be an insurrection if we hope to preserve the system.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Wouldn't the secondary job title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" pretty clearly indicate that he, or any president, is indeed an officer of the United States?

He salutes people so Trump definitely saw himself as an officer lol

 

[IU_Hickory]

It wasn’t marching to the Capitol with the pretorian guard either.

Politicians frequently lie about politics, including elections. They did that in 2016. Abusing our system might be a crime, it can’t be an insurrection if we hope to preserve the system.

Trump wasn't there because his secret service stopped him. Wasn't for lack of trying.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Is the President an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment? — NYU Journal of Law & Liberty

www.nyujll.com

messy

Wouldn't the secondary job title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" pretty clearly indicate that he, or any president, is indeed an officer of the United States?

 

[Bill4411]

Unfortunately, the Senate did not remove Trump from office when it had the chance. Thanks, Mitch you outsmarted yourself!

 

[mcmurtry66]

Do any of those questions matter if the Constitution dictates he can't hold office?

If it's determined he can't hold office, then why should he be on the ballot?

Each state and territory has criteria to be on the ballot, and I assume each is different to some degree. I would assume some language deals with eligibility issues that separate from viability as a candidate.

where does the constitution dictate that. show us. or you just using your i hate trump feelings again?

 

[cosmickid]

Yes it did. So you impute those idiots behavior to Trump. I think the 14th contemplates more direct action.

When was he ever convicted of sedition? When was he ever charged with it?

This is 100% bullshit and is election tampering.

It's a shameful day for America.

I’d like to debate both of professors. Believing an election is the result of fraud cannot be an insurrection. All that mumbo jumbo about force fraud, and intimidation is argument without evidence. The fact that his allegations were frivolous and wrong does not make an insurrection.

All good questions. Unfortunately, the politics of the judges and justices predetermined the outcome.

I don't really have a dog in the fight about whether he will be on the CO ballot or not. But if I'm going to entertain right wing "experts" weighing in on the question, I think I'd value the opinion of a recognized scholar and experienced Appellate justice like Michael Luttig over the experts on this board.

A decade on the 4th Circuit, traditional Conservative and the legal expert Pence turned to for advice when Trump presented his illegitimate scheme. Also a pre-Jan 6 Trump supporter who has argued vociferously that it's a Consitutional, rather than political ruling.

Obviously an ex-Federal Justice like Luttig can't compete with DANC's brilliance on the issue of Constitutional law, but I'd argue he's a pretty fair country lawyer nevertheless. I also think that Mark's point about Jefferson Davis likely refutes DANC's narrow interpretation of the 14th.

Both the trial court and CO SC ruled that Trump participated in an insurrection vs the Constitution, likely by giving aid and comfort to those that sought to undermine it. The difference is the trial court initially ruled that it did not apply to a POTUS, while the CO SC (and Luttig) disagree...

 

[Bloom.]

where does the constitution dictate that. show us. or you just using your i hate trump feelings again?

Clearly, the Colorado courts think so. You think that's enough for me to form an opinion on the topic, or do you just want to lump anyone who disagrees with you as merely a Trump hater?

 

[cosmickid]

When the world's #1 Trump hater Frank Luntz believes you screwed up...

View embedded media

Nobody with at least 1/2 a brain would list Frank Lutz as among the top 100 "Trump haters", much less "the world's # 1 Trump hater". Where do you find these absolute morons to continue to reference?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Clearly, the Colorado courts think so. You think that's enough for me to form an opinion on the topic, or do you just want to lump anyone who disagrees with you as merely a Trump hater?

So you can’t show it. Just more hot air from you.

 

[Bloom.]

So you can’t show it. Just more hot air from you.

We're talking about 14th, section 3. You know that. You've become a belligerent fool lately. Go buy yourself some sex or drink yourself into a stupor and get over yourself. I don't care about your holiday blues.

 

[outside shooter]

I will ask again of dmb, Co.H. Murt, any others...

If a person holds the title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" then which is it:

a) He or she is an officer of the United States
b) He or she is NOT an officer of the United States

Keep in mind, this person (the POTUS & CIC) has the authority to directly order actions by military generals.

It seems pretty clear to me, but IANAL (thank God).

 

[mcmurtry66]

We're talking about 14th, section 3. You know that. You've become a belligerent fool lately. Go buy yourself some sex or drink yourself into a stupor and get over yourself. I don't care about your holiday blues.

Show me where it “dictates” that the president be removed. Show me the quote

 

[mcmurtry66]

I will ask again of dmb, Co.H. Murt, any others...

If a person holds the title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" then which is it:

a) He or she is an officer of the United States
b) He or she is NOT an officer of the United States

Keep in mind, this person (the POTUS & CIC) has the authority to directly order actions by military generals.

It seems pretty clear to me, but IANAL (thank God).

Read the article I linked from nyu law. What’s more an officer (I believe) has different meanings throughout the constitution as it involves appointments etc

You have to get away from thinking about it in today’s terms

 

[Bloom.]

Show me where it “dictates” that the president be removed. Show me the quote

LOL take it up with the Colorado court. I was asking a question. You want to play semantics.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

There you go, just so we're clear on the language. The prescribed authority is right there for your eyes to read. How it applies is up for the courts to decide. I know as much as you want to nitpick a word I use, you're not an authority on the subject, and your opinion, like mine, will have no bearing on how it plays out.

 

[IU_Hickory]

I will ask again of dmb, Co.H. Murt, any others...

If a person holds the title of "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States" then which is it:

a) He or she is an officer of the United States
b) He or she is NOT an officer of the United States

Keep in mind, this person (the POTUS & CIC) has the authority to directly order actions by military generals.

It seems pretty clear to me, but IANAL (thank God).

Apparently there is absolutely no reason to have a president swear to the oath of office.

"and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Don't see anywhere that says the President is above the constitution but maybe I missed that part.

 

[mcmurtry66]

LOL take it up with the Colorado court. I was asking a question. You want to play semantics.




There you go, just so we're clear on the language. The prescribed authority is right there for your eyes to read. How it applies is up for the courts to decide. I know as much as you want to nitpick a word I use, you're not an authority on the subject, and your opinion, like mine, will have no bearing on how it plays out.

So show me where it reads who previously had taken an oath as president. Bc remember. You said the constitution dictates it. Show me where

 

[cosmickid]

View embedded media

Turley more or less wrecked what little credibility he had when he jumped the gun on declaring Hunter paying Joe $1100/mo for three months in 2018, was somehow evidence of an illegal transfer of funds and grounds for impeachment...

Of course it was barely an hour or 2 later when the old NY Post story from 2021 re-emerged about how some of the emails hacked from HB's hard drive described how he had to borrow $$ from Joe to purchase a truck, and those payemnts were part of the agreement. The old Post story even included a photo of Hunter,Joe and the salesman standing in front of the truck on a lot in Wilmington in 2017 as the deal was made.

The hilarious irony is that the Murdoch owned Post printed the article as a sort of negative hit piece on Hunter's inability to manage his money. But while it may have been that in 2021, in 2023 it just serves to make fools of idiots like Turley,Comer,Jordan etc... who tried to point to the loan repayments as a smoking gun.

IIRC you fell for it as well...

 

[outside shooter]

You said the constitution dictates it. Show me where

It's been posted over and over again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can’t serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.”

So the key issue is whether the Commander in Chief of the United States Military is a civil or military office of the United States.

That's like asking if the Chief Executive Officer of (say) Facebook holds an office in that company.

seems like "duh.... yes" to me.

How about you?

 

[mcmurtry66]

It's been posted over and over again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can’t serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.”

So the key issue is whether the Commander in Chief of the United States Military is a civil or military office of the United States.

That's like asking if the Chief Executive Officer of (say) Facebook holds an office in that company.

seems like "duh.... yes" to me.

How about you?

I hate all that shit. Commander in chief doesn’t mean anything for that def imo. And again meanings then don’t necessarily comport with today. All that stuff is annoying

 

[IU_Hickory]

It's been posted over and over again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says oath-breaking insurrectionists can’t serve as senators, representatives, presidential electors, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.”

So the key issue is whether the Commander in Chief of the United States Military is a civil or military office of the United States.

That's like asking if the Chief Executive Officer of (say) Facebook holds an office in that company.

seems like "duh.... yes" to me.

How about you?

Trump didn't hold an office....he was in the oval...um room yea, oval room.

 

[Ohio Guy]

LOL - Vivek Ramaswamy threatens to remove his name from the Colorado ballot in response to Trump being removed.

Dan Crenshaw with the sick burn.

 

[Bloom.]

So show me where it reads who previously had taken an oath as president. Bc remember. You said the constitution dictates it. Show me where

You don't think the head of the executive branch is an officer of the United States?

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html