Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

(10-31-2023 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  That's such a massive stretch.

Why? If SCOTUS agrees with a lower court ruling, that means they interpreted that he is ineligible under the Constitution as they interpret it, right?

One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The courts said they would prefer hard facts, tangible legal theories, and/or proper parties before them as opposed to the rhetoric you cite above.

The Trump lawsuits in 2020 provided none of the three items above as required.

Well--it turns out a government has to actually investigate allegations to get that kind of data. It turns out that a government has to actually turn over the relevant data to allow the kind of labor intensive forensic audit that would reveal that kind of information. It turns out that courts that say you have no standing to file suit on a election law PRIOR to an election (because nobody has yet been injured by the law) are the same courts that say you have nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the same law after the election.

It turns out our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything untoward happened in 2020 because they fear that finding out there WAS wide spread fraud might forever damage confidence in our democratic institutions. They are probably not wrong on that----but I would submit that doing nothing in the face of reasonable and legitimate requests to verify that the mail in ballot system wasnt undermined is essentially yielding that exact same result.

(10-31-2023 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...

Quote:They also went back over the speech Trump made at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Simi said in earlier testimony that the speech has contextual cues that hinted at violence, with only one overt reference to marching peacefully to the capitol.

“For far-right extremists, there would be a clear understanding that fighting is the real message, not being peaceful,” Simi said in his earlier testimony.

Judge Wallace broke in during that testimony to question his assumption.

“Is it your testimony that if you had watched that speech and nothing had happened, that you would have the same view? I mean, I guess what worries me with all of this is it's all kind of in 2020 hindsight,” said the judge.

Simi said his interpretation of the speech is independent of what happened at the Capitol in the following hours.

“I was already concerned, certainly, about the precursors to January 6th and that speech in real-time, given the language, the reference, the amount of emphasis on fighting, that would've given me very, very substantial concern that violence would be soon to follow,” he said.

bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...

Quote:They also went back over the speech Trump made at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Simi said in earlier testimony that the speech has contextual cues that hinted at violence, with only one overt reference to marching peacefully to the capitol.

“For far-right extremists, there would be a clear understanding that fighting is the real message, not being peaceful,” Simi said in his earlier testimony.

Judge Wallace broke in during that testimony to question his assumption.

“Is it your testimony that if you had watched that speech and nothing had happened, that you would have the same view? I mean, I guess what worries me with all of this is it's all kind of in 2020 hindsight,” said the judge.

Simi said his interpretation of the speech is independent of what happened at the Capitol in the following hours.

“I was already concerned, certainly, about the precursors to January 6th and that speech in real-time, given the language, the reference, the amount of emphasis on fighting, that would've given me very, very substantial concern that violence would be soon to follow,” he said.

bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  That's such a massive stretch.

Why? If SCOTUS agrees with a lower court ruling, that means they interpreted that he is ineligible under the Constitution as they interpret it, right?

One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The Supreme Court, despite Democratic rhetoric, made a decision to keep the courts out of it in Florida in 2000. The Democratic Florida court was trying to cherry pick recounts to tilt the count to Gore.

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...

Quote:They also went back over the speech Trump made at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Simi said in earlier testimony that the speech has contextual cues that hinted at violence, with only one overt reference to marching peacefully to the capitol.

“For far-right extremists, there would be a clear understanding that fighting is the real message, not being peaceful,” Simi said in his earlier testimony.

Judge Wallace broke in during that testimony to question his assumption.

“Is it your testimony that if you had watched that speech and nothing had happened, that you would have the same view? I mean, I guess what worries me with all of this is it's all kind of in 2020 hindsight,” said the judge.

Simi said his interpretation of the speech is independent of what happened at the Capitol in the following hours.

“I was already concerned, certainly, about the precursors to January 6th and that speech in real-time, given the language, the reference, the amount of emphasis on fighting, that would've given me very, very substantial concern that violence would be soon to follow,” he said.

bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

(10-31-2023 04:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...

Quote:They also went back over the speech Trump made at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Simi said in earlier testimony that the speech has contextual cues that hinted at violence, with only one overt reference to marching peacefully to the capitol.

“For far-right extremists, there would be a clear understanding that fighting is the real message, not being peaceful,” Simi said in his earlier testimony.

Judge Wallace broke in during that testimony to question his assumption.

“Is it your testimony that if you had watched that speech and nothing had happened, that you would have the same view? I mean, I guess what worries me with all of this is it's all kind of in 2020 hindsight,” said the judge.

Simi said his interpretation of the speech is independent of what happened at the Capitol in the following hours.

“I was already concerned, certainly, about the precursors to January 6th and that speech in real-time, given the language, the reference, the amount of emphasis on fighting, that would've given me very, very substantial concern that violence would be soon to follow,” he said.

bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

hence, my response and the post in "if you had to cherry pick a song...." thread....

of course it is ... for those of faith ,... God, help us moving forward!!!

(10-31-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Summary of what has transpired in the Colorado courtroom.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/live-upda...do-ballot/

I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...

Quote:They also went back over the speech Trump made at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Simi said in earlier testimony that the speech has contextual cues that hinted at violence, with only one overt reference to marching peacefully to the capitol.

“For far-right extremists, there would be a clear understanding that fighting is the real message, not being peaceful,” Simi said in his earlier testimony.

Judge Wallace broke in during that testimony to question his assumption.

“Is it your testimony that if you had watched that speech and nothing had happened, that you would have the same view? I mean, I guess what worries me with all of this is it's all kind of in 2020 hindsight,” said the judge.

Simi said his interpretation of the speech is independent of what happened at the Capitol in the following hours.

“I was already concerned, certainly, about the precursors to January 6th and that speech in real-time, given the language, the reference, the amount of emphasis on fighting, that would've given me very, very substantial concern that violence would be soon to follow,” he said.

bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

hence, my response and the post in "if you had to cherry pick a song...." thread....

of course it is ... for those of faith ,... God, help us moving forward!!!

The fact that the judge hasn't tossed it already is a bad sign for the integrity of our justice system.

(10-31-2023 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...



bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

hence, my response and the post in "if you had to cherry pick a song...." thread....

of course it is ... for those of faith ,... God, help us moving forward!!!

The fact that the judge hasn't tossed it already is a bad sign for the integrity of our justice system.

maybe now, you fully understand why I'm so adamant about what has become the ubiquitous response (and we have another year .... I'm gonna wear AM's TDS' arse out with the following and how it's all intertwined)

@>270EVsBlueBakedInn(237) ... (AM)

(10-31-2023 12:25 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  A court case is underway in Colorado as our idiot progressive SOS pushes to have Trump thrown off the ballot. More 'muh insurrection' nonsense.

If they succeed here, expect the appeals to go all the way to The Supreme Court.

CO SecState Griswold: ‘Real Questions’ if the Constitution Disqualifies Trump from Presidency

Quote:Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) Monday on CNN’s”News Central” that there were “real questions” about whether the Constitution disqualified former President Donald Trump from running for president or being seated in the office.

Anchor John Berman said, “In Denver, court proceedings under way and you are are looking at live picture right now to see if section 3 of the 14th Amendment should keep Donald Trump off of the presidential ballot. Let me read it, ‘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.'”

Griswold said, “Yes, that is right. With this court case, we are hoping that it is giving guidance to ballots across the nation. We have never had this type of situation occur where a sitting president incites the insurrection and then had the audacity to run again. So there are real questions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies him. I am looking forward to the judge giving guidance on the topic.”

She continued, “I will follow whatever court determination is in place by the time I certify the ballot. I do believe that Donald Trump incited the insurrection.”

Griswold added, “So did his actions rise to the level of disqualification, and who gets to determine that? Is it me, The court? Would it bar him from ballot access or just being seated in office if he was disqualified? There is disagreement, and this is why it is appropriate for the court to weigh in right now.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/10/...residency/

Elector?

elector
ĭ-lĕk′tər
noun
A qualified voter in an election.
A member of the Electoral College of the United States.
One of the German princes of the Holy Roman Empire entitled to elect the emperor.

I don't think the quoted section of the constitution means what they think it does.

(10-31-2023 02:12 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Just remember.....Tom fancies himself the smart one here.

He is good for entertainment. I'll give him that.

That’s the way all liberals are. Believe they are so smart, and most are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

(10-31-2023 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  That's such a massive stretch.

Why? If SCOTUS agrees with a lower court ruling, that means they interpreted that he is ineligible under the Constitution as they interpret it, right?

One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The courts said they would prefer hard facts, tangible legal theories, and/or proper parties before them as opposed to the rhetoric you cite above.

The Trump lawsuits in 2020 provided none of the three items above as required.

Well--it turns out a government has to actually investigate allegations to get that kind of data. It turns out that a government has to actually turn over the relevant data to allow the kind of labor intensive forensic audit that would reveal that kind of information. It turns out that courts that say you have no standing to file suit on a election law PRIOR to an election (because nobody has yet been injured by the law) are the same courts that say you have nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the same law after the election.

It turns out our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything untoward happened in 2020 because they fear that finding out there WAS wide spread fraud might forever damage confidence in our democratic institutions. They are probably not wrong on that----but I would submit that doing nothing in the face of reasonable and legitimate requests to verify that the mail in ballot system wasnt undermined is essentially yielding that exact same result.

(10-31-2023 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I made it to 'arguments based on assumptions' ... yeah, NFS ... good job, judge...



bwahahahahahahahahaha ... cue tanq-0-rang to explain muh insurrection-isms...

it gets even better from the clown show....

Quote:11:11 a.m. Extremist expert draws connections between Trump and far right

Simi spent the morning going over specific tweets and interviews that Trump delivered leading up to Jan. 6th and arguing there is a shared language between Trump and far right extremists.

He said far right extremists were galvanized, energized and mobilized by Trump’s call for them to be there on Jan. 6th, especially his now-infamous tweet urging “Be there, will be wild!”

Simi said Trump framed the stolen election as an existential threat that needed to be fended off, and required his supporters to act in their own self defense.

“The existential threat was to no longer have Donald Trump in power and having that taken away from them… but also more broad than that, that our country is on the verge of being taken away from us.”

He said this idea of theft and having things stolen is consistent with a broader world view that far right extremists tend to have.

The petitioners are making the case that the lead up to Jan. 6th was the confluence of Trump, the Big Lie of a stolen election and preceding episodes of extremist violence.

“I’ve never seen anything in recent history like this,” Simi said of Trump’s language that he believes encouraged and inspired people to engage in violence.

Trump’s attorneys started their cross examination of Simi just before lunch, opening with questions about whether any of the extremists who participated in his research over the years were involved in Jan. 6th. Simi says the answer is complicated, but he doesn’t believe any of them were.

Trump’s lead attorney Scott Gessler said yesterday that his side will show Trump did not call for violence.

“Nothing has ever asked for violence, nothing has ever urged anything remotely close to an insurrection. He's asked people to behave patriotically, peacefully, respect law enforcement. He said ‘peace’ multiple times on January 6th,” said Gessler. “Stuff that any politician or any president would be proud to say.”

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

hence, my response and the post in "if you had to cherry pick a song...." thread....

of course it is ... for those of faith ,... God, help us moving forward!!!

The fact that the judge hasn't tossed it already is a bad sign for the integrity of our justice system.

The judge is not only an appointed judge but a recent Dem donor. This is why we are here.

(10-31-2023 06:53 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  it gets even better from the clown show....


nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .... zero fact other than muh puzzy hat fagoo-isms....

His argument is really stupid.

But the judge shouldn't even allow the idiotic argument.

Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Has he been convicted of anything?
Its a frivolous suit. Should the Colorado DA take it to the Supreme Court I hope they throw him in jail for contempt of court.

hence, my response and the post in "if you had to cherry pick a song...." thread....

of course it is ... for those of faith ,... God, help us moving forward!!!

The fact that the judge hasn't tossed it already is a bad sign for the integrity of our justice system.

The judge is not only an appointed judge but a recent Dem donor. This is why we are here.

and there ya have it boys and gals (and let's not forget the its) ... it now makes perfect 'cents' ...

(10-31-2023 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  That's such a massive stretch.

Why? If SCOTUS agrees with a lower court ruling, that means they interpreted that he is ineligible under the Constitution as they interpret it, right?

One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The courts said they would prefer hard facts, tangible legal theories, and/or proper parties before them as opposed to the rhetoric you cite above.

The Trump lawsuits in 2020 provided none of the three items above as required.

Well--it turns out a government has to actually investigate allegations to get that kind of data.

You mean like Raffesnberger's office did prior to Trump telling him to find 11k votes?

Quote:It turns out that courts that say you have no standing to file suit on a election law PRIOR to an election (because nobody has yet been injured by the law) are the same courts that say you have nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the same law after the election.

Actually, no that isnt quite what happened. Pretty much a gross mischaracterization.

Not to mention the vast number of lawsuits that actually didnt even have the correct parties as plaintiffs.

Not to mention the many really fked up legal theories of intervention that were thrown against the wall.

The courts actually got the cases right.

My suggestion for the future is to actually: a) get the correct plaintiffs to sue; b) come to court with enough evidence to move forward; c) dont make up farcical legal theories to get lawsuits in the door; d) dont ask for stupendously unfair relief that isnt ever going to get granted.

Each of the 62 cases filed had one or more of the above that made them pretty much fatally deficient at the outset.

Quote:It turns out our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything untoward happened in 2020 because they fear that finding out there WAS wide spread fraud might forever damage confidence in our democratic institutions.

Because each of the plaintiffs in the above 62 cases had serious, fatal problems in their own cases at the outset -- that becomes "our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything". I'd say that if any of the 62 actually crossed the threshold of being less than a stillborn stupid example of a lawsuit, we might be able to judge that comment. None of them did, though. So the comment becomes the ultimate excuse, I guess.

Quote: They are probably not wrong on that----but I would submit that doing nothing in the face of reasonable and legitimate requests to verify that the mail in ballot system wasnt undermined is essentially yielding that exact same result.

If you want to point at the issue for them 'doing nothing' -- point your finger at the morons who drafted the lawsuits in the beginning. The fault in the 62 suits lies there -- not in the kneejerk excuse of the courts.

(10-31-2023 07:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why? If SCOTUS agrees with a lower court ruling, that means they interpreted that he is ineligible under the Constitution as they interpret it, right?

One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The courts said they would prefer hard facts, tangible legal theories, and/or proper parties before them as opposed to the rhetoric you cite above.

The Trump lawsuits in 2020 provided none of the three items above as required.

Well--it turns out a government has to actually investigate allegations to get that kind of data.

You mean like Raffesnberger's office did prior to Trump telling him to find 11k votes?

Quote:It turns out that courts that say you have no standing to file suit on a election law PRIOR to an election (because nobody has yet been injured by the law) are the same courts that say you have nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the same law after the election.

Actually, no that isnt quite what happened. Pretty much a gross mischaracterization.

Not to mention the vast number of lawsuits that actually didnt even have the correct parties as plaintiffs.

Not to mention the many really fked up legal theories of intervention that were thrown against the wall.

The courts actually got the cases right.

My suggestion for the future is to actually: a) get the correct plaintiffs to sue; b) come to court with enough evidence to move forward; c) dont make up farcical legal theories to get lawsuits in the door; d) dont ask for stupendously unfair relief that isnt ever going to get granted.

Each of the 62 cases filed had one or more of the above that made them pretty much fatally deficient at the outset.

Quote:It turns out our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything untoward happened in 2020 because they fear that finding out there WAS wide spread fraud might forever damage confidence in our democratic institutions.

Because each of the plaintiffs in the above 62 cases had serious, fatal problems in their own cases at the outset -- that becomes "our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything". I'd say that if any of the 62 actually crossed the threshold of being less than a stillborn stupid example of a lawsuit, we might be able to judge that comment. None of them did, though. So the comment becomes the ultimate excuse, I guess.

Quote: They are probably not wrong on that----but I would submit that doing nothing in the face of reasonable and legitimate requests to verify that the mail in ballot system wasnt undermined is essentially yielding that exact same result.

If you want to point at the issue for them 'doing nothing' -- point your finger at the morons who drafted the lawsuits in the beginning. The fault in the 62 suits lies there -- not in the kneejerk excuse of the courts.

therefore, all those words back up what Owl #s stated all along (and what the board agreed with at that time ... I can't think of anyone that argued that specific point) ... 'can't get it back once they're in the kitty' ... @idiom

at least you're right about the idiots that drafted those lawsuits ... they should be flipping burgers at best ... somehow, they passed the bar, Ja?! ...  

btw, none of this has a g'dammed thingy to do with the case in this thread ... just fk, mayun!

It's just virtue signaling. If he can't win there's no reason to keep him off the ballot, & he can't win CO anyways

(10-31-2023 07:41 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  It's just virtue signaling. If he can't win there's no reason to keep him off the ballot, & he can't win CO anyways

it's called "setting precedent" ... mayun, that's one of the many reasons we're in this stupid shitestorm as it exists today ... some said the same about cali in '78 when they adopted muh mail-it-in balloting....

#yikes!

(10-31-2023 07:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 07:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing we discovered about the courts in 2020----they generally turned out to be extremely reticent to have court decisions decide elections. In general---they indicated they would prefer dirty cheating fraud filled flawed elections over being placed in a position where a court would determine winners and losers. Zero chance this removal of Trump for the ballot will pass a SC challenge. The judges with that type of power arent that stupid. Something like that could cause the kind of real life strife we only see in banana republics---which just goes to show you just how incredibly extreme and ridiculously power hungry the Democrats have become in the last 3 year since Covid gave that group a taste for true totalitarian power. Pretty chilling.

The courts said they would prefer hard facts, tangible legal theories, and/or proper parties before them as opposed to the rhetoric you cite above.

The Trump lawsuits in 2020 provided none of the three items above as required.

Well--it turns out a government has to actually investigate allegations to get that kind of data.

You mean like Raffesnberger's office did prior to Trump telling him to find 11k votes?

Quote:It turns out that courts that say you have no standing to file suit on a election law PRIOR to an election (because nobody has yet been injured by the law) are the same courts that say you have nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the same law after the election.

Actually, no that isnt quite what happened. Pretty much a gross mischaracterization.

Not to mention the vast number of lawsuits that actually didnt even have the correct parties as plaintiffs.

Not to mention the many really fked up legal theories of intervention that were thrown against the wall.

The courts actually got the cases right.

My suggestion for the future is to actually: a) get the correct plaintiffs to sue; b) come to court with enough evidence to move forward; c) dont make up farcical legal theories to get lawsuits in the door; d) dont ask for stupendously unfair relief that isnt ever going to get granted.

Each of the 62 cases filed had one or more of the above that made them pretty much fatally deficient at the outset.

Quote:It turns out our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything untoward happened in 2020 because they fear that finding out there WAS wide spread fraud might forever damage confidence in our democratic institutions.

Because each of the plaintiffs in the above 62 cases had serious, fatal problems in their own cases at the outset -- that becomes "our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything". I'd say that if any of the 62 actually crossed the threshold of being less than a stillborn stupid example of a lawsuit, we might be able to judge that comment. None of them did, though. So the comment becomes the ultimate excuse, I guess.

Quote: They are probably not wrong on that----but I would submit that doing nothing in the face of reasonable and legitimate requests to verify that the mail in ballot system wasnt undermined is essentially yielding that exact same result.

If you want to point at the issue for them 'doing nothing' -- point your finger at the morons who drafted the lawsuits in the beginning. The fault in the 62 suits lies there -- not in the kneejerk excuse of the courts.

therefore, all those words back up what Owl #s stated all along (and what the board agreed with at that time ... I can't think of anyone that argued that specific point) ... 'can't get it back once they're in the kitty' ... @idiom

Bingo.

Quote:at least you're right about the idiots that drafted those lawsuits ... they should be flipping burgers at best ... somehow, they passed the bar, Ja?! ...  

Double bingo. At least get a proper party as the plaintiff. That error happened *a lot*. Absolutely irresponsible by the filing attorney.

Quote:btw, none of this has a g'dammed thingy to do with the case in this thread ... just fk, mayun!

I just saw the comment on the injustice of the legal system and the lawsuits, and responded. Guilty for continuing it.

(10-31-2023 07:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Because each of the plaintiffs in the above 62 cases had serious, fatal problems in their own cases at the outset -- that becomes "our justice system really doesnt want to know if anything". I'd say that if any of the 62 actually crossed the threshold of being less than a stillborn stupid example of a lawsuit, we might be able to judge that comment. None of them did, though. So the comment becomes the ultimate excuse, I guess.

But...as I'm sure you're aware...literally NONE of those cases were ever brought to actually find any massive fraud or prove a stolen election. Mostly because it just didn't happen.

Instead, they were brought to keep the ruse going. To keep donations flowing. To keep the masses riled up to push the big lie. To continue to sow doubt in the election results. To bolster the ego of the maniacal trump who cannot except losing......