SCOTUS Will Hear Colorado Removing Trump From Ballot Case Update SCOTUS Reverses CO SC 9-0.

[T master]

On 1/5/2024 at 6:14 PM, BillStime said:

 

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about being charged?

 

 

 

Well maybe if he wouldn't have said to march peacefully to the capital and said go burn that place down he could have been charged but as usual y'all are reaching for anything you can get .

 

I bet if you start a go fund me page Steel can write up something else for you all !! 

[daz28]

20 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Well maybe if he wouldn't have said to march peacefully to the capital and said go burn that place down he could have been charged but as usual y'all are reaching for anything you can get .

 

I bet if you start a go fund me page Steel can write up something else for you all !! 

They already knew violence was likely.  The die had already been cast.  If we ever get a trial, you'll better understand the fake electors plots.  I can't make you research the evidence that is already out there, but the trial will make it clear:  

 

It also details private phone calls in the days before the Jan. 6 attack between Trump and Pence, who took “contemporaneous notes” of the conversations, according to the indictment. In one of them, Trump allegedly told the former Vice President he was “too honest" after Pence said he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally reject the election results. The indictment says Trump attorney John Eastman also pressured Pence to subvert the Electoral College certification. After a senior aide warned that such a maneuver would galvanize riots in the streets, Eastman allegedly argued that “there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic.”

Pence responded to the indictment on Tuesday with a statement, saying in part: “On January 6th, Former President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. I chose the Constitution and I always will.”

[T master]

15 hours ago, daz28 said:

They already knew violence was likely.  The die had already been cast.  If we ever get a trial, you'll better understand the fake electors plots.  I can't make you research the evidence that is already out there, but the trial will make it clear:  

 

It also details private phone calls in the days before the Jan. 6 attack between Trump and Pence, who took “contemporaneous notes” of the conversations, according to the indictment. In one of them, Trump allegedly told the former Vice President he was “too honest" after Pence said he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally reject the election results. The indictment says Trump attorney John Eastman also pressured Pence to subvert the Electoral College certification. After a senior aide warned that such a maneuver would galvanize riots in the streets, Eastman allegedly argued that “there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic.”

Pence responded to the indictment on Tuesday with a statement, saying in part: “On January 6th, Former President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. I chose the Constitution and I always will.”

 

Question - If all this is documented and they have these conversations that you say they have which is indisputable evidence against the guy then why is there no verdict of guilt ? And if guilty why isn't he behind bars ? 

 

I don't care if he is God all mighty if he's guilty then throw his ass in jail !! All ya'll keep saying there is all of this evidence against him but no one ever comes out with something rock solid to put his ass away .

 

Just like this latest thing that BT posted about some guy coming out with a book and in the book he says that Trump says something about Hitler alls that is is a he said he said but if there is the kind of damming evidence that ya'll constantly bring up then give a link or something .

 

Just because you BT, Tibs, say this doesn't mean I'm jumping on that train but if you have researched it & know where this link is then don't just go I said put a link out & prove by more than 1 person saying it have a collaborate a story if for nothing else because there is so much bias & out right hate for this guy I'm not like y'all just because someone like Richard Steel puts out a paper that says this & the that i'm going to believe it unlike some in & out of gov't .

 

Then there is the fact that the gal climbing through the window UNARMED shot & killed, was this handled differently ?

 

Sure as hell was you can bet your ass if it was the other way around & it was a Trump supporter that shot someone like the kid that shot the guys during the "Peaceful protests" and went through a court case to prove it was self defense that they would have been in every news paper & TV news that they could put it on .

 

So lets have it even across the board they drug the orange man through the mud because of the documents but they haven't Biden because it's been said that if so they would the finding would tell that he's old & forgets what he's done so just treat them both the same not one this way & one the other way that's BS ...

Edited March 13 by T master

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                        

 

 

 

 

.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

30 minutes ago, T master said:

Just because you BT, Tibs, say this doesn't mean I'm jumping on that train

ya know, why don't you research the issues yourself like we do?  Read the indictments that daz mentioned.  they're publicly available and present the evidence concisely.  They're unfiltered by the media that you are so suspicious of.

[ChiGoose]

32 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Question - If all this is documented and they have these conversations that you say they have which is indisputable evidence against the guy then why is there no verdict of guilt ? And if guilty why isn't he behind bars ? 

 

Because trials take time. More complicated trials take more time. And defendants have rights.

 

Additionally, sorting out what activity was protected by virtue of him being president and what wasn't adds complication and leads to more lengthy appeals. Not to mention that there isn't a lot of precedent of former presidents committing crimes so the judges involved are likely to take more time to reach decisions as they'd want to carefully consider the facts and law since they cannot easily rely on case law.

 

Trump has taken every effort to delay the prosecutions instead of trying to move it along quickly to get it resolved before the election. It's his right to do that, but appealing everything up and down the appellate levels pushes trials back and delays his acquittal or conviction.

 

[T master]

5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

ya know, why don't you research the issues yourself like we do?  Read the indictments that daz mentioned.  they're publicly available and present the evidence concisely.  They're unfiltered by the media that you are so suspicious of.

 

Well if y'all are so hell bent on him being this criminal & you know exactly where its at if it was me i would post a link to prove what i was saying rather than just putting out my biased opinion - but that's just me . 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Well if y'all are so hell bent on him being this criminal & you know exactly where its at if it was me i would post a link to prove what i was saying rather than just putting out my biased opinion - but that's just me . 

what about publicly available do you not get?  there are hundreds of pages.  You don't believe us if we tell you what they say or if the media does.  So go to the source and quench your thirst for knowledge.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

Well if y'all are so hell bent on him being this criminal & you know exactly where its at if it was me i would post a link to prove what i was saying rather than just putting out my biased opinion - but that's just me . 

 

Here ya go:

 

US v. Trump (DC Case)

 

US v. Trump (Florida Case)

 

The People of the State of New York v. Trump (Manhattan Case)

 

The State of Georgia v. Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray Smith III, Robert Cheeley, Michael Roman, and David Shafer

 

And also here's the ruling for the NY fraud case:

People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, Seven Springs LLC

 

Edited March 13 by ChiGoose
Fixed link

[T master]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here ya go:

 

US v. Trump (DC Case)

 

US v. Trump (Florida Case)

 

The People of the State of New York v. Trump (Manhattan Case)

 

The State of Georgia v. Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray Smith III, Robert Cheeley, Michael Roman, and David Shafer

 

And also here's the ruling for the NY fraud case:

People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, Seven Springs LLC

 

 

Thank you !! 

[daz28]

8 hours ago, T master said:

 

Question - If all this is documented and they have these conversations that you say they have which is indisputable evidence against the guy then why is there no verdict of guilt ? And if guilty why isn't he behind bars ? 

 

I don't care if he is God all mighty if he's guilty then throw his ass in jail !! All ya'll keep saying there is all of this evidence against him but no one ever comes out with something rock solid to put his ass away .

 

Just like this latest thing that BT posted about some guy coming out with a book and in the book he says that Trump says something about Hitler alls that is is a he said he said but if there is the kind of damming evidence that ya'll constantly bring up then give a link or something .

 

Just because you BT, Tibs, say this doesn't mean I'm jumping on that train but if you have researched it & know where this link is then don't just go I said put a link out & prove by more than 1 person saying it have a collaborate a story if for nothing else because there is so much bias & out right hate for this guy I'm not like y'all just because someone like Richard Steel puts out a paper that says this & the that i'm going to believe it unlike some in & out of gov't .

 

Then there is the fact that the gal climbing through the window UNARMED shot & killed, was this handled differently ?

 

Sure as hell was you can bet your ass if it was the other way around & it was a Trump supporter that shot someone like the kid that shot the guys during the "Peaceful protests" and went through a court case to prove it was self defense that they would have been in every news paper & TV news that they could put it on .

 

So lets have it even across the board they drug the orange man through the mud because of the documents but they haven't Biden because it's been said that if so they would the finding would tell that he's old & forgets what he's done so just treat them both the same not one this way & one the other way that's BS ...

It hasn't gone to trial yet.  I asked you to do your own research, but you'd rather just assume that everyone else is just making things up. Your evidence is that he's not in jail.  Extremely weak, and then you go on to compare me to others, and bring up something completely unrelated.  Why do the people who insist there was no insurrection ALWAYS ignore the fake electors plot, which was the actual coup attempt?  Now I just wait for the laugh and eyeroll emojis, because it's easier than disputing facts line by line. 

[ChiGoose]

8 hours ago, T master said:

 

Thank you !! 

You’re welcome. 
 

I am a big advocate of reading primary sources and a big critic of how the media covers legal things. 

[HamSandwhich]

9 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

ya know, why don't you research the issues yourself like we do?  Read the indictments that daz mentioned.  they're publicly available and present the evidence concisely.  They're unfiltered by the media that you are so suspicious of.

They're filtered through a bent justice system.

[BillsFanNC]

Just read the indictments!

 

All the legal experts agree that we've got him this time!

 

You morons are truly pathetic.

 

 

 

[T master]

21 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here ya go:

 

US v. Trump (DC Case)

 

US v. Trump (Florida Case)

 

The People of the State of New York v. Trump (Manhattan Case)

 

The State of Georgia v. Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray Smith III, Robert Cheeley, Michael Roman, and David Shafer

 

And also here's the ruling for the NY fraud case:

People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, Seven Springs LLC

 

 

Thanks again for this info but from reading some of this if all things that were brought up against the orange man were looked at the same in other cases & were treated the exact same way then in these papers if you changed just a few words or names in them this could be used in the exact same way to look into the Steele Dossier as it should have been because there was wrong doing in that too .

 

That's the 1 thing that in all of these types of situations in politics it seems as if there is 2 different ways that cases brought up get handled, 1 under a microscope & the others from down the road and across the street as to not be criticized as harshly & that's just wrong !! 

 

Deception i guess is in the eye of the beholder because in very recent history there has been much that not just in this particular case but many others brought to the public which is kept from the Americans in order to have it look better to fit a narrative rather than the truth .

[ChiGoose]

55 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Thanks again for this info but from reading some of this if all things that were brought up against the orange man were looked at the same in other cases & were treated the exact same way then in these papers if you changed just a few words or names in them this could be used in the exact same way to look into the Steele Dossier as it should have been because there was wrong doing in that too .

 

That's the 1 thing that in all of these types of situations in politics it seems as if there is 2 different ways that cases brought up get handled, 1 under a microscope & the others from down the road and across the street as to not be criticized as harshly & that's just wrong !! 

 

Deception i guess is in the eye of the beholder because in very recent history there has been much that not just in this particular case but many others brought to the public which is kept from the Americans in order to have it look better to fit a narrative rather than the truth .

 

I would strongly disagree with this take. 

 

There are significant differences in fact between Trump's cases and the actions of others that are often incorrectly conflated with him.

 

Had Pence or Biden obstructed the investigations into their possession of government documents, they would face charges (though Biden would not be indicted until he's out of office).

 

Claiming an election was decided improperly and suing to try to overturn the results are legal. Coordinating a multistate effort to have people falsely claim to be electors and attempt to transmit fake election results to Congress is fraud.

 

Among the charges that Trump is facing are several counts of obstruction. All of those are the direct results of his own actions. Even if you believe that you are innocent, obstructing an investigation is going to land you in trouble. In fact, Trump should have been charged with obstruction of the Mueller investigation as soon as he left office. I don't know why Garland chose to let the statute of limitations run on that one. If there really was a grand conspiracy to convict Trump and keep him out of the 2024 election, they could have done that in 2021.

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Exposure to true information does not matter anymore.

A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information.
The facts tell nothing to him.

Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures.
Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union, and show him a concentration camp,
he will refuse to believe it, until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.

When the military boot crushes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that.

[Tommy Callahan]

The folks in here trying to reference the docs,( but totally non comprehending them).  Are the same voices that claimed he was guilty before reading any of the facts. 

 

Same with the impeachments, Russia gate, Mueller and so on.

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

The folks in here trusting talking heads instead of actually reading primary sources (probably because they have big words) and/or listening to real experts with real knowledge (instead of random Twitter accounts that are regularly wrong) are the same voices who routinely demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the law, facts, and reality.

 

They would rather be loudly wrong than actually learn anything. It's Dunning-Kruger personified.

[HamSandwhich]

28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The folks in here trusting talking heads instead of actually reading primary sources (probably because they have big words) and/or listening to real experts with real knowledge (instead of random Twitter accounts that are regularly wrong) are the same voices who routinely demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the law, facts, and reality.

 

They would rather be loudly wrong than actually learn anything. It's Dunning-Kruger personified.

Who are the "real experts" you're talking about? MSNBC?

 

Do you only trust the experts with answers to everything? i.e. you don't know what a woman is because you're not an expert?

Edited March 14 by HamSandwhich

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Who are the "real experts" you're talking about? MSNBC?

 

Do you only trust the experts with answers to everything? i.e. you don't know what a woman is because you're not an expert?

 

I don't watch MSNBC (or any news channel).

 

If you're looking to understand legal issues, start with lawyers or people with a lot of experience reporting on the law.

 

Some outlets to check:

• Lawfare
• Just Security
• SCOTUS Blog
• Election Law Blog
• Above The Law

Some outlets have specific law beats (like Bloomberg Law), which I would prefer to their general journalists covering legal issues.

 

Some of them have podcasts too, like Lawfare and Just Security. I also like the National Security Law Podcast as well as Rational Security.

 

When looking for good sources on legal issues, check on who is providing the coverage. Are they lawyers? Bonus if they are law professors or have experience practicing in the issue they are discussing.

 

As far as experts go, I generally follow the philosophy: don't ask the typical talking heads to explain legal things, don't ask your mechanic for medical advice, don't ask comedians for war strategy.

[Tommy Callahan]

30 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Who are the "real experts" you're talking about? MSNBC?

 

Do you only trust the experts with answers to everything? i.e. you don't know what a woman is because you're not an expert?

Any talking head that will confirm the pre held biases.

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Again, The King and Finding Qnaon still don't get it.

 

"We know because we trust the REAL experts and read the primary source documents authored by those same REAL experts!!"

 

😂

 

Newsflash again for you fuk.c stains.

 

Trust the experts got completely flushed during COVID.  That was the final straw when the public was repeatedly lied to by supposed "experts"

 

So now, because of that massive miscalculation by the commie left...EVERYONE is an expert while NOBODY is an expert.

 

This is the bed you and your political heroes made.  Lie in it and then fuk.c right off.

[B-Man]

 

 

Democrats and lawfare.

 

 

 

.

[HamSandwhich]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I don't watch MSNBC (or any news channel).

 

If you're looking to understand legal issues, start with lawyers or people with a lot of experience reporting on the law.

 

Some outlets to check:

• Lawfare
• Just Security
• SCOTI love the US Blog
• Election Law Blog
• Above The Law

Some outlets have specific law beats (like Bloomberg Law), which I would prefer to their general journalists covering legal issues.

 

Some of them have podcasts too, like Lawfare and Just Security. I also like the National Security Law Podcast as well as Rational Security.

 

When looking for good sources on legal issues, check on who is providing the coverage. Are they lawyers? Bonus if they are law professors or have experience practicing in the issue they are discussing.

 

As far as experts go, I generally follow the philosophy: don't ask the typical talking heads to explain legal things, don't ask your mechanic for medical advice, don't ask comedians for war strategy.

Funny that the first link is "Lawfare", a strategy that the Dems are using to bring frivoulous lawsuits against Trump on spurious legal theory. Basically means they bend the law to fit the narrative they want to achieve. 

[BillsFanNC]

Ok King. Those outlets are no more reputable than ANY other independent source you simpleton fuk.c tard.

 

But because they agree with YOUR confirmation bias they're the expert sources everyone else must trust.

 

 

Seriously. Fuk.c off with your BS.

[BillsFanNC]

Former law clerk for Justice Gorsuch and chief counsel for nominations for Senate judiciary committee in the tweet below.

 

Every bit the expert, probably moreso, than any of the leftist legal blogs that The King linked to.

 

Take your "experts" and ***** off King / chigoose.

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

34 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Funny that the first link is "Lawfare", a strategy that the Dems are using to bring frivoulous lawsuits against Trump on spurious legal theory. Basically means they bend the law to fit the narrative they want to achieve. 

 

That logic makes about as much sense as saying that North Korea is a democracy because it's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

Where do you get your legal news and analysis from?

[HamSandwhich]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That logic makes about as much sense as saying that North Korea is a democracy because it's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

Where do you get your legal news and analysis from?

Oh are you saying that democrats label things that don't actually describe what's inside? In other news, water is wet. 

[BillsFanNC]

6 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Oh are you saying that democrats label things that don't actually describe what's inside? In other news, water is wet. 

 

 

FYI. You've engaged with The King. It's a wild ride of hand waving,  bloviating and dishonest bull pooping ( edit: really? that's what the filter replaces Shi.t...ti.ng with in 2024?)

 

Nobody here says less by saying more than the friggin King!

 

 

Edited March 14 by BillsFanNC

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Oh are you saying that democrats label things that don't actually describe what's inside? In other news, water is wet. 

 

Are you ok?

[L Ron Burgundy]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Are you ok?

Ha.  Your expectations for this interaction is where you went wrong bruh.

 

Listen to NC.  They do their own research!  

 

Actually I think I just realized something of grand importance.   Republicans are like sovereign citizens!!!!   

[HamSandwhich]

47 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Ha.  Your expectations for this interaction is where you went wrong bruh.

 

Listen to NC.  They do their own research!  

 

Actually I think I just realized something of grand importance.   Republicans are like sovereign citizens!!!!   

Yeah, I’m having fun playing with this little guy. Not going to get much from me. Not worth the time and effort to engage with an interlocutor who has no interest in changing his own views. 

Edited March 14 by HamSandwhich

[Doc]

The “experts” got a facial after the 9-0 verdict. Somehow most of the “non-experts” knew what was going to happen (with the only surprise being the decision being unanimous). 

[L Ron Burgundy]

26 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Yeah, I’m having fun playing with this little guy. Not going to get much from me. Not worth the time and effort to engage with an interlocutor who has no interest in changing his own views. 

"I'm not driving I'm travelling!"

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

"I'm not driving I'm travelling!"

A lot of the current iteration of the Right seems to be a combination of performative a-holery and projection with a mix of Dunning-Kruger.

[daz28]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

The “experts” got a facial after the 9-0 verdict. Somehow most of the “non-experts” knew what was going to happen (with the only surprise being the decision being unanimous). 

The 9-0 verdict wasn't about anything other than who can invoke the clause, and they decided that was Congress, who incidentally was in on the coup, which was missing only one piece, Mike Pence.  Look any sane person in the face, and tell them you think the GQP would turn on Trump for any reason short of the 'seal team 6' analogy.  Even then I wouldn't be surprised if they condoned that.  Now look at yourself in the mirror, and tell us that if Pence went along with it, and they declared Trump president, that you wouldn't have found some stupid way to get behind it being ok.  At least the GQP member of Congress know EXACTLY what they were doing, while the cult in the bubble only has the option of believing their lies.  Look at the emails and texts, they admitted they knew they needed the brainwashed  cult's support to pull it off.  

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

The 9-0 verdict wasn't about anything other than who can invoke the clause, and they decided that was Congress, who incidentally was in on the coup, which was missing only one piece, Mike Pence.  Look any sane person in the face, and tell them you think the GQP would turn on Trump for any reason short of the 'seal team 6' analogy.  Even then I wouldn't be surprised if they condoned that.  Now look at yourself in the mirror, and tell us that if Pence went along with it, and they declared Trump president, that you wouldn't have found some stupid way to get behind it being ok.  At least the GQP member of Congress know EXACTLY what they were doing, while the cult in the bubble only has the option of believing their lies.  Look at the emails and texts, they admitted they knew they needed the brainwashed  cult's support to pull it off.  

There was actually more that the SCOTUS didn't rule on.

[HamSandwhich]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

The 9-0 verdict wasn't about anything other than who can invoke the clause, and they decided that was Congress, who incidentally was in on the coup, which was missing only one piece, Mike Pence.  Look any sane person in the face, and tell them you think the GQP would turn on Trump for any reason short of the 'seal team 6' analogy.  Even then I wouldn't be surprised if they condoned that.  Now look at yourself in the mirror, and tell us that if Pence went along with it, and they declared Trump president, that you wouldn't have found some stupid way to get behind it being ok.  At least the GQP member of Congress know EXACTLY what they were doing, while the cult in the bubble only has the option of believing their lies.  Look at the emails and texts, they admitted they knew they needed the brainwashed  cult's support to pull it off.  

I see a lot of idiots like yourself who act high and mighty and have no idea what's coming. It will be fun to watch you all melt.

[daz28]

36 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

I see a lot of idiots like yourself who act high and mighty and have no idea what's coming. It will be fun to watch you all melt.

I'll take whatever is coming, rather than insist that it's not bigfoots fault the cameraman sucked.  If high and mighty means living in reality, then I do it 10/10.  Kool-aid is still better than Coup-laid.