Election Do-Over!!!

[Steve R.]

Who brought this case against Trump? Is it the judges themselves or does it get referred to them by someone else?

Unfortunately we are leaving, so I won't really be able to get into looking into this. The article below may be helpful.

Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump from 2024 Ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 4-3 opinion that the Constitution’s “Insurrection Clause” prohibits Trump from the ballot.

www.breitbart.com

As a subtle aside, the Colorado Supreme Court, a state court, made a decision based on the US Constitution, which would seem to fall under the jurisdiction of a federal, not state, court. But then, I'm not a lawyer, but a state court could seemingly get "jurisdiction" through the Secretary of State for the state of Colorado since that person responsible for supervising an election.

 

[moke123]

I read 100 of 213 pages of the decision and it's pretty well reasoned and definitely written with the SC in mind.
They didn't touch the trial courts finding that trump participated in the insurrection. Appellate courts are very hesitant to overturn trial court findings and it should be interesting what the SC does. It'll also be interesting to see what Gorsuch does seeing as one of his opinions is cited as a basis of their conclusion.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

I've never seen such tactics before

We've never had a president do what trump did before. It's a case of first impression.

Do you think the problem lays in how the justices are chosen, by political parties?

Some states elect judges while others have them appointed.

Who brought this case against Trump?

The plaintiffs are 6 republican and independent voters from Co.

whilst 3 were against.

I haven't read the dissents yet but it is my understanding that the dissents did not address the trial courts findings of fact that trump participated in an insurrection. It'll be interesting to see if the SC even takes up that issue.

the Colorado Supreme Court, a state court, made a decision based on the US Constitution

I believe they made their decision based on the Colorado state constitution. The fact that it has federal constitutional issues were addressed in the decision.

Buckle up.

 

[Jon]

the dissents did not address the trial courts findings of fact fiction that trump participated in an insurrection.

Please forgive my edit above.

We've never had a president do what trump did before.

You mean like Russia collusion? The endless lawsuits against Trump all happening before an election, all justified in a Democrats mind. The timing just happens to be coincidental. Hitler persecuted the Jews, like Democrats persecute Trump. See, we are back to Hitler again.

Spinning the Capitol riots as an insurrection is ridiculous. It was a riot, which happened against Trump's will (and speech) of peaceful protest. The talk of the 5 deaths is also just stupid. Three were of natural causes and one was a drug overdose. What about the 25+ deaths from the Black Lives Matter riots? Those went on for months, whilst the Capitol riot was just a few hours. The authorities already established that the Proud boys had intentions to raid the building before Trump ever said anything.

It seems like its ok for Democrats to say "Fight like hell", but not Trump. If Trump is not above the law, nor are they. But wait, no Democrats are complaining about the use of that phrase amongst their own party, only when it's Trump. They have no concept of justice or equal application of the law.

 

[moke123]

Please forgive my edit above.

No problem. Your entitled to your opinion. In our system when a trial court makes findings they are called findings of fact. A trial was held and that's what they found. At this point the only opinion that matters is that of the SC.

Curious whether you think Thomas should recuse?

 

[Jon]

Curious whether you think Thomas should recuse?

I don't know who Thomas is.

Edit: I found this...

Meanwhile, House Democrats are urging him to recuse himself from the election interference case of former President Donald Trump due to the actions of his wife, Ginni Thomas.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/18/cla...utiny-as-supreme-court-weighs-trump-case.html

So my answer would be...

Do you think the New York judge - who has already made a summary judgement against Trump in the property valuation case - should recuse himself, because of the vitriolic tweets by his wife towards Trump?

And, do you think these same Democrats who think Thomas should recuse himself also think the New York judge should recuse himself? I think we all know the answer to that one. You see, its not about impartiality. It is about breaking the law by not being impatial, all in the name of "justice". By justice, they mean lynching. Consider it a pre-emptive insurrection of sorts. Get him before he gets into power, not after.

 

[moke123]

SC Justice Thomas, whose wife is allegedly involved in the underlying case.

 

[Isaac]

when the case is so large and sloppy they might as well certify a class of all persons who were in the vicinity on that day OR know anyone who was OR communicated with discoverable communications anything about the events that day - that's all "involved".

Involved is meaningless

 

[moke123]

She was and may still be a witness in the cases.

 

[Jon]

It is not a prerequisit that someone may be a witness, just that the spouse could be influential. The Democrats side is that the wife did not tweet what was claimed.

There is talk about the courts top Clerk breaking the law regarding Democrat political donations. This Democrat supporting Clerk advises the judge on legal matters, And Judge Engoron himself has donated to the Democrats over the past 25 years, something which the Judicial Coduct code says they should not do. Are these judges a law onto themselves? Or is it a question of one law for me, but another law for others, like Trump?

Stefanik also cited an October Daily Wire report on Engoron’s own donations. He has contributed exclusively to Democrats over the past 25 years, per the outlet. Stefanik noted that Section 100.5 of the Judicial Conduct code “says that judges ‘shall refrain’ from ‘making a contribution to a political organization.'”

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...niks-complaint-against-ny-justice-trump-case/

Ultimately, it is a mute point whether he recuses himself or not. Democrat judges in the SC will be voting to stop Trump, and the Republican side will be for Trump.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The 14th Amendment section (3) insurrection is a political issue, not a legal one. Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment trial. The political remedy already happened. Colorado is on shaky ground.

 

[moke123]

Ultimately, it is a mute moot point

Please excuse my edit above.

Do you think the New York judge - who has already made a summary judgement against Trump in the property valuation case - should recuse himself, because of the vitriolic tweets by his wife towards Trump?

It allegedly wasn't her. She didn't have a twitter account. Even if it was true she was not a witness, nor a party to the action. Any decision Engoron makes would not benefit his wife in the same manner as Thomas's would.

Stefanik has filed complaints against all the judges involved in trumps cases. It's her bid for VP.

I'm sure it will be raised on appeal so lets wait and see.

The 14th Amendment section (3) insurrection is a political issue, not a legal one.

How so?

Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment trial. The political remedy already happened.

The challenge is to state law not federal. Was the issue of Colorado's laws brought up in the impeachment?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Trump was acquitted of incitement to commit insurrection in 2021. This acquittal was done at the Federal level....

Fast-forward to 2023 a state supreme court of Colorado has found Trump guilty of insurrection and has removed him from the ballot.

The Supremacy Clause.
"Federal law generally, takes precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government."

This is where the supreme court will rule.

 

[AccessBlaster]

After the Supremes throws this abomination on its ear, I predict this will effect Trump's other cases.

Liberals tend to open pandoras boxes when they panic.

 

[Jon]

She *claims* she didn't have a twitter account.

Please forgive my edit above.

Even if it was true she was not a witness, nor a party to the action. Any decision Engoron makes would not benefit his wife in the same manner as Thomas's would.

Why do they have to benefit in the same manner? The comparison is about influence from the spouse, not the same manner. At the supreme court level, the legislation does not state the spouse has to be a witness or party to the action. It gives two examples and explicitly says these are not a requirement. Regardless of what the law says at Engoron's level, the principle is the same. Did the spouse influence their partner leading to a lack of impartiality? What relevance is the same manner if both judges are not impartial? Both should recuse.

But lets face it, both the New York judge and his top Clerk are both Democrat donors. They want a Democrat party, and are prepared to invest money into achieving that goal. And sadly, there are more corrupt ways to make that investment as we see it playing out now.

 

[Jon]

This is rather interesting. Look at this quote from one of the dissenting Democrat judges:

One of the dissenting judges wrote that the final decision '[risked] chaos in our country', warning: 'what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom.'

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...suicidal-Democrats-Colorado-Trump-ballot.html

Different rules for Trump because it is a plain election interference and a continuation of the Democrats witch-hunt against their political rival. Let's just skip what normally happens in a courtroom shall we?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Breaking News, Biden Projected Winner in Colorado 2024

 

[Jon]

The Democrats Election Campaign
Step 1: Remove the need to vote in Colorado.
Step 2: Do the same in as many other states as possible
Step 3: Get elected
Step 4: Democracy achieved, the Russian Democrats way.

 

[moke123]

Why do they have to benefit in the same manner? The comparison is about influence from the spouse, not the same manner.

The comparison is not about influence.

Here's one article about Engoron's wife and the allegations against her.
https://www.newsweek.com/did-judge-... York Office of,, formerly Twitter, account."

sorta like:

The judges wife has 0 connection to the case other than she's the judges wife. She'll never be charged with anything, she wont be a witness to anything.

It would be too exhaustive to list the issues the Thomas' are facing.
You can do your own googling.

The difference is that Ginnie is actively involved in the case. She was a witness in the J6 committee. She emailed the state electors. She exchanged text messages with Mark Meadows, who is facing federal and state charges. Among a few other things. If she never faces charges, she may possibly be a witness in Meadows case or others. The are numerous other scenarios but the potential conflict of interest should be obvious.

It's gonna be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

[Jon]

The comparison is not about influence.

To be fair, it is about influence because I asked the question about that comparison. My post link and quote are below.

Do you think the New York judge - who has already made a summary judgement against Trump in the property valuation case - should recuse himself, because of the vitriolic tweets by his wife towards Trump?

Source: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/election-do-over.314702/page-42#post-1901797

That image gives me shudders! Lock me up!

It is not for me to decide if Thomas is compromised or not. If he is, then in an ideal world he should recuse himself. It won't make any difference if he does or not anyway. However, there are circumstances where he should not recuse himself, even if compromised. If you zoom out from that case and look at the bigger picture, the Democrats have wrecked the democratic process. They talk about Trump being a threat to democracy whilst operating like a Russian dictator. When the Democrats have tilted the playing field and broken the justice system, why should the Republicans give them an unfair advantage by operating within rules they don't follow themselves?

Look at what is happening now:

Lt. Gov: California must 'explore every legal option' to remove Trump

Eleni Kounalakis said it was a 'dire matter that puts at stake the sanctity of our constitution and our democracy' - and denied that she was acting out of 'political gamesmanship'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Stop Trump by any legal means. This is not democracy and it is shameful what the Democrats are trying to pull off. Ultimately, I think it will turn many undecided voters against the Democrat party because what they are doing stinks to high heaven. If they can't win in the ballot box, they try to do it by perverting the course of justice. And they complain that it was Trump was trying to hang on to power through their bogus insurrection claim.

What about Engoron, who donates to the Democrat party, despite it being against the code of conduct and ethics for judges? He has already proven his disregard for ethics by this very act, and an unethical politically biased judge who votes for the opposing political party can't be trusted to give a fair trial.

 

[Jon]

Regardless of my own opinions on this Colorado case, look at what one of the Democrat judges thinks.

Justice Carlos Samour took particular issue with how the proceedings unfolded. He argued that Trump hasn't been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an insurrection, so he hasn't had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant.

"There was no fair trial either," Samour wrote, pointing to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers. "I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."

"In my view, what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands," Samour wrote.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-s...-defend-trump-there-was-no-fair-trial-1853968

To be clear, the Democrat judge states there was "No fair trial", no due process and he hasn't seen anything like it in a courtroom before, despite 33 years of service. That tells you all you need to know.