Colorado to include Trump on 2024 primary ballot as state GOP appeals to Supreme Court

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Hey, if you think you're going to find some facts in the court transcripts, go for it! Get all the information from the Judges' rulings that the media outlets have linked for us, go to courthouse website and put in request to view the transcripts.

For me, the judges' ruling are sufficient.

Do you think if we did this there is a possibility we are put on a watch list and later targeted?
It would be nice if public information is public and able to be viewed anonymously to be able to form an honest opinion without fear of a fascist government retribution.

Imo it should have been out there already and it is disturbing to me that it is not.
An honest media would have provided this already for the public it is supposed to serve.

Our government is very dangerous in today's partisan world

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Well if so, I'm on a list, I've downloaded filings since the DOJ Breach site was created, download all the Trump filings, downloaded J6 testimony pdfs, etc.

No one is hiding it. I've been reading it for almost 3 years now. You just have to be aware of those that report it, or search for it. It's not hidden.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Well if so, I'm on a list, I've downloaded filings since the DOJ Breach site was created, download all the Trump filings, downloaded J6 testimony pdfs, etc.

No one is hiding it. I've been reading it for almost 3 years now. You just have to be aware of those that report it, or search for it. It's not hidden.

You are on the correct side to avoid government sanctioned persecution.
I could be stalked, setup and prosecuted and they will give you a cookie for the same query.
Que lawfare and Rudy, and liberal lawfare and Ruby Freeman.
I watched Ruby and her daughter commit election fraud with my own eyes as did millions of others.
I even listened to Ruby rationalize why she did it about a month later in what was an actual admission to a reporter.

And Rudy gets $150million he has to pay for saying what I am saying now?

Here, have a cookie

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Here are Roger Stone's close friends members of the Oath Keepers, who have been found guilty:

Two Florida men who stormed the U.S. Capitol with other members of the far-right Oath Keepers group were sentenced Friday to three years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges — the latest in a historic string of sentences in the Jan. 6. 2021 attack.

David Moerschel, 45, a neurophysiologist from Punta Gorda, and Joseph Hackett, a 52-year-old chiropractor from Sarasota, were convicted in January alongside other members of the antigovernment extremist group for their roles in what prosecutors described as a violent plot to stop the transfer power from former President Donald Trump to President Joe Biden after the 2020 election.Moerschel and Hackett helped amass guns and ammunition to stash in a Virginia hotel for a so-called "quick reaction force" that could be quickly shuttled to Washington, prosecutors said. The weapons were never deployed. Moerschel provided an AR-15 and a Glock semi-automatic handgun and Hackett helped transport weapons, prosecutors said.

Link

Four members of the Oath Keepers were sentenced this week on seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Roberto Minuta, 39, of Prosper, Texas, was sentenced June 1 to 54 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Edward Vallejo, 64, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced on June 1 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release, including the first 12 months to be served on home confinement.

David Moerschel, 45, of Punta Gorda, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 36 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Joseph Hackett, 53, of Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced on June 2 to 42 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised release.

The four defendants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties on Jan. 23, following a seven-week trial. Hackett was also found guilty of destruction of evidence.

Link

Stewart Rhodes Oath Keepers leader:

The founder of the far-right Oath Keepers group has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in a seditious conspiracy to disrupt the electoral count, the stiffest punishment to date to stem from the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Link

And Proud Boy leader Tarrio:

Proud Boys Leader Sentenced to 22 Years in Prison on Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Link

That's what I thought.
So these fbi planted paid informants were found guilty of seditious conspiracy as they acted as agent provocateur to set up others in their schemes of entrapment.
Have any fbi officials they were reporting to and paid by been prosecuted yet?

We know Stewart Rhodes was a paid fbi informants so it stands to reason why they were charged with seditious conspiracy for their unpatriotic setup efforts.
All that is left is for us to find out these scoundrels were under psychiatric care and given antispychotic medications.
But that might just be for the lone gunmen mass shooting fbi paid informants and psychotic scapegoat types setup.
It is about time the paid fbi moles get prosecuted.
Stewart Rhodes is a traitorous coward paid fbi informants.
There is no reason whatsoever we should believe he is anything else let alone a patriot.

Bingo. All the high profile and obvious cases involved paid CIs and actual paid agents.😃 Even the "prisoners".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Hey, if you think you're going to find some facts in the court transcripts, go for it! Get all the information from the Judges' rulings that the media outlets have linked for us, go to the courthouse website and put in a request to view the transcripts.

For me, the judges' ruling are sufficient.

So, just to precisely frame what you are saying:

"Don't trust the court documents that no one has linked, trust the media to tell you the truth."

Well done Sookie. Without irony you've become the system you claimed to despise.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Imo it should have been out there already and it is disturbing to me that it is not.
An honest media would have provided this already for the public it is supposed to serve.

It might be. It might be out there on some far right X(twiiter) account, Breitbart, or some other site like GAB, where someone like me wouldn't be hanging out. Honestly, I'm just not that interested in looking for it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

People need to see the words to see where the SCOTUS appeals will go.

And of course to see the last court ruling and then why the CO Supreme Court over turned it.

The proof will be in the pudding if we can ever see it.

The "Due Process" and The "Jan6" reports are the keys.

a reply to: frogs453

Again no Links? roflolz 😃

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Ah yes, the government would be quite concerned if you download publicly available legal filings. Really? You think you are so important they are going to fake a crime you committed to arrest you?

And let me guess, you saw an edited video on Brietbart or something. And Ruby admitted it to a reporter, yet Rudy admitted he lied, and absolutely refused to testify on his own behalf with his proof. Makes total sense in your world I suppose.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Hey, if you think you're going to find some facts in the court transcripts, go for it! Get all the information from the Judges' rulings that the media outlets have linked for us, go to the courthouse website and put in a request to view the transcripts.

For me, the judges' ruling are sufficient.

So, just to precisely frame what you are saying:

"Don't trust the court documents that no one has linked, trust the media to tell you the truth."

Well done Sookie. Without irony you've become the system you claimed to despise.

The judges' rulings are "court documents" that sum up the arguments of both parties and the judges' logic for ruling the way they did.

The original pleadings and motions are easily found and linked through sites like Politico, New York Times, The Guardian. Those are also "court documents".

a reply to: WingDingLuey

People need to see the words to see where the SCOTUS appeals will go.

Those words won't be in the court transcripts. Those words will be in the judge's ruling.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Hey, if you think you're going to find some facts in the court transcripts, go for it! Get all the information from the Judges' rulings that the media outlets have linked for us, go to the courthouse website and put in a request to view the transcripts.

For me, the judges' ruling are sufficient.

So, just to precisely frame what you are saying:

"Don't trust the court documents that no one has linked, trust the media to tell you the truth."

Well done Sookie. Without irony you've become the system you claimed to despise.

The judges' rulings are "court documents" that sum up the arguments of both parties and the judges' logic for ruling the way they did.

The original pleadings and motions are easily found and linked through sites like Politico, New York Times, The Guardian. Those are also "court documents".

More words....just like the judges.

They don't carry weight legally or in this case argumentatively.

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Start browsing:

Scott MacFarlane

Or here: DOJ Breach Site

Or here: USvRhodes

This has been ongoing for almost 3 years, there's docs and filings everywhere. I don't have the time to compile every piece of it for you, but have provided stepping stones for you.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Hey, if you think you're going to find some facts in the court transcripts, go for it! Get all the information from the Judges' rulings that the media outlets have linked for us, go to the courthouse website and put in a request to view the transcripts.

For me, the judges' ruling are sufficient.

So, just to precisely frame what you are saying:

"Don't trust the court documents that no one has linked, trust the media to tell you the truth."

Well done Sookie. Without irony you've become the system you claimed to despise.

The judges' rulings are "court documents" that sum up the arguments of both parties and the judges' logic for ruling the way they did.

The original pleadings and motions are easily found and linked through sites like Politico, New York Times, The Guardian. Those are also "court documents".

More words....just like the judges.

They don't carry weight legally or in this case argumentatively.

I've never seen the ATS Left Mafia so Riled Up !

Just a little Due Process and Fair Proceedings for Trumpy and now the World is ending .

a reply to: JinMI

They don't carry weight legally or in this case argumentatively.

The judge's words are the only words that carry weight, in this case.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The concerning part is that these folks don't seem to realize that this can and will be used on them and theirs. That's how precedents work.


If we treated ALL politicians in this matter, fine, lets do that.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

They don't carry weight legally or in this case argumentatively.

The judge's words are the only words that carry weight, in this case.

Since Trump was not on trial for insurrection, then what the judges said in regards to insurrection can only be construed as dicta.

But do go on....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

They don't carry weight legally or in this case argumentatively.

The judge's words are the only words that carry weight, in this case.

Seems to be the case with all of these Trump Fiascos.

A Judge just goes off into Left Field making things up as He/She goes along

a reply to: JinMI

Since Trump was not on trial for insurrection, then what the judges said in regards to insurrection can only be construed as dicta.

A Colorada State Supreme Court ruling is not dicta.

Trump, and the GOP, were being sued civilly by GOP voters, for Trump being ineligible for office. Ultimately, the GOP and Trump lost. The GOP has appealed to SCOTUS.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Since Trump was not on trial for insurrection, then what the judges said in regards to insurrection can only be construed as dicta.

A Colorada State Supreme Court ruling is not dicta.

Trump, and the GOP, were being sued civilly by GOP voters, for Trump being ineligible for office. Ultimately, the GOP and Trump lost. The GOP has appealed to SCOTUS.

Sure is as Trump was not on trial for insurrection, a statute offense.

But do go on to regurgitate those talking points, I do love having the ability to counter them with logic and critical thinking.