Colorado Supreme Court Bans Trump from the 2024 Presidential Ballot.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, if someone decided to put you on the sexual predators list because at one time someone said you did something you would be ok with that?

That's not what's happening here. Although, Trump is a sexual predator, if not a rapist, the court found in another civil case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Again with your deflections. In this case (The Colorado Rulings), Due Process is a Court process not a Congressional process.

And you're repeating and may not even know it. 😀

You deflect and go off on wild tangents too often. Bad tactic. ☢️

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, if someone decided to put you on the sexual predators list because at one time someone said you did something you would be ok with that?

That's not what's happening here. Although, Trump is a sexual predator, if not a rapist, the court found in another civil case.

Here you go again. Those cases are irrelevant to The Colorado Cases. 😃 Sick

a reply to: WingDingLuey

But it wasn't irrelevant to the question I was answering.

There you go again, trying to play "Gotcha" games, when you're out of on topic answers to my questions. "What lies?"

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The lie that there was an insurrection......

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Due Process is a Court process not a Congressional process.

LOL

A Senate Trial isn't Due Process? I'll bet that's news to the Chief Justice Roberts, who oversaw the trial.

If a Senate trial doesn't utilize "Due Process", why are Trump's lawyers invoking "double jeopardy", because he was already tried by the Senate?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The lie that there was an insurrection......

Not a lie.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Check your own link, Roberts did not sit.

If you're going to argue that the impeachment of Trump for insurrection that resulted in acquittal was legitimate due process, then how can you justify removal of civil liberties with a statute he was acquitted of?


See the gaping hole in your logic yet?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The lie that there was an insurrection......

Not a lie.

Prove it then, by all means.


Any conviction of Trump for insurrection should suffice....

a reply to: JinMI

Check your own link, Roberts did not sit.

Did you Google that? LOL

Okay, Patrick Leahy oversaw Trump's 2nd impeachment. Roberts oversaw the 1st one.
I stand corrected.

If you're going to argue that the impeachment of Trump for insurrection that resulted in acquittal was legitimate due process, then how can you justify removal of civil liberties with a statute he was acquitted of?

First of all, Trump's lawyers argued he couldn't be convicted because he wasn't president. McConnel echoed those sentiments. Now, Trump's lawyers are claiming double jeopardy.

Secondly, the same way OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty, and still got sued for "Wrongful Death". Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The lie that there was an insurrection......

Not a lie.

Prove it then, by all means.


Any conviction of Trump for insurrection should suffice....

Proof? You first!
Although, I do have seditious conspiracy convictions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did you Google that? LOL

Okay, Patrick Leahy oversaw Trump's 2nd impeachment. Roberts oversaw the 1st one.
I stand corrected.

No, I read from your provided link. When trying to have a good faithed discussion, I'll happily use your own source when applicable to aid in making my points.

First of all, Trump's lawyers argued he couldn't be convicted because he wasn't president. McConnel echoed those sentiments. Now, Trump's lawyers are claiming double jeopardy.

I'm fairly certain there is precedent for impeachments while out of office. Apparently those were mentioned and the defense didn't hold as he was still impeached....and acquitted.

Point being, you are here making the claim of Trump being impeached (an allegation) and acquitted is due process. So I'm asking you how the logic works that Trump can be guilty and acquitted of an insurrection based on the due process you're assuming?

Secondly, the same way OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty, and still got sued for "Wrongful Death". Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases.

Were OJ's voting and gun rights removed for his acquittal of murder?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The lie that there was an insurrection......

Not a lie.

Prove it then, by all means.


Any conviction of Trump for insurrection should suffice....

Proof? You first!
Although, I do have seditious conspiracy convictions.

What do you want me to prove? That an insurrection didn't happen? Proving a negative is where your argument lands?

Trump has a seditious conspiracy conviction? Link?

a reply to: JinMI

No, I read from your provided link. When trying to have a good faithed discussion, I'll happily use your own source when applicable to aid in making my points.

And what point is that?

Point being, you are here making the claim of Trump being impeached (an allegation) and acquitted is due process.

I don't think you know what due process is. Please define "due process", according to JinMi.

Were OJ's voting and gun rights removed for his acquittal of murder?

Non-sequitur. No one is threatening to take away Trump right to self-defense.

a reply to: JinMI

What do you want me to prove? That an insurrection didn't happen?

Yes!

Proving a negative is where your argument lands?

But there isn't a negative. There are hours and hours of video, implicating people shouting to "Take the Capitol" "Stop the Count", "Hang Mike Pense" and "Bring out Nancy", attacking the police, and strategically strategizing how to get to the floor and stop Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden.

Prove that didn't really happen the way the Jan 6th Committee said.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And what point is that?

That you claimed there was an insurrection, but there wasn't. That Justice Roberts sat on the impeachment, which he didn't.

I don't think you know what due process is. Please define "due process", according to JinMi.

Again, I'm following your provided logic of due process.

My logic on due process would be an indictment, a trial and adjudication.

Were we to analogize yours and mine, we have the impeachment (the indictment), the trial (not really existent but for argument sake, the inquiry) and finally the adjudication (the acquittal).

Non-sequitur. No one is threatening to take away Trump right to self-defense.

Arguable as his attorney client privilege has been pierced, he's been illegally spied on and stood up to multiple impeachments.

So the logic very much follows in spite of your cries of non sequitur.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes!

So you want me to prove a negative. And that's where your argument ends up. Congratulations.

But there isn't a negative. There are hours and hours of video, implicating people shouting to "Take the Capitol" "Stop the Count", "Hang Mike Pense" and "Bring out Nancy", attacking the police, and strategically strategizing how to get to the floor and stop Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden.

Prove that didn't really happen the way the Jan 6th Committee said.

Would have been nice to have an adversarial voice....right?

Who built those gallows again?

a reply to: JinMI

That you claimed there was an insurrection, but there wasn't. That Justice Roberts sat on the impeachment, which he didn't.

Look. technically, none of that is true. I made a comment about what Roberts thought about the Senate trial not being a representation of due process, that I, mistakenly, thought he presided over. I was wrong, Leahy presided over that one. Roberts DID preside over Trump's 1st impeachment. The fact it was Leahy, not Roberts has no bearing on due process, and what you fancy it to be.

As for insurrection. While I do think there was an insurrection, that wasn't my argument. I didn't come in this thread shouting about how there was an insurrection. I claimed that The House of Representatives charged and impeached Trump with "inciting an insurrection". I claimed that the Jan 6th Committee's evidence put the Maine SOS over the top, believing them to have proven that Trump incited an insurrection.

My logic on due process would be an indictment, a trial and adjudication.

So you think due process only applies to criminal law? What about due process for civil suits?

Were we to analogize yours and mine, we have the impeachment (the indictment), the trial (not really existent but for argument sake, the inquiry) and finally the adjudication (the acquittal).

But an impeachment is not a criminal trial. High crimes and misdemeanors could be anything Congress agrees it to be.

Arguable as his attorney client privilege has been pierced, he's been illegally spied on and stood up to multiple impeachments.

LOL Well, I wasn't talking about his criminal cases. I was just talking about his 14th Amendment, Section 3 problem.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Look. technically, none of that is true. I made a comment about what Roberts thought about the Senate trial not being a representation of due process, that I, mistakenly, thought he presided over. I was wrong, Leahy presided over that one. Roberts DID preside over Trump's 1st impeachment. The fact it was Leahy, not Roberts has no bearing on due process, and what you fancy it to be.

As for insurrection. While I do think there was an insurrection, that wasn't my argument. I didn't come in this thread shoutng about how there was an insurrection. I claimed that The House of Representatives charged Trump with "inciting an insurrection". I claimed that the Jan 6th Committee's evidence put the Maine SOS over the top, believing them to have proven that Trump incited an insurrection.

Evidence doesn't equal proof no more than an impeachment means guilt.

I know you think there was an insurrection. Likewise, I believe that Biden is committing treason on our southern border. By the same metrics we can go ahead and remove Biden from ballots, right?

So you think due process only applies to criminal law? What about due process for civil suits?

I did not make that claim or even allude to it. Problem being here, as it always has been, is that the removal of an American citizens civil liberties MUST come with due process.

Or are you saying because he was acquitted and not charged subsequently for insurrection that that in and of itself is due process......?

But an impeachment is not a criminal trial. High crimes and misdemeanors could be anything Congress agrees it to be.

I agree and whatever congress agrees it to be (statute) then there must follow the indicteds due process.

LOL Well, I wasn't talking about his criminal cases. I was just talking about his 14th Amendment, Section 3 problem.

Section 1 and 5 of the 14th solve his "problem."

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Which they have in the form of:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC 2383

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, if someone decided to put you on the sexual predators list because at one time someone said you did something you would be ok with that?

That's not what's happening here. Although, Trump is a sexual predator, if not a rapist, the court found in another civil case.

So is Biden. Provide a link where Trump was convicted of rape. By sexual predator do you mean some guy that just might try and pick up on you?