Posted on 11/20/2023 9:04:25 AM PST by Signalman
Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that a ruling by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace on Friday may have kept Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot for now but it could blow up on him at a later date.
Katyal was quick to note that Judge Wallace agreed with the petitioners that the former president took part in an insurrection at the end of his term but used a narrow interpretation to say he is not in violation of the 14th Amendment.
According to the legal analyst, the ruling was "the very worst decision Trump could get."
'If I were to put the headline on Friday, as an appeals lawyer, it would be this is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court," he began. "Because it's going to go on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court and there Trump is going to face extreme headwinds."
"And the reason for that is the fact — there's two parts," he continued. "There's a factual finding, that the judge said, which is Trump committed insurrection, and then there's a legal part that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the presidency. On appeals, Jen, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
More Communist “democrazy” from the far-loony leftists.
The walls are closing in.
I think this statement is attempting to say that Donald Trump was formally charged with committing insurrection, and that the judge officially convicted Trump of the crime of committing insurrection. I don't think either of these statements are accurate. I'm not sure what the "factual finding" is worth.
Really? Wouldn’t the worst decision be to have kept him off the ballot? The orange woman is a liar.
There was no “factual finding”
No evidence was presented pro or con about what “muh insurrection” took place. Absent ANY actual conviction of an insurrection then the court can’t even begin to invoke the 14th!
She made a politically biased statement of OPINION. Not even an actual judgement.
Don’t be gaslit.
Psaki, now there’s a monument to sanity and the truth. MSNBC only invites appearances from people who read their script properly. It’s another of the left’s security blankets for the uninformed and emotionally challenged.
MSNBC lies and spin.
His profile shows he writes for...RawStory, MSN Australia, MSN (US), MSN Canada, MSN Money Canada, MSN UK, Yahoo, Flipboard, Salon, Daily Kos, AlterNet, EIN News, The New Civil Rights Movement, NewsBreak, The National Memo, Smirking Chimp, Nomad Lawyer, Rose Law Group, Inkl Blog, Washington Babylon, Kmaupdates, Charotar Daily
I'd take the word of a dog before I would ever believe this a-hole.
Only Demonicrats care what one of their stooge Demonicrat "judges" craps out her lying piehole.
Ginger got herself a sweet job, it was made for her.
liberal fever dreams, nothing more
Liberals ALWAYS think ... THIS TIME! we’ve got Trump!
LMAO
What a joke.
Not one person has even been charged with Insurrection.
Good luck charging Trump on that count.
Democrat judge wanted to express her opinion that Trump is guilty of insurrection so she ordered a evidentiary hearing that the judges in Minnesota and Florida did not need to rule on the issue. After the hearing, she could not pull the trigger throwing him off the Colorado ballot because she knew she would be immediately overturned on appeal but she got to express her political opinion that Trump was an insurrectionist from the bench. Dem judges are as disgustingly sleazy as the Dem politicians that appoint them
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 does not meet the definition of incitement of a riot. President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump.
-PJ
I have a strong preference for Red Haired Lasses ...
And even with that ...
Ol Jen just doesn’t do it for me. At all. She’s solidly in the “No Go Zone”.
I don’t see this little game of trying to keep Trump off the ballot going anywhere for Democrats but even if they could pull it off - for the fist time in American history - in Colorado for example, there is a very real chance that RFK Jr. could then win the state which would be an utter disaster for Democrats.
All the Trump voters would have every incentive to vote for RFK Jr and he would get whatever share of Democrats and Independents he is already getting. That’s why I don’t see Democrats pushing this very hard going forward.
this Katyal character was an Obama appointee and served a grand total of 11 months as Solicitor General. His photo makes him look like a pompous horse’s ass.
You’re reading way too much into the quote. Courts make factual findings all the times in cases, civil, criminal, etc. all it means is that the judge finds this fact to be true; no criminal aspect is to be inferred.
That said, I think the commentator can stop goi g all Toobin on this. I’ll betcha the appellate courts find a way to review that issue de novo, even if they get past the hurdle that I’m concerned about whether there’s substantial evidence to support that factual finding
This is ALL gaslighting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.