Posted on 10/30/2023 6:27:58 PM PDT by CFW
6:40 p.m. Wrapped up for the day
On Tuesday, the petitioners are expected to introduce several expert witnesses, starting with an expert on extremism, followed by specialists on constitutional law.
Trump’s team is also scheduled to present their arguments on Wednesday. One of Trump’s attorneys in the case, Scott Gesser, said he expects his side to present about nine witnesses. He said the court asked that he not reveal their names in advance, out of safety concerns.
After the court adjourned for the evening, Gessler reflected on the first day of the hearing.
“They don't prove much of anything except they dislike him,” said Gessler of the plaintiffs’ evidence against Trump. “That's really what they've proved. The best they have is trying to be a Mini Me January 6th report. That's the best. They've got sort of a pretty slick movie production they've entered into evidence and things like that, and that's not real evidence. That's a partisan witch hunt.”
— Bente Birkeland, CPR News' public affairs reporter
(Excerpt) Read more at cpr.org ...
It’s absurd that any judge is even countenancing this nonsense. Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything - there is nothing for any judge to even rule on.
Makes you want to kick a “judge” in the ass. Fascists in black robes.
They’re trying to find one state to prevent Trump from being on the 2024 ballot. Once that happens and the SCOTUS doesn’t stop it, it will be a domino effect.
Red states need to keep the D off the ticket then...
Hell, may as well go as far as to elect their own President....
...yet another in a long line of radical marxist FEMALE judges...does Soros own them ALL?
So what is “an expert on extremism”? Who gets to define it?
“Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything - there is nothing for any judge to even rule on.”
Seems to me they conducted an impeachment on the matter post-Trump Presidency, and he was acquitted by the senate.
That said, it seems this trial may be a form of double-jeopardy.
A sane judge would throw the plaintiffs out on their butts; they have no "standing" to sue.
They are citing the 14th amendment, but what about the 5th amendment's protection that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...?" Where is the indictment that this court is hearing? What state law is the indictment citing?
There is U.S. Code, but that is outside the jurisdiction of a state court.
In 50 U.S. Code Title 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, specifically 50 U.S. Code CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION, all of the individual sections refer to "state[s] in insurrection," not individual citizens.
This is understandable given that the 14th amendment was in response to the Civil War and the seceding states (states in insurrection), not individuals per se. Section 3 of the 14th amendment was written with the idea of preventing the office holders of future seceding states from holding offices in the United States.
Therefore, I believe that "insurrection" in the 14th amendment was meant to apply first to the several states.
There is also 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
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.However, individual citizens would not have the wherewithal to undertake an actual insurrection against the federal government. They would need a much larger organization than a militia group, they would need the organized people of entire states to actually pull off an insurrection.
Therefore, I believe that a state must be in open rebellion before the citizens of that state can be held for insurrection under Title 18.
That is why the 14th amendment excludes the office of the President. It includes members of Congress and the Electoral College, because these are positions that represent individual states. Federal representative officeholders of states in insurrection are the target of the 14th amendment. The President is the executive of the entire federation of states and is therefore excluded from the 14th amendment.
If Congress tried to pass a new law to define insurrection as inciteful speech in front of a large crowd near the Capitol in order to use it as the basis for charging President Trump, it would be an ex post facto law if applied to Trump. A law like that would have to already be on the books to apply to the January 6 speech. A new law would only apply to future speech.
I doubt that 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, by itself, would be enough to indict an individual without there being a larger entity like a state involved that is in open revolt.
A court cannot try someone based on a phrase in the Constitution, there has to be a law that was broken with sufficient evidence for a grand jury to indict. So what indicted charge is this Colorado judge holding court for?
-PJ
“That said, it seems this trial may be a form of double-jeopardy.”
I agree.
The prosecution was reading Liz Cheney’s January 6 report this evening in court. They played Trump’s speech but omitted him telling the protesters to march peacefully. They omitted videos of the police opening the doors to let Trump supporters in.
A stupid bunch of kooks seem to be running courtrooms in Colorado these days.
“Fascists in black robes.”
Yep. And the only court that could end this stuff always has an excuse not to.
Yes, that was a very "artfully" edited video these unscrupulous cretins played in court, omitting the parts where Trump said that they were to PEACEABLY march to the Capitol. I watched the whole speech live, so I know what he said and what he did not say. At no point did he ask for violence or insurrection. These pieces of excrement can go take a swan dive off a 14Ker.
the left can get away with these insane legal concoctions, but normal Americans never have “standing” and aren’t allowed to have their grievances addressed.
Lmao 🤣
I kept wondering who the judge looked like today. Now you’ve confirmed it.
What happened to “standing”? I thought someone needed to be injured in some way before they had “standing” to bring a court case? Who’s been injured and what was the injury?
The fact that she donated to the Colorado Turnout Project ( an org whose purpose was to go after Trump supporters) and refused to recuse herself answers your question.
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.