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.
So what is “an expert on extremism”? Who gets to define it?
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
A stupid bunch of kooks seem to be running courtrooms in Colorado these days.
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.
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?
Will they trow away all the write in ballots?
What’s the over/under that if a state removes Trump, Trump goes to appeal in The Supreme Court and they rule No Standing......
I thought the SCOTUS already threw this out?
Charged with the crime of incitement?
Charged with the crime of insurrection?
If not, this case is frivolous at best. All for show.
If the petitioners are expected to introduce several expert witnesses, starting with an expert on extremism, followed by specialists on constitutional law.
They need to be charging Biden not Trump.
Colorado inquisition in progress.
18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection
Trump has only been accused of Insurrection by his political opposition. No different than me accusing Biden of treason for his failure to protect the US border.
Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. If we follow the legal doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”, then there is no case to be brought.
The fact that the leftist trash pulls this BS shows me that there can be no other in 2024. If they fear him this much, that's enough of an endorsement.
Of course he did! He told his right-wing extremists to go up to the Capitol and demonstrate “patriotically and peacefully”. That was nothing more than a call to smack officers with fire extinguishers! It was Opposite Day, as he well knew!/Sarc