General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

David Pakman Show
comments

Comments by "" (@1987BillyBob) on "Trump BANNED, KICKED OFF CO Presidential ballot!" video.

@Rabidsloth1369 funny how you bring up the 2nd. You lose your second amendment right if you are convicted with a felony. But that requires due process. Trump has not been convicted of anything, thus he can still be on the ballot. You can't just someone someone is a felon and take away their 2nd amendment right. Just like you can't just say someone committed or participated in an insurrection and take them off of the ballot.
3
They will, this needs to be addressed. What does 14.3 actually mean and how do we utilize it.
2
Jack Smith, there is an argument is appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional. There are also holes in his indictment.
1
Smith is not even saying Trump committed an insurrection.
1
Because this is political. Also, I feel this is a dangerous plan by the liberal elites to stack the courts. They know this, along with most of the cases on Trump will go to the Supreme Court and get overruled. With that they will claim the court is bias and won't serve justice along with point to Roe v Wade being overturned, blocking student loan forgiveness etc. They will push to stack the courts in their favor.
1
@Lethgar_Smith the judge ruling does not mean a conviction. That requires a jury of your peers. Also, the current Supreme Court has shown to uphold the Constitution, probably the best ever in the history of this nation. They will overturn this decision because you can't just claim someone committed an insurrection without due process.
1
@Lethgar_Smith adjudicated? That is not how it works. If you want to set that standard then any judge can do that to any politician. That is why we have due process. Take the 2nd amendment as an example. You lose that right if you commit a felony. But for that to happen there has to be due process. A judge can't say you are a felon. If you truly dont understand this then dont be hostile to those who are attempting help you over the hurdle, because I am not being hostile.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Believe me when I tell you that men with more knowledge of American legal jurisprudence than you, are looking at this with a fine tooth comb" I agree which is why it is going to the Supreme Court. Also, the CO SC chief justice even said you can't remove Trump off of the ballot because he has not been convicted of an insurrection. How do you explain that? This is going to go to the supreme court and, very quickly, in a 6-3 ruling at least, and most likely in a 7-2 ruling this will get overturned. Heck, I feel it could be a 9-0 ruling to overturn it.
1
@Lethgar_Smith " but we will accept it and not attempt a violent overthrow of the country if trump wins." You will not accept it. Just like how you harassed justices after they overturned Roe v Wade. "I cant say the same for you." Show me where Trump voters are being violent now? "However, I caution you not to be too optimistic. Trump is not a popular figure within the "Halls of power" they all despise him. The Supreme Court has shown that despite being highly conservative and very biased towards Republican ideology they have not shown any fealty to Trump and have disappointed him before." Not true. This supreme court, at least 6 of the justices, are moderate and support the Constitution strongly. They will point to the fact you need due process to convict Trump. You have the 5th amendment. You can't have rogue judges making big decisions like this.
1
@Lethgar_Smith ""Any judge can do that to any politician" YES! If they've participated in an insurrection." How do you determine if someone participated in an insurrection without due process? Same in how a judge can't just convict someone for murder without due process. And even at that you have a jury. You say politicians are not special status citizens. Neither are judges. What you want is for judges to legislate from the bench when they can't. This is a problem with the left. When the system does not work for them they want judges to legislate from the bench. A judge can't just say Trump participated in an insurrection when there was no due process.
1
@Lethgar_Smith " A judge can absolutely say you are a felon if that judge determines you have committed a felony." They can't without due process as in a hearing and a trial with a jury of your peers. You really don't seem to understand how our judicial system works.
1
@Lethgar_Smith uh, I quote things you say and give a rebuttal. "How else is a judge going to determine anything without going through the legal process? " Yeah, the legal process such as due process. An investigation, a hearing, a trial with a jury. None of that happened in CO. There was no hearing. Trump was not even on trial on if he participated in an insurrection. If so he would have been told so and would have been told if he pleads guilty or not guilty. That never happened. There would have been a jury selection.....that never happened. There was no trial. The legal process never took place. What you had was a judge giving his opinion that had zero legal standing. Again, judges have limitations like all members of government. With your standard than a judge can state that Biden participated in an insurrection which would make it true and thus meaning he cannot be on the ballot for president. However, that is now how the system is drawn up. It is drawn up with checks and balances. "What do you think has happened in Colorado? A bunch of wizards got together and declared trump a dunderhead? Is that what you think happened?" That is how you feel the system works. No due process via the 5th amendment. Just judges going rogue.
1
@Lethgar_Smith so according to you a judge can just do whatever they want.
1
@Lethgar_Smith no, I suggest you look it up and learn something. Again, a judge can't just say someone is guilty. There is this thing called the 5th amendment which is due process. That never occurred there. Thus, on legal grounds Trump did not participate in an insurrection, period. The fact you are resorting to name calling says a lot. I am not crying, I am stating facts.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Well, on legal grounds, a judge determined that he did." That is irrelevant because that is not due process. A judge can't just say someone is guilty. They can make a claim that someone committed a crime, but that has no legal standing. In fact, that can lead to a judge being removed from a case and trial. In fact, the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct can lead to the dismissal of a judge in a case if there is an interested or prejudiced with respect to the case, parties, or counsel. There has been no trial, no investigation by the state of Colorado, no hearing. Thus the judge can make no ruling. All the judge did was give their opinion which has no legal standing beyond showing prejudice. "Your claim of "That never occurred there" is not supported by any facts. You are making factual claims based entirely on your feelings of outrage and not on actual legal jurisprudence. " But it is based on facts. You are saying judges can be dictators (ironic here) and just make any ruling they want. "These rulings can and will be appealed. On what grounds are you claiming a miscarriage of justice? Have you read the judge's ruling? Have you read the Colorado Supreme Court ruling? " I have. My claim is based on the 5th and 6th amendments, both amendments you keep ignoring. Your argument is "Well this one judge said it is so, so it must be" Which holds no water. The chief justice of the CO SC said "From my perspective, just because a hearing was held and (Trump) participated, it doesn’t mean that due process was observed," And Justice Samour wrote "President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law," Funny how this is leading to me now quoting what justices are actually saying where you are just saying "Well this one judge said this so it must be true" Answer this, if this were to go to another court and a second judge were to say that Trump did not participate in an insurrection despite no trial, would you agree with that judge and say to go with it? "You act as if "Liberal Brownshirts" are storming around the streets and just snatching Republican politicians right off the sidewalks and throwing them in a prison camp." That is not how it works. It is much more settled than that. "These are stablished laws, clearly broken and you want to insist that when a Republican does it, it's not illegal." Never once said that. I said due process need to occur via the 5th and 6th amendment. There have been many republicans that have committed crimes that went through a trial and faced punishments which I agree Another ironic part here is that I am not even a republican, I am a moderate. I am not even fully arguing if Trump did commit a crime or not. I am arguing the lack of due process here where you are jumping to the conclusion that I will defend all republicans no matter what. Heck, I will give you an example. When I was living in MO I hated Claire McCaskill. But in 2012 with Todd Aiken made his sick comments I opposed him and supported Dine. I don't play team politics.
1
@Lethgar_Smith now I addressed all your points. When are you going to address all of mine?
1
@Lethgar_Smith sigh......and here is where all of these internet discussion go. Just screaming "logical fallacy" and not addressing the point. You said "These are stablished laws, clearly broken and you want to insist that when a Republican does it, it's not illegal." Which is literally a strawman on me. As I said, I am not a republican. If a republican broke a law, and via due process: a hearing, jury selection, a trial with witnesses and evidence presented with both sides giving their arguments, and that republican is found guilty then yes, punish them in accordance of the law. But you are making a claim that not hold a that standard to a republican. Also, you said the law was "clearly broken". May be. But still, you put people through due process as I mentioned above. You know how else clearly broke the law? James Holmes. He was given a trial by jury with a defense team. I am not making a strawman. I am 1. Explaining to you that due process needs to take place in order to convict someone and have it on legal records someone committed a crime and 2. Laying out your standard in to have no due process and just let judges make decisions with no trial, no jury, no arguments by both the prosecutor and defense. So not a strawman.
1
@Lethgar_Smith please point out where I ever said that I will not treat a republican the same way? We can start there. Maybe we need to slow this down a bit as you are making an assumption about me to begin with.
1
@Lethgar_Smith wow, all capital letters. I struck a nerve. Ok, as Justice Samour said "President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law" Ok, now to outline 1. Did Judge Wallace say that Trump engaged in an insurrection? Yes 2. However, her statement has no legal bearing on Trump and his legal record as there was no due process. 3. Therefore, Trump has not been found guilty of engaging or inciting an insurrection. He has not been convicted 4. Thus, on legal grounds if Trump engaged in an insurrection Trump is 100% innocent because you are innocent until proven guilty 5. Thus, the CO supreme court has banned an innocent man from the ballot when it comes on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection. 6. The CO supreme court is punishing an innocent person.
1
@Lethgar_Smith so, when it comes to the claims about your standard, you are fine with rogue judges punishing innocent people. So here is a scenario. Say a judge in Ohio, and a judge in Michigan, and a judge in Georgia and other swing states all say Biden incited an insurrection and should be removed from the ballot. And thus, just because those judges make those statements Biden is removed. How will you feel? Would you agree?
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Her statement does have legal standing." It does not which is why Trump has not been found guilty of engaging in an insurrection. "You may not agree with their decisions but you have no basis to claim a "lack of due process." " Yes I do because it was not a guilty verdict. Trump is 100% innocent when it comes to the argument on if the engaged in an insurrection or not. "Furthermore, and this is important, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT REQUIRE A CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF ANY KIND." Yes it does. In the 14th amendment "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." Trump is being denied liberty as he has not been found guilty of anything. So to lay it out 1. Trump has not been found guilty of engaging in an inssurrection 2. Why? Because there was no due process 3. Thus Trump is 100% innocent when it comes on if he engage in an insurrection or not 4. Thus, via the same 14th amendment you keep citing he has a right to liberty and equal protection of the laws such as being on the ballot to run for president or any other office "Oh, and BTW your list, in point 1 you agree with me." No, it is me saying that yes, the judge made that statement. I then followed up that it has zero legal bearing on Trump's legal records. "In point 2 and 3 you're flat out wrong. " Wow. What a really convincing counter argument you gave here. "In points 3, 4, 5 and 6, you repeat the same thing. Talk about padding your argument. " I am trying to give you as much details as possible. I am showing you that Trump is 1. 100% innocent when it comes on if he engaged in an insurrection or not 2. Thus, the Colorado supreme court is removing an innocent man off of the ballot 3. Going farther that goes against the 14th amendment as it violates Trump's equal protection under the law "You keep trying to claim that the Colorado courts have done something outrageously illegal and in total violation of the Constitution, and no one cares." Actually a lot of people care which is why this is going to the US supreme court. There is a high chance they will overrule CO 9-0 due to how many parts of the Constitution the ruling violates. I feel that at worst it will be 7-2, but great chance of 9-0. When the SC overrules it will come back here and ask you how you feel.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "You have failed to show a lack of due process and therefore I believe I have won the stupid debate and will no longer waste any more time repeating what I have already explained to you ." You did not explain anything. You keep saying "there was due process" and that I was wrong. I ended up going point by point to break down my side of the argument and all you have done is say "you are wrong". To add 1. You claimed I would not hold the same standard to republicans when I 100% will. 2. You never cited anything when I cited one of the dissenting opinions 3. You are now claiming this is not a big deal when it is. Other states are following suit where the US supreme court is taking this up and there is a good chance this will be overruled 9-0 which would be historic and non political. But whatever makes you feel good.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Justice Samor made a weak argument in saying that because Trump was not a party of that civil suit" Oh, so Trump was not offered due process. Thanks for agreeing with me. So by your standard we can just punish people even when they are not a part of the civil suit. So Trump has no ability to defend himself which is a part of due process. So thanks for agreeing with me.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "You keep bringing that up. That's nothing but hyperbole. It's not part of my argument " No, that is part of your argument. You literally said "These are stablished laws, clearly broken and you want to insist that when a Republican does it, it's not illegal." If a republican broke the law and via due process they are found guilty then I will fully support punishing them.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "IT DOES HAVE LEGAL STANDING BECUASE IT IS LITERALLY PART OF HER SUMARY JUDGEMENT." Capital letters again. But again, it does not have legal standings. If it did why hasn't Trump been convicted of engaging in an insurrection? Why isn't it on his legal records?
1
@Lethgar_Smith "The 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction. " Yes it does via the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. By your standard any judge can make a claim that someone engaged in an insurrection and take them off the ballot. You have never addressed that point. Why? I am going to keep it simple and start there. If a judge in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and other swing states rule that Biden engaged in an insurrection and removed him off of the ballot will you support that ruling? Again, keeping it simple to start there. Answer that.
1
@Lethgar_Smith I doubt you are going to answer my point, but we will see.
1
@Lethgar_Smith ok, so in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia and other swing states, someone can say Biden, and in fact the entire DNC committed crimes and a judge can say "I agree" and thus can remove all democrats from the ballots. Do you agree?
1
@Lethgar_Smith "You have a very bad habit of ignoring my arguments and my questions to you and only cherry pick what minor point you can pester me over" No, I have addressed everything. I am at a point now that we need to take this slow and go one point at a time. Thus, the point we are addressing now is that if a judge in a swing state, like Michigan and Ohio, say that Biden, or the entire DNC committed crimes they can then remove all democrats from the ballot. Do you agree?
1
@Lethgar_Smith so I can walk up to a judge and say "Biden committed a crime" And the judge can say "I agree" And just like that Biden if off of the ballot in my state. Do you agree?
1
@Lethgar_Smith I am not changing the subject. The subject is based on your standard. So according to you I can just walk up to a judge, say that the entire DNC committed a crime and that judge can say "I agree" and remove all democrats from the ballot. To extend, someone else can go up to another judge in the same state and say every politician on the ballot committed a crime and the judge can say "I agree" and remove everyone from the ballot. And thus, in that state no one is on the ballot. Do you agree with that standard?
1
@Lethgar_Smith "You have to present evidence in a court." Ok, a judge says that everyone on the ballot committed a crime. The evidence is a written testimony by a Walmart worker. Thus, everyone is removed from the ballot. That is the standard you support. I have answered everything you presented to me. What I am trying to show you are the lack of standards you have. What is evidence? Is a written testimony by a Walmart worker evidence? And who decides that? If the judge says that is evidence then everyone can be removed from the ballot. So people in that state when they go to vote all receive a blank ballot. That is all by your standard.
1
@Lethgar_Smith seems you ran away. But have you read 14.5? "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Why are you ignoring that?
1
@Lethgar_Smith no, seems pretty clear. 14.5 says "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Seems like Congress is the one that has the power to enforce this article, not a state supreme court. Nice to see you only read parts of the Constitution.
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Well, the entire legal establishment and even conservative Constitutional scholars disagree with you" Uh, there were 3 dissenting opinions in the ruling. So there are 3 justices that disagree with you. And there are other lawyers that disagree with you. Are you that dense?
1
@lynemac2539 to lose your 2nd amendment right you have to go through due process and be convicted of a felony. Same applies to 14.3. Until due process happens and Trump is convicted there is nothing.
1
So a more peaceful world and a strong economy made him a failure?
1
@TheSeventhOutlaw does it matter? Why do all you cucks never give counter arguments?
1
Since when can any state violate the Constitution?
1
@noway1844 look at the 5th and 6th amendment along with the 14th amendment in relation to due process. I can look at the whole constitution as opposed to you that just pick and choose
1
Many things 1. On being a dictator, you guys have been screaming that for years, he is just now rolling with it. He will not be a dictator. During covid he could have used that to be one. He did not force the lockdowns and schools closing, democrats did. In fact, he wanted them to end. Why didn't he create an executive order to force all schools to be open? Same in when he held rallies in states that banned them. He did it at an airport that follows federal law. He did not push to change any stat law. 2. He did not commit nor participate an insurrection. If did, he needs to be convicted first. But he did not. 14.3 was written because of the Civil War where people grabbed guns and fought other citizens to developed another country which lasted 4 years. People going to the capitol, being let in, touring it for 2 hours taking selfies and doing nothing since is not an insurrection.
1
Since when was he convicted?
1
@noway1844 well, democrats impeached Trump for no reason. So now republicans can remove Biden from the ballot for no reason
1
@Lethgar_Smith "Trump withheld military aid and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Zelensky in an attempt to force Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden, and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election" Nothing wrong with that. Why not have an investigation? Democrats go their investigation with Russia collusion. Also, as we see now Biden has no problem giving Ukraine 100s of millions of dollars and military equipment in another endless war it seems Trump had a point. On the second impeachment Trump did not try to overthrow the government nor did he try to install himself as a dictator. If you want to talk about dictatorship Biden is the one that push the federal vaccine mandate threatening people's jobs. Biden is the one that pushed to go past Congress and the Supreme Court to give away money in the name of "student loan forgiveness". Biden, day one, signed a bunch of executive orders. During Covid Trump had every opportunity to be a dictator. He wasn't the one that shut down businesses and schools for months, democrats did. He wanted states to stop that, but he did not sign an executive order to do it. Just like when he held rallies and states said he could not. So he did it at an airport as those involves federal law. He did not force the states to do anything.
1
@Lethgar_Smith so what crimes did Trump commit?
1
@americatruecrime I am too. I am 99% sure the supreme court will overrule this based on the fact that Trump was not even convicted of an insurrection. Along with that, this was written because of the Civil War where people took guns and fought citizens in a war that lasted 4 years to created another nation. You can't compare that to Trump telling people to peacefully protest where some (with no guns) decided to be violent for 2 hours and then leaving. Or maybe you can. But the standard of what an "insurrection" will have to be set.
1
@americatruecrime if that is the case they why use 14.3? Just enforce state law. The issue is that you have to, via the 14th amendment, enforce it equally. That means if you remove Trump because you claimed he incited an insurrection, then both sides can do it. What is to stop republicans from doing it with Biden? Now they can make that claim and the CO SC will have to uphold it. So there is that side of it as well. Or the republicans can just all take their name off of the ballot all together in the primaries. But if it is just the primary then I agree, it will be different. However, I still feels it sets a dangerous standard.
1
He is evil and wants to do this for money. He is smart, but he has become evil. I have followed him for years, really since the beginning and liked him. But overtime I felt he saw others, like Ben Shapiro gain a lot of success and thus he has become evil and full of hate.
1
Since when can states violate the Constitution? Fun fact, so many were afraid of abortion laws that banned people from going over state lines to get them. The Supreme Court said those laws could not be upheld as it violated the commerce clause.
1
Well, due to the strong hatred of Trump by the liberal elites this is setting dangerous standards. People who oppose this do not so much like Trump, they hate the standard. For me I liked Trump as a president, but I don't worship him. And if he loses fairly I am fine with it. But this action is dangerous along with many others by the left.
1
@@Rev.Smedly the Constitution has never been left. It is neutral. Fact is Trump has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection. There has been no due process. Here you have members on the left wanting to remove Trump from the ballots because they hate him and/or are scared of him. That is not how this works. I hate Biden, I feel he is the worst post civil war president ever and his record supports that. However, to me he has done nothing to be removed from the ballots, at least legally. I feel he is not mentally there, but there is no law saying he has to be. What you have it is an example of how the democrats cannot beat someone fairly so they change the standards to beat someone. We see this in many cases with the left. If Trump gets due process and is found guilty of inciting an insurrection then fine, kick him off. That is not the case.
1
The liberal voters lost their minds, not the liberal elites. The goal is for the supreme court to shoot this down, same with the Jack Smith case. When that happens they will cry justice is not served. They will also point to the overturning of Roe v Wade and the blocking of the student loan forgiveness. They will use that as an excuse to pack the courts.
1
Since when could any state violate the constitution? You do know in overturning Roe v Wade the supreme court rules that people, via the commerce clause, can still go across state lines and get an abortion.
1
Not true. Most, like me, who support Trump do not care if he loses as long as it is fair. What we do not like are actions like this. Removing someone from the ballot when they have not even been convicted of an insurrection. This sets dangerous standards. Also, jailing political opponents and keeping them off of ballots is how communist nations come about.
1
@@Rev.Smedly what about the 5th amendment and due process? Or are you going to ignore that like you do the 2nd amendment?
1
Yeah, such as republicans remove democrats off of the ballots.
1
The real plan this whole time is this. The supreme court will overrule this. They will shoot down the Jack Smith trial. At that point democrats will say justice is not being served due to a bias court. That along with overturning Roe v Wade, stopping the vaccine mandate, etc. Thus the democrats, if they win in 2024 the senate and presidency will push to stack the courts.
1
@@Rev.Smedly do what?
1
@noway1844 never said that. During Trump's presidency republicans controlled the senate. Trump only appointed a justice when one stepped down or died. He started with 9 and after his presidency we still have 9. When did he ever pack the courts?
1
The 14th amendment was written after the Civil War where people took guns and fought other citizens for 4 years to break away from the US and create a new nation. People going to the capitol to peacefully protest, being let in by police, walking around taking selfies for 2 hours is extremely different than starting a war.
1
@bonecrayon Trump said to go peacefully. He did not say to get violent. Yes, there were some bad apples, I agree. But they did not show up with guns. They did not kill anyone. And they were gone in 2 hours. During that time Trump tweeted for them to not be violent. And he condemned the violence afterwards. Again, the 14th amendment was written in context of the Civil War, actual death and carnage that lasted 4 year and divided our nation. And was building up and being planned on for years. That is radically different than what happened on Jan 6th.
1
@bonecrayon to add on the bad apples, many democrats supported the BLM protests. Well, some were violent. Do you blame the democrats for that? No. Trump never said to get violent. He never said to break windows and beat up people and threaten them. Just because some overreacted does not mean Trump incited an insurrection.
1
@bonecrayon so what if 7 republican senators voted to convict Trump. You need 67 total senators. Guess what, that did not happen. Also, there were many republicans that hated Trump as well. That is why so many support Trump, his supporters are sick of both sides being divisive. "You whataboutism about BLM is lame and irrelevant. Were they trying to overturn a democratic election? " No, and neither was Trump. Really, so you call telling a bunch of unarmed citizens at the last minute to go to the capital and peacefully protest overthrowing the election? ""Some overacted"? Is that why they bought iron bars, pepper spray and cable ties? Is that why they wiped shit on the walls?" I have seen the hours of videos. Almost all were peaceful. How does smearing shit on the wall overturn an election? How does showing up with iron bars, not guns, overturn an election? Also, when did I ever defend those who acted violently? All I am saying is that it is not an insurrection. An insurrection takes months of planning, takes organization, and takes time to complete. It is not telling people unarmed people to protest peacefully at the last minute with no clear plan or guidance.
1
@noway1844 politicians on both sides say fight. One of Trump's lawyers played 9 minutes of video of democrats using the word "fight". So if a school plays a fight song, does that mean the student body should break out in a fight? Or when someone says "fight cancer" do they end up like Russel Crowe in South Park and look for cancer to fight? It is the same with trial by combat and being wild. Heck, people are saying this recently decision in CO is wild. Does that mean it is violent? Trump literally said to go peacefully. There were not 5000 rioters, most were peaceful. Watch the videos. With BLM most "security" stood down or was not there. That is why the Kyle Rittenhouse incident happened. There was no security. Also, BLM lasted months. Jan 6th lasted a couple of hours. Take off your Trump hating glasses and realize reality. Or go ahead and hate Trump, but be fair.
1
This sets a dangerous standard. If up-held (it won't be) states can just remove anyone from a ballot for no reason. Trump was not convicted so people can say Biden committed an insurrection when he tried to go pass congress and pass the vaccine mandate. Or how he tries to go past congress and the SC by constantly trying to pay off others student loans.
1
@@Rev.Smedly not really. Trump has not been convicted of anything. Thus you cannot say he incited an insurrection. Just like how you can't say someone committed a felony and take away their 2nd amendment right. They have to go through due process first. Once that is done then you can take away the 2nd amendment right. Same in that once due process happens and Trump is convicted of an insurrection you can then use 14.3 As of now, if up-held politicians and judges will just be removing their rivals off of the ballot for any excuse.
1
@noway1844 no, I give counter answers of what is going on.
1
It is a big deal because we have the liberal elites that are acting like dictators that can turn us into Iran. Persia turned into Iran for actions very similar to this.
1
Ok, now read the 5th amendment which relates to due process.
1
@shelby7963 via the 5th amendment there has to be due process. Read the Constitution.
1
@shelby7963 again, where is the due process? You can say he instigated an insurrection all you want. However, until there is due process that finds him guilty of it, you can't say that he instigated an insurrection on any legal grounds. You are innocent until proven guilty. I will feel the same way about Biden as well.
1
@shelby7963 that is not due process and that is also not the role of the SC. Due process is a hearing, a a plea of guilty or not guilty by the defendant, a trial with a jury where both sides give their arguments and then a verdict. None of that has happened. Trump has not been found guilty of participating in an insurrection. The SC role is to interpret laws based on the Constitution. Not to make rulings like this. The SC can rule that if someone participated in an insurrection then they can removed from a ballot. However, that is it. What they can't do is say that someone did commit an insurrection and rule them as guilty. Again, that requires a trial which never happened.
1
@shelby7963 well, here is some more educational points for you. That is not how the system works. I do not live in CO. Even if I did I am not on the CO SC. The chief justice of the CO SC even stated in his dissenting opinion that Trump was not convicted. To add, judges are still human and can be bias as we have seen all throughout history. As with the system this is now going to the US Supreme Court to make the final ruling on the 14th amendment, what it means, and how to apply it. There is a good chance they will overrule CO 9-0. I feel it is more likely be 7-2 due to Jackson and Sotomayor hatred towards Trump. But even Jackson has shown to be reasonable and fair at times. Sotomayor not so much. So if the US Supreme Court overrules Colorado, are you going to run to them with your law degree and tell them otherwise?
1
@shelby7963 several things here. One, I doubt you will agree if the SC overrules CO. Tell me, do you agree with Roe v Wade being overturned? Next, I disagree with what a lot of politicians and judges say. In the CO ruling it was 4-3 meaning there are 3 justices that disagree with you. Many times I disagree with the decision, but as long as the process if followed I am OK with it. If the SC upholds the ruling I will disagree, but at least the process went through as there is a process for the people to make changes. Compare it to free speech. I disagree with things a racist says, but I defend their right to say it. Same thing here. But again, if the SC overrules Co I doubt you will agree.
1
@shelby7963 not trying to be. Trying to help someone out understand the correct standard to go by.
1
@lynemac2539 three of them are Trump appointed. And Trump has no authority to remove justices, only add. And that takes the Senate being on his side as well.
1
@noway1844 funny how democrats cried election interference on the 2016 election. Or how Al Gore and democrats cried in the 2000 election because Jeb Bush was the governor of FL.
1
@Lethgar_Smith uh, where is your evidence that Gore won the 2000 election? There were multiple recounts. I am old enough to remember them al. If there was evidence that strong why didn't Gore fight more? Uh, many democrats said Trump was not legally elected. When Trump won there were riots, same when he was sworn in. When Trump lost his supporters moved on. All you can point to is Jan 6th. Many on the left rioted across the nation.
1
@sharkfintech5893 well, the standard is that you do not have to be convicted of one. Republicans can say Biden trying to bypass congress on the vaccine mandate and student loan repayments is trying to commit an insurrection.
1
No state can violate the Constitution. The constitution limits all governments. This is why this is going to the supreme court. The supreme court will make a ruling of 14.3 that all states have to follow. Just like they ruled in Brown v Board via the 14th amendment that all states have to follow.
1
@Lethgar_Smith a few things. One, Trump was never convicted of participating in an insurrection. Next, Jan 6th was not an insurrection. 14.3 was written after the Civil War when people took guns and fought other citizens for 4 years to become another nation. Jan 6th was people, after a Trump speech where he said to go peacefully went to the capitol. Most were let in and took tours taking selfies. Some were violent but mostly vandalism and no one had guns and no one was killed besides a protestor. 2 hours later they left and nothing happened since. That is completely different than the Civil War.
1
@Lethgar_Smith ok, and? Again, how did Trump incite an insurrection? When did he ever tell people to go attack the capitol? Never. He said to go peacefully. I agree some people were violent, but Trump never once ordered them go be violent. If we can't agree on reality, then we can't have this conversation Next, a conviction is required via the due process class of the 5th amendment. "The question of his participation in the insurrection has already been decided by a judge." That is 100% not true. A judge cannot do that just like a judge cannot say someone committed murder with no investigation and no due process. This judge was not involved in the investigation. There was no hearing, there was no trial, there was no jury. Thus, no due process. " Laws must apply equally to everyone or else they mean nothing" Yeah, just like via the 5th amendment due process has to happen.
1
He was never convicted of anything.
1
Noticed how under Trump Russia did not attack Ukraine and China was not escalating tensions with Taiwan?
1
Why? As long as they give good reasoning. How about if Jackson and Sotomayor rule against Trump? Would you feel the same?
1
This is an easy ruling for the SC. Trump was denied his 5th and 6th amendment rights. There was no due process and no trial thus he was never convicted. The chief justice in CO even said that he was not convicted. There is a good chance this could be a 9-0 ruling. Jackson and Sotomayor both hate Trump, so I can see, at worst, a 7-2, but Jackson has shown to be reasonable at times so good chance she will side with Trump.
1
@emmental2020 you can't say he incited an insurrection until he has been convicted of it.
1
@lynemac2539 he can't. He has no authority to.
1
@lynemac2539 Trump is not a dictator.
1
@lynemac2539 how so? During covid was Trump the one who did the lockdowns, or overturn them?
1