Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot

Absolutely wrong.

Wrong. And I don't think you want court judgments like that on a whim with these types of implications.

 

I'll go one step further, my guess is the 2 are Sotomayor and Jackson.

 

I'm aware polygraphs typically aren't admissible, but I'm sure if you asked Trump to take a polygraph and ask him if the 2020 election was stolen, and he said "yes," he'd pass with flying colors. I think he believes that with every bone in his body, even if it's not true.

 

Challenging the results in court isn't illegal. In fact, it's the proper area to challenge the results. Trump did, and notice, none of the charges stem from any of Trump's legal challenges.

Had Trump followed Gore and concedes defeat after losing in the courts, Trump isn't facing charges stemming from Jan 6 and the insurrection attempt. Just like Gore never faced charges.

And if you think Trump wasn't an integral part of Jan 6 and the insurrection attempt, take it up with the Colorado Supreme Court. Or better yet, examine the mountains of evidence against Trump.

 

No, but implementing actions ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court suggests a action predicated on an unsettled area of law, that is ultimately ruled illegal.

Trump attempted to take action with the elector scheme that likely would have been overruled by the courts, but it never got to that point.

For purposes of the insurrection standard of "usurping" the office, Gore meets that standard.

I'm not saying he wasn't an "integral part." I'm saying "integral part" has absolutely nothing to do with the legal standard for insurrection. Mike Pence was an "integral part" of the events of January 6th. He was a necessary component to carry out the scheme. Is he guilty of insurrection?

 

You dont like this... Wait til the democrats pack the supreme court.

Republicans have pioneered hardline positions since they started refusing to approve Obama's judges. Look at the loser AllBurned coach and officers. The GOP would rather America crumble than lose power as they escalate ways to get around democracy. Its starting to backfire.

 

If your takeaway from this story is that the GOP is looking for ways to get around democracy, you are a lost cause.

 

The flaw here is that Trump has no regard for truth, and very likely cannot differentiate truth from fiction. Additionally, psychopaths are known to defeat polygraphs.

 

All fair enough, but that makes proving specific intent with Trump an issue with anything you charge him with (which requires proof of specific intent).

 

I appreciate the point. But, there is a mountain of evidence for a jury to decide he had the specific intent because he was fully, competently, unambiguously informed there was no facts to support any of the theories of election fraud. Unless Trump advances a defense that he cannot ascertain the difference between truth and fiction, right and wrong (and thus is a psychopath), then the jury never gets to question his mental incapacity.

 

His theory on the role of the VP in counting electors was planted. He just exercised atrocious judgment and put his faith in the wrong people on the grounds of "wishful thinking" and "ego."

That said, no jury has found specific intent. All we apparently have is inferences of intent based on notice provided to Trump shown in Congressional Committee reports.

Also, not true. "Lack of specific intent" is typically not an affirmative defense, it's an essential element of specific intent crimes. The burden is not on Trump to prove that he DIDN'T have it. The burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he DID have it.

 

Go to paragraph 22, pages 13-14 of the opinion (”The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted five days … the court issued, it’s written final order on November 17, finding, by clearing, convincing evidence, that the events of January 6 constituted, an insurrection, and President Trump engaged in that insurrection.“)

 

I’m not following your points the first paragraph.

We are in general agreement in the second paragraph.

And I agree about the burden, but it remains consistent with my point.

 

Specific intent is proven by demonstrating Trump was duly informed his words were lies, coupled with his threats to Pence made after he was told he had no factual foundation, followed his tweets when he was duly informed his allegations were groundless, followed by his speeches, etc.

In other words, a prosecutor does not have to have evidence of an actual admission by Trump that he knew and intended actions. A jury can infer such knowledge and intent.

 

Trump didn't just come up with his theory of Pence "counting electors favorably" on his own. That opinion came from other people, or was at minimum validated by other people. That's the point. It's not like every voice in Trump's ear was telling him "you can't do this." Not an excuse for the underlying conduct, but it is relevant to his intent.

Thanks.

Not exactly, though I may be misinterpreting your point. Trump doesn't need to plead insanity or anything like that. The government simply needs to fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump possessed specific intent.

 

Trump is being charged with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding? What Proceeding did Gore try and stop?

Pence refused to go along with Trump's plan. Had he agreed to it, he would be facing charges too. But Pence did his duty to the Constitution.

Trump's fake elector scheme would've been overturned. But when does a dictator who illegally usurped power listen to court rulings against him? The fact Trump even v tried is the justification the Colorado Supreme Court used to keep him off the ballot.

 

I won’t refer to the scheme as an “opinion,” it was a scheme to defraud the voters of the United States. Regardless, I think it’s irrelevant that there were other people participating in the scheme. Trump participated, knowingly (based on the documentary evidence), and is no excuse to his intent. Indeed, as a matter of law, everyone participating in a conspiracy is legally responsible for every step of the conspiracy.

 

Not what I'm arguing and not relevant.

He was still an integral part of the plan. Are you now going back on that standard?

And Gore's election law interpretation was overturned. SCOTUS ruled in Bush v. Gore that no Constitutional recount was Constitutional in the time remaining, yet one had already commenced.

 

But if in his mind, he is simply trying to ensure the election is properly and fairly decided, he lacks the specific intent necessary for both insurrection and conspiracy.

If Trump believed he was trying to stop a coup rather than start one, he lacked the specific intent necessary for both insurrection and conspiracy.

 

What a load of hogwash.

Trump has said that every election he has ever lost he was cheated. Even when he lost primary states in 2016 to other republicans, he said it. His narcissistic mind cannot deal with the idea of him losing. He was going to grab on to any set of facts or action plans to allow him to stay in office.

He tried to pressure Pence into stopping the vote count. Grassley had been told Pence might not be there if he wouldn't do Trump's bidding and he should be prepared to run the vote count. At the rallies leading up to 1/6, his cult members were being told to show up in D.C. He told his droogies to go down to congress and "fight like hell" for him.

The only ones who can't see this was an attempted insurrection are those who refuse to acknowledge the facts.