Trump wins Colorado lawsuit to disqualify him..

It was trump's lawyers that won the lawsuit not really trump himself. Words in the English language have meaning.

 

The court said trump did participate in an insurrection and that :

https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf…

The Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.

The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud. He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.

294. When the violence began, he took no effective action, disregarded repeated calls to intervene, and pressured colleagues to delay the certification until roughly three hours had passed, at which point he called for dispersal, but not without praising the mob and again endorsing the use of political violence. The evidence shows that Trump not only knew about the potential for violence, but that he actively promoted it and, on January 6, 2021, incited it. His inaction during the violence and his later endorsement of the violence corroborates the evidence that his intent was to incite violence on January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021. The Court therefore holds that the first Brandenburg factor has been established.


The Court previously held that pursuant C.R.S. § 1-4-1204(4) the burden of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. That is the burden the Court has applied. However, the Court holds that the Petitioners have met the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.
............................................
But oddly decided the POTUS is not an office of the United States and that is the weird interpretation that allowed trump's lawyers to win the case.
.............................................
Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States.

 

I've had all I can take of UFLawyer and his snide and condescending comments and am joining the list of folks who put him on ignore.

 

Seems Judge Luttig disagrees with the legal analysis above. Tough choice as to who to trust...

 

I have to say, if there is one guideline I’d recommend for life, it might be the exact opposite of this. I think our insistence on trusting our own opinions over all others in most every case is one of the roots of our national problems.

Ben Franklin once said, “I imagine a man must have a good deal of vanity who believes, and a good deal of boldness who affirms, that all the doctrines he holds are true and all he rejects are false.”

 

OP has a penchant for arguing all things and in the style of Trump. And this despite continuously claiming not to be a Trump supporter.

 

Who decides what is the right context to trust yourself over others? If it is yourself, then it would appear context does not actually matter.

 

Haven’t read the law or opinion but I haven’t liked the idea of this, particularly short of a conviction.

 

Trump only gets credit when he loses apparently…

 

One of the dumber things I've read on this message board to trust my own legal opinion over a highly experienced judge. A long-time conservative judge no less.

 

I agree in general (at this time). The voters should decide short of convictions.

 

I wasn't surprised by the decision in the least. The reality is that the probability of any court keeping Trump off the ballot was and is virtually nil. A political science class I took on Constitutional Law comes immediately to mind (adding that the focus was much different than the Con Law class I took in Law School). Courts are very reluctant to address "political questions" or in other words issues that they feel should be addressed legislatively and the question of whether an candidate may run for office falls into that category. Judge J. Micheal Luttig and Laurence Tribe both well respected legal scholars made a very strong a argument that Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for election. In the end it doesn't matter. Although the rationale between courts may differ in the end the chances are that no court will hold that Donald Trump is prohibited from running for election and in the even that he should win the election from taking office.
The article by Luttig and Tribe
The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again