- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
i dont even know who this famous guy is. is he an actor? it looks like he's acting.
-
Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here
Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts
- Thread starter 58miles
- Start date
i dont even know who this famous guy is. is he an actor? it looks like he's acting.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2020
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 13,812
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2022
- Messages
- 4,524
- Reaction score
- 4,802
You're on dubs AGAIN?
My lord man, find a new hobby that isn't posting on sherdog.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot
A Colorado judge on Friday rejected a 14th Amendment challenge to Donald Trump appearing on the state's presidential ballot in 2024.
The ruling follows a two-and-a-half-week trial in the state over Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the amendment, also known as the insurrection clause.
Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace found the petitioners — four Republican voters and two unaffiliated voters in the state — “established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.”
However, Wallace wrote in her order, the court sides with the intervenors in the case — Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee — in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, which states:
What's more, the judge wrote, it appears that for “whatever reason” the drafters also “did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
“As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump,” the judge wrote.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who is named in the lawsuit along with Trump, has said Trump incited the insurrection though she chose not to keep him off the ballot and instead called on the courts to weigh in on the matter.
The Colorado case is one of several legal challenges pending across the country in which voters have cited the 14th Amendment to try to keep the former president off the presidential ballot in 2024.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan recently punted on the 14th Amendment question. The Minnesota Supreme Court said it’s up to state Republicans to determine whether to put Trump on the primary ballot and that the question of general election eligibility is premature. A Michigan judge issued a similar ruling but went further in deeming the constitutional question a “political” one that’s for Congress, not courts, to decide. It doesn’t appear that the Minnesota ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Michigan challengers have vowed to appeal the lower court ruling at least through the state judicial system.
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the final word on the subject, though it’s not yet clear in which case — or cases.
Read the Colorado judge's full order below:
www.msnbc.com
so the judge ruled that the orange insurrectionist did in fact participate in an insurrection, but because of a constitutional technicality, the rule to bar him from the state ballot doesnt apply to trump.
soak it all in maga trash. this is the only W's that orange cosby has had in the courtroom in many many years, and it was only because of a technicality. if he had ever won a seat in congress, the senate, the legislature, or even got sworn in as a judge or an executive officer, basically any other high government position, his name would be taken off the ballot. the teflon don skates out of this one, only because of the idea that a person who had no political experience could be elected as president and go straight to the whitehouse without ever holding any political position in government beforehand was completely overlooked.
trump got spared as the founding fathers never envisioned a fraudster and con artist as crooked as trump to make it all the way into presidential office without ever holding any other political office first. i guess they never anticipated that a reality tv celebrity would go straight to the whitehouse, considering that they didn't even have television way back when they drafted this shit up. one would have to think that a person would have to have a background in politics in order to get elected into the highest political office in the country. but back in those times people were shitting in chamber pots, dumping it out the window and then dying from the plague.
i believe that this technicality might even apply to the vice president as well. so if they were to elect The Rock as vice president, and The Rock goes all the way down to The Peoples House, lays the smacketh down on a bunch of capitol police, and and participates in The People's Insurrection, as long as The Rock hasn't already been sworn into any lower branch of government, The Rock could still have his name on the election ballots after that.
they need to take this to the supreme court to rectify this in the future. a bunch of TV celebrities shouldn't be going straight to the whitehouse and then committing insurrections and then still be allowed to run for office afterwards. this shouldn't be the norm!
A Colorado judge on Friday rejected a 14th Amendment challenge to Donald Trump appearing on the state's presidential ballot in 2024.
The ruling follows a two-and-a-half-week trial in the state over Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the amendment, also known as the insurrection clause.
Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace found the petitioners — four Republican voters and two unaffiliated voters in the state — “established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.”
However, Wallace wrote in her order, the court sides with the intervenors in the case — Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee — in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, which states:
Wallace agreed with the intervenors in finding that the drafters of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”
What's more, the judge wrote, it appears that for “whatever reason” the drafters also “did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
“As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump,” the judge wrote.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who is named in the lawsuit along with Trump, has said Trump incited the insurrection though she chose not to keep him off the ballot and instead called on the courts to weigh in on the matter.
The Colorado case is one of several legal challenges pending across the country in which voters have cited the 14th Amendment to try to keep the former president off the presidential ballot in 2024.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan recently punted on the 14th Amendment question. The Minnesota Supreme Court said it’s up to state Republicans to determine whether to put Trump on the primary ballot and that the question of general election eligibility is premature. A Michigan judge issued a similar ruling but went further in deeming the constitutional question a “political” one that’s for Congress, not courts, to decide. It doesn’t appear that the Minnesota ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Michigan challengers have vowed to appeal the lower court ruling at least through the state judicial system.
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the final word on the subject, though it’s not yet clear in which case — or cases.
Read the Colorado judge's full order below:
Trump can stay on the presidential ballot in Colorado, judge rules
It’s the latest court ruling in the cross-country effort to keep Trump off the ballot under the Constitution’s insurrectionist ban.
www.msnbc.com
so the judge ruled that the orange insurrectionist did in fact participate in an insurrection, but because of a constitutional technicality, the rule to bar him from the state ballot doesnt apply to trump.
soak it all in maga trash. this is the only W's that orange cosby has had in the courtroom in many many years, and it was only because of a technicality. if he had ever won a seat in congress, the senate, the legislature, or even got sworn in as a judge or an executive officer, basically any other high government position, his name would be taken off the ballot. the teflon don skates out of this one, only because of the idea that a person who had no political experience could be elected as president and go straight to the whitehouse without ever holding any political position in government beforehand was completely overlooked.
trump got spared as the founding fathers never envisioned a fraudster and con artist as crooked as trump to make it all the way into presidential office without ever holding any other political office first. i guess they never anticipated that a reality tv celebrity would go straight to the whitehouse, considering that they didn't even have television way back when they drafted this shit up. one would have to think that a person would have to have a background in politics in order to get elected into the highest political office in the country. but back in those times people were shitting in chamber pots, dumping it out the window and then dying from the plague.
i believe that this technicality might even apply to the vice president as well. so if they were to elect The Rock as vice president, and The Rock goes all the way down to The Peoples House, lays the smacketh down on a bunch of capitol police, and and participates in The People's Insurrection, as long as The Rock hasn't already been sworn into any lower branch of government, The Rock could still have his name on the election ballots after that.
they need to take this to the supreme court to rectify this in the future. a bunch of TV celebrities shouldn't be going straight to the whitehouse and then committing insurrections and then still be allowed to run for office afterwards. this shouldn't be the norm!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 11,337
- Reaction score
- 12,355
You know how some junkies are too far gone to turn their life around and become functional human beings?
I think @Super_Nintendo is at that stage
I think @Super_Nintendo is at that stage
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,877
- Reaction score
- 35,840
Missed that. Like what?
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,877
- Reaction score
- 35,840
What utter bullshit. As Commander in Chief is he not a member of the military?Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot
A Colorado judge on Friday rejected a 14th Amendment challenge to Donald Trump appearing on the state's presidential ballot in 2024.
The ruling follows a two-and-a-half-week trial in the state over Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the amendment, also known as the insurrection clause.
Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace found the petitioners — four Republican voters and two unaffiliated voters in the state — “established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.”
However, Wallace wrote in her order, the court sides with the intervenors in the case — Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee — in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, which states:
Wallace agreed with the intervenors in finding that the drafters of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”
What's more, the judge wrote, it appears that for “whatever reason” the drafters also “did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”
“As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump,” the judge wrote.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who is named in the lawsuit along with Trump, has said Trump incited the insurrection though she chose not to keep him off the ballot and instead called on the courts to weigh in on the matter.
The Colorado case is one of several legal challenges pending across the country in which voters have cited the 14th Amendment to try to keep the former president off the presidential ballot in 2024.
Courts in Minnesota and Michigan recently punted on the 14th Amendment question. The Minnesota Supreme Court said it’s up to state Republicans to determine whether to put Trump on the primary ballot and that the question of general election eligibility is premature. A Michigan judge issued a similar ruling but went further in deeming the constitutional question a “political” one that’s for Congress, not courts, to decide. It doesn’t appear that the Minnesota ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Michigan challengers have vowed to appeal the lower court ruling at least through the state judicial system.
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the final word on the subject, though it’s not yet clear in which case — or cases.
Read the Colorado judge's full order below:
Trump can stay on the presidential ballot in Colorado, judge rules
It’s the latest court ruling in the cross-country effort to keep Trump off the ballot under the Constitution’s insurrectionist ban.
so the judge ruled that the orange insurrectionist did in fact participate in an insurrection, but because of a constitutional technicality, the rule to bar him from the state ballot doesnt apply to trump.
soak it all in maga trash. this is the only W's that orange cosby has had in the courtroom in many many years, and it was only because of a technicality. if he had ever won a seat in congress, the senate, the legislature, or even got sworn in as a judge or an executive officer, basically any other high government position, his name would be taken off the ballot. the teflon don skates out of this one, only because of the idea that a person who had no political experience could be elected as president and go straight to the whitehouse without ever holding any political position in government beforehand was completely overlooked.
trump got spared as the founding fathers never envisioned a fraudster and con artist as crooked as trump to make it all the way into presidential office without ever holding any other political office first. i guess they never anticipated that a reality tv celebrity would go straight to the whitehouse, considering that they didn't even have television way back when they drafted this shit up. one would have to think that a person would have to have a background in politics in order to get elected into the highest political office in the country. but back in those times people were shitting in chamber pots, dumping it out the window and then dying from the plague.
i believe that this technicality might even apply to the vice president as well. so if they were to elect The Rock as vice president, and The Rock goes all the way down to The Peoples House, lays the smacketh down on a bunch of capitol police, and and participates in The People's Insurrection, as long as The Rock hasn't already been sworn into any lower branch of government, The Rock could still have his name on the election ballots after that.
they need to take this to the supreme court to rectify this in the future. a bunch of TV celebrities shouldn't be going straight to the whitehouse and then committing insurrections and then still be allowed to run for office afterwards. this shouldn't be the norm!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
apparently not. but if he was say, a secretary of defense, or a joints chief of staff, or even held any kind of executive branch in the military, it would apply to him. but somehow they found some kind of technicality that doesn't apply to trump. despite being the commander in chief, he wasn't really an officer, he was the president. or at least thats how the judge seems to be interpreting things.
i cant believe that shit though. after the petitioners done their thing and the judge ruled that the former president engaged in insurrection, it turns out they still cant keep his name off the ballots, simply because of bullshit terminology in the statutes and how they imagine it to be interpreted.
now if this was any other president, it never would have worked out this way. most of them have all had backgrounds in politics where they ended up having to take an oath of office for some other kind of congressional or legislative seat at one point or another. but donnie boy went straight from the television set to the whitehouse, and for some reason the rules just don't apply to him, unless they can find a sure fire way in legal jargon to define the president as an officer.
i still think they need to take this matter up with the state supreme court's and also the SCOTUS and get things clarified. maybe try to amend in some kind of Donald Trump Clause to prevent this type of tomfuckery from happening down the road. i mean forget donald trump, let's not take the chances of taylor swift ever winning a presidential election and then inciting an insurrection and then running for office again shall we? at least if she wins her first election, get her appointed to also run a school board on the side or something just to make sure she finds out if she fucks around.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,877
- Reaction score
- 35,840
No, they found an interpretation that lets him off the hook. That doesn't mean their interpretation is a good one or legally sound.
It's very clearly wrong in my lay opinion. Leaving out the parts which specify other positions, it says, "No Person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [emphasis mine]
But yeah, that totally doesn't apply to this particular oath....riiiiiiiight.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2022
- Messages
- 4,524
- Reaction score
- 4,802
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
well i guess as far as the judge is concerned, commander in chief may as well just be a nickname or whatever if they arent also going to look at the potus as an officer. it kind of is open to interpretation in a way, but i think the matter would better be addressed in a higher court.
thats why this whole thing was considered to be a longshot and a hail mary. just because of the terminology used. its all a bunch of legal kafuffle.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
imagine championing for a former president who was ruled to have engaged in insurrection against his own country and government and then considering it a win just because of a bunch of legal technicalities that prevent him having to face the punishment for participating in such activity
this is the self-proclaimed party of law and order and personal accountability in its true glory right here. whats next? are they gonna start praising bill cosby for raping somebody but then getting off on a technicality?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
ya'll ready for GrifterCon? that's quite the impressive roster here. i don't know if the stage will be able to handle all of that human garbage being loaded onto it and all of the manure that will come out of their mouths
but mike lindell and roseanne barr in the same room? mike lindell can cut a promo on his lumpy pillows while roseanne screams the national anthem in the background. fuck yeah, sign me up!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 50,877
- Reaction score
- 35,840
Smells worse than a tire fire and just full of pollution.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2022
- Messages
- 4,524
- Reaction score
- 4,802
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 35,198
- Reaction score
- 73,731
i had to go all the way to the bottom just to find a name i'm not really at all familiar with. allie stuckey. i have no idea who she is but a quick glance at her twitter account and it appears as if we've got outselves a fake ass christian religious zealot on our hands here.
but even with all her bible thumping, she's probably the most sane person out of the group.
now all they need is one of those fake faith healer people to perform fake miracles in front of their audience for donations and shit. maybe they can even roll Don Jr. on the stage in a wheechair and ask for a small contribution of $20,000 and then they'll spout off a bunch of nonsensical religious hokus pokus stuff, click their heels together 3 times, recite a verse about hunter's laptop, and then Don Jr. will suddenly get up off his wheelchair and walk over to Mike Lindell and buy some crack. "By the Lord, it's a miracle! He can walk again! He's been saved!"
i dont know what those people are called or if they still do it, but i remember like 30 years ago they used to air tv shows on sunday mornings with these fake ass religious people performing fake ass miracles on a bunch of audience plants while running their grift-a-thon's for the audience members to call into and donate their money. i dont know if they still do that shit today, or if they've all got sued into oblivion by now. i dont even know if that shit is still legal, but that kind of a grift would be perfect at a GOP clown convention.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Rumored "John Pork" Zaynukov vs. Mateusz Rębecki in plans for UFC 328
- Latest: The_Renaissance
-
