2024 Republican Primary

[Nimbly9]

Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit

Well golly gee, I guess he's not an insurrectionist after all. Checkmate Dems. 

It would be hilarious if he ends up having to fight this exact same suit in all 50 states eventually though. Surely at least one state hates him enough to go through with it.

[Lisnaholic]

Well golly gee, I guess he's not an insurrectionist after all. Checkmate Dems. 

^ Actually, you are wrong on both counts, Nimbly: firstly, he is an insurectionist, and secondly, it's not checkmate for the Dems. Take a look at the bolded from Psy-Fi's link:-

Ms Wallace [= Colorado judge] did find, however, that Mr Trump "engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech".

The ruling is the latest setback for efforts to disqualify Mr Trump from the Republican primary election.

Similar lawsuits in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Michigan have already failed.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - which filed the Colorado lawsuit - said it would be filing an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court shortly.

The group applauded Ms Wallace's finding that Mr Trump had engaged in insurrection on 6 January.

"We are proud to have brought this historic case and know we are right on the facts and right on the law," the group said. "Today was not the end of this effort, but another step along the way."

of course not an ideal result for the Dems, but notice: (i) a judge has now made a court ruling, labelling Trump as an insurrectionist and (ii) he can stay on the ballot because of some rather hair-splitting reading of the 14th ammendment. That's why the CREW lawyers plan to continue the fight.

These are the fine-readings of the 14th ammendment that the judge says lets Trump stay on the ballot:-

i) that the oath "to support and defend the constitution" (14th ammendment) is NOT the same as the oath "to preserve, protect and defend the constituion", which is what the President takes. 
ii) The judge found that, as president, Trump was not "an officer of the United States" who could be disqualified under the amendment.

To some extent, both of those points look pretty weak, so we'll see if they are still maintained under the appeals process. TBH, in the court of public opinion, it wouldn't look good if Trump was struck off the ballot, but then, on the other hand, it's not good to have the GOP supporting an insurrectionist who has hinted, claimed or promised to:-

- execute General Milley for treason
- terminate parts of the constitution
- "come after" and imprison his political opponents

If we add on to that his determination to stay in power regardless of electoral results, we have the full-on, fascist autocrat agenda. 

[Nimbly9]

First off, I was mocking the article because after all that noise, they can't actually commit to taking him off the ballot in any state that similar suits have been tried in so far because *insert excuses here*.

Also, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result. 

Remember when Trump challenged the election in court in multiple states and got slapped down over and over again? This is the Democrat goose chase edition of that.  If they had any common sense they'd quit while they're ahead and focus time, money and energy on other avenues more likely to stick to him.

If Trump is an actual insurrectionist, he shouldn't be on any ballot in any state, period.  The fact that he continues to be undermines any platitudes they want to put out there.

[Lisnaholic]

My apologies if I  didn't pick up on the mocking part, Nimbly. I just didn't see it.

Also, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result.

Well, some elements of the House Oversight Committee's investigation seem kind of laughable to me, like when one of the first witnesses that the Republicans called said there was insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden. I also feel that there should be a clearer division between what Hunter B did and what his dad did. What I've put in bold, above is an example of what I imagine is an unintentional blurring of the two Bidens, H and J. Anyway, the real situation is detailed in this article, for anyone who is curious :-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/17/how-republicans-overhype-findings-their-hunter-biden-probe/

For anyone less curious, some key clarifications are:

i) not all the companies were shell companies,some were legit businesses
ii) None were opened by Joe Biden
iii) Hunter Biden has never held public office

Yes, I have quite a lot of enthusiasm for a courtcase that would block an insurrectionist from running for President, but I am happy to acknowledge that it isn't a particularly good look for Dems to be hobbling a horse before the race starts. I think I mentioned that in my previous post.

Remember when Trump challenged the election in court in multiple states and got slapped down over and over again? This is the Democrat goose chase edition of that.  If they had any common sense they'd quit while they're ahead and focus time, money and energy on other avenues more likely to stick to him.

^ So, yeah, I can pretty much agree with this Nimbly, and I like your comparison between the court cases from both sides being brought by over-zealous lawyers who perhaps let too much wishful thinking seep into their briefs

If Trump is an actual insurrectionist, he shouldn't be on any ballot in any state, period.  The fact that he continues to be undermines any platitudes they want to put out there.

Well, this Colorado court plainly says that he is, but doesn't follow through in the way that you suggest.

It seems like the Colorado judge is following what has become a regular pattern of behaviour regarding Trump, from the Mueller Report, to the impeachments, to the gag orders; "This guy is guilty but I'm not going to stick my neck out so far as to do anything about it" That, btw, is more a criticism of the people in charge of applying the legal checks-and-balances systems, than of your man Trump.

[Nimbly9]

Any judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

[SGR]

@Lisnaholic, out of curiosity, what do you consider 'insurrection' to mean?

[DJChameleon]

Also, it seems a little funny to me that you mock the Biden family investigations in other discussions we've had (which there is merit to despite your protestations - I'd like to see you try digging through 20 shell companies and all the email aliases that Biden used while serving office before) but seem so keen on these kinds of cases even when they fail miserably to produce any kind of actual result. 

There is nothing funny about that when the Biden family investigations was filled with a whole bunch of nothing burger information but go ahead and believe there is more to it than what's going on in reality. 

[Lexi Darling]

Any judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

I mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club. 

[Psy-Fi]

I mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club. 

[Nimbly9]

There is nothing funny about that when the Biden family investigations was filled with a whole bunch of nothing burger information but go ahead and believe there is more to it than what's going on in reality. 

Surrrreeee. And Trump had a perfect phone call with Zelensky.  Nothing to see here!

[Lisnaholic]

@Lisnaholic, out of curiosity, what do you consider 'insurrection' to mean?

Thanks for the question, SGR

To me, like many words, it has more than one use:-

(i) is what we read in history books and (I suspect) think of when we usually hear the word: an armed militia taking over territory by force and announcing a new government.
...but there is a narrower legal definition:-
(ii) taking over government buildings, stopping lawful governmental processes from happening.

What happened at the Capital on Jan 6, together with the fake electors scheme, was a type (ii) insurrection imo. Not as dramatic or long-term thought out as type (i), but "insurrection" is what it's now being called, by a Colorado judge among others, of which group I am happy to become a member, I'm afraid. Like a failed bank robbery, or a hostage situation that is resolved in a few hours, just because it didn't work doesn't uncriminalize it, so the legal label stays: insurrection. To me, it's useful because I think more attention should be paid to the historically terrible things that Trump has done or proposed regarding US democracy.
It worries me when the 2024 election is presented as a choice between which senile old gaff-machine is the least embarrassing. Earlier today I posted about Trump's "full-on fascist autocrat agenda" and I'm hoping voters will be aware of that in 2024.

Any judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

Had to read this about 3 times before it registered: I don't disagree with you, Nimbly!

I mean I'd be scared to push that rule of law too if I knew the people I was pissing off included Nazis, white collar criminals, gun nuts, and all the other lovely walks of life that make up the Trump fan club. 

^ Absolutely times two on this, Mrs. Waffles. In fact, it's already been reported that during the vote to indict Trump following his 2nd impeachment, Republican senators were advising each other, "Think of your family: don't vote to indict."

I don't like to appear dramatic or divisive, but this is what I see happening in the US:-

 

Not a harmonious balance, but a struggle for survival before you get eaten, with law and democracy on one side, and Trump, autocracy and threats of violence on the other. Already, on the ground, the DOJ and judges are losing: not protecting election workers sufficiently, not gagging Trump from making statements that will effect witnesses and jurors both, and not pushing forward Trump's cases so that they are concluded before the election.

[Jwb]

Any judge that banned him from a state ballot would get hailed as a hero by everyone except the MAGA types. If they are that scared to push the rule of law, then they and the Biden administration can be quiet about democracy cause they clearly don't actually believe it means anything.  Like their Republican frenemies, they just want to advance the interests of some company or rich person and keep the population distracted while they see what they can get away with elsewhere.

You are just assuming the judge's intentions though.  She's sworn to uphold the constitution, so if her genuine opinion is that the phrase officers of the United States doesn't apply to the president because that office isn't listed specifically, then ruling as she did despite thinking Trump is in fact a insurrectionist would actually be upholding her oath to the constitution, despite her personal biases.

We literally have nothing to go on to assume her motives so your charge here seems baseless. If she had decided to keep him off the ballot anyway out of some sense of the greater good, despite it contradicting her reading of the law, that would actually be a violation of her oath and the exact opposite of how rule of law is actually supposedv to work in a democracy.

[Nimbly9]

You are just assuming the judge's intentions though.  She's sworn to uphold the constitution, so if her genuine opinion is that the phrase officers of the United States doesn't apply to the president because that office isn't listed specifically, then ruling as she did despite thinking Trump is in fact a insurrectionist would actually be upholding her oath to the constitution, despite her personal biases.

We literally have nothing to go on to assume her motives so your charge here seems baseless. If she had decided to keep him off the ballot anyway out of some sense of the greater good, despite it contradicting her reading of the law, that would actually be a violation of her oath and the exact opposite of how rule of law is actually supposedv to work in a democracy.

Why would the rule of law exempt the president from laws that would even apply to senators?  I'm not even mad about it - I just don't think it makes any sense.  If her ruling is the final word on it, then her commentary on what she "personally" feels is pointless...and on top of that not credible.

[Psy-Fi]

Judge Dismisses Rhode Island Trump Ballot Case

The Rhode Island judge dismissed the case challenging Trump's ballot eligibility, citing a recent 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a similar case in New Hampshire

[Lisnaholic]

^ The dismissal of this case adds to the drip, drip of failures so far for the notion that Trump should be banned from ballots. But the Rhode Island case is being dismissed because of the (lack of) standing of the guy bringing the case -  so I don't think it's a decision with much weight. Isn't the judge saying, "if somebody more appropriate brings the case, I would consider it" ?

The decision to watch for is the Colorado Supreme Court one, I think.