A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot

[comana]

I believe it will make things clearer either way. We are not knowledgeable enough to even know what a can of worms is as of now.

The can of worms is states rights.

 

[ralliann]

Mr Trump left a rather long trail of evidence leading to the court's decision. And I don't think you have considered election laws in Colorado. They have criteria for allowing someone on their presidential ballot. The court agreed with the plaintiff attorney's assertion Mr Trump should not be permitted on the ballot.

There is rather long trail of his side as well. Election law in colorado does not allow giving out a criminal penalty, without due process. They must first be found guilty to receive the penalty for the crime. A civil trial without any lawful "facts" won't cut it. I really don't think any of would want this kind of trial at all.

 

[ralliann]

The can of worms is states rights.

A state has no right to deny due process. Why would anyone defend denying someones due rights.

 

[comana]

A state has no right to deny due process. Why would anyone defend denying someones due rights.

The state is not determining a criminal verdict, it is determining eligibility to be on their ballot. The states right issue is if they have autonomy to conduct elections according to their own election laws per the constitution.

 

[ralliann]

The state is not determining a criminal verdict, it is determining eligibility to be on their ballot.

So he gets the "penalty of a crime" without a criminal verdict? Let's just leave this to those that can handle it.

The states right issue is if they have autonomy to conduct elections according to their own election laws per the constitution.

They cannot give the penalty of inurrection, withouy a verdict of insurrection. Is this law you want? Not me. I don't want people subject to 30 years for murder, without being found guilty of murder. Go live in a country that allows this kind of justice system if that's fine with you. But for us, we here in America don't do that. Country wide, Colorado is no exception.

 

[Brihaha]

I believe Bill Barr knows more about this than ANYONE on this forum.

Bill has been wrong before. He may be right. I wouldn't wager either way. Many reputable legal scholars disagree with Barr. He has shown his own biases often. I cannot trust him to make my own opinion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So he gets the "penalty of a crime" without a criminal verdict?

A 'penalty of a crime' would be prison or a fine. He is not receiving a penalty for a crime.

Felons may be ineligible to vote in some states, but they are still eligible to be president. This case is not a criminal case and it is not about any crime. The end.

 

[SimplyMe]

Again a court cannot legally find a person has engaged in an activity without a trail and a guilty verdict.

In the democracy of the United States of America people are innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

I'm sure OJ will be very thrilled to hear this as he's been trying to get out of the verdict from his civil trial, brought by the Goldman family, that found he was responsible for the murder of their son. Apparently that decision was wrong and will be overturned, since he was found Not Guilty in his criminal trial.

 

[USincognito]

Again a court cannot legally find a person has engaged in an activity without a trail and a guilty verdict.

Donald was found liable for sexual assault just a couple of months ago. It was in all the newspapers. Perhaps you missed it. Rudy was recently found to have defamed Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss.

In both cases, there was a trial, but not guilty verdict... same as the decision in Colorado.

In the democracy of the United States of America people are innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

How many times must it be repeated that this was not a criminal case?

 

[USincognito]

Yes yes yes yes - I believe the decisions is wrong because it prevents due process -

How exactly does a lawsuit filed regarding a Constitutional question, with a trial held and the defendant's lawyers being present "prevent" due process?

Former Attorney General who is no friends of Trump states so.

Ah yes. The former water carrier and de facto personal lawyer dared to criticize Donald so therefore he always hated Donald.

 

[USincognito]

I believe the legal scholars rather than anyone on this forum. So why go on about it? it will get settled one way or another.

You'll believe Barr, but not 4 of the 7 judges in Colorado?

 

[USincognito]

So he gets the "penalty of a crime" without a criminal verdict? Let's just leave this to those that can handle it.

Could you please tell us and cite the law/s which have "cannot be on the ballot" as a penalty?

They cannot give the penalty of inurrection, withouy a verdict of insurrection.

Orenthal Simpson was found to have killed two people.
Donald was found to have sexually assaulted E.Jean Carroll.
Rudy was found to have defamed Mss. Freeman and Moss.

Donald was found to have incited and participated in insurrection.

 

[ralliann]

Could you please tell us and cite the law/s which have "cannot be on the ballot" as a penalty?

Orenthal Simpson was found to have killed two people.

No he was found not guilty in a criminal court.

Donald was found to have sexually assaulted E.Jean Carroll.
Rudy was found to have defamed Mss. Freeman and Moss.

Donald was found to have incited and participated in insurrection.

These again were civil cases. Donald trump was not given due process in criminal trial. The supreme court will most likely settle this. Not you or me in an internet forum.
Difference? O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial for murder. A very high bar needed to be acheived to establish his guilt. Had he been found criminally guilty, he would have been subject to the penalty serving time in prison.
But O.J. never spent a day in jail in his civil trial, rather he paid damages.
What these judges have done is not given Trump any due process, and the standards of a civil trial were used. But they penalized him as criminally guilty.

 

[Belk]

No he was found not guilty in a criminal court.

These again were civil cases. Donald trump was not given due process in criminal trial. The supreme court will most likely settle this. Not you or me in an internet forum.
Difference? O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial for murder. A very high bar needed to be acheived to establish his guilt. Had he been found criminally guilty, he would have been subject to the penalty serving time in prison.
But O.J. never spent a day in jail in his civil trial, rather he paid damages.
What these judges have done is not given Trump any due process, and the standards of a civil trial were used. But they penalized him as criminally guilty.

I'm going to go with the idea the judges and lawyers who took this case seriously likely know the law better then random internet posters.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No [OJ] was found not guilty in a criminal court.
Had [OJ] been found criminally guilty, he would have been subject to the penalty serving time in prison.
But they penalized [Trump] as criminally guilty.

You're three-quarters of the way there.

*If criminally guilty, then prison sentence.
*If no prison sentence, then not criminally guilty.
Trump was not given a prison sentence, therefore he was not treated as if he were criminally guilty.

[*some simplification applied to help jostle the little grey cells along the right avenue.]

 

[Arcangl86]

No he was found not guilty in a criminal court.

And later found civilly liable in a wrongful death case.

These again were civil cases.

As was this. This was a civil action taken by several Colorado voters to force the SoS to remove Trump from the ballot due to him not being qualified. Since it involved Trump, he asked to and was allowed to enter the case as an intervenor.

Donald trump was not given due process in criminal trial.

This was not a criminal trial.

The supreme court will most likely settle this.

Agreed.

Not you or me in an internet forum.
Difference? O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial for murder. A very high bar needed to be acheived to establish his guilt. Had he been found criminally guilty, he would have been subject to the penalty serving time in prison.
But O.J. never spent a day in jail in his civil trial, rather he paid damages.

Well yes, that's the main difference between civil and criminal law. There can also be injunctive relief, which was the case here.

What these judges have done is not given Trump any due process,

You really need to look up what due process actually is, because you keep repeating that even though he was allowed due process.

and the standards of a civil trial were used.

Because it was a civil trial.

But they penalized him as criminally guilty.

No, they required the SoS to remove him from the ballot because he's not qualified according to their understanding of the 14th Amendment.

 

[ralliann]

I'm going to go with the idea the judges and lawyers who took this case seriously likely know the law better then random internet posters.

And i will go with the idea of due process before someone is found guilty of a crime.

 

[Arcangl86]

And i will go with the idea of due process before someone is found guilty of a crime.

He hasn't been found guilt of a crime though.

 

[ralliann]

He hasn't been found guilt of a crime though.

Exactly, but he and the voters are being subject to the penalty. Does anyone here really want this kind of justice in our country? Actually some do, because they want to change this country. Some want it just in this case, but not for themselves of course. Rules for thee not for me. I mean after all convincing people that someone is Hitler, they need to be stopped no matter the way it is done right?

 

[USincognito]

No he was found not guilty in a criminal court.

That's nice, but it doesn't counter the point I and others have been making. O.J. was found liable for the deaths of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman in a court case with his lawyers present. The fact that it was civil case doesn't change the fact that he was found liable for the deaths of two people. I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp.

These again were civil cases. Donald trump was not given due process in criminal trial. The supreme court will most likely settle this. Not you or me in an internet forum.
Difference? O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal trial for murder. A very high bar needed to be acheived to establish his guilt. Had he been found criminally guilty, he would have been subject to the penalty serving time in prison.
But O.J. never spent a day in jail in his civil trial, rather he paid damages.
What these judges have done is not given Trump any due process, and the standards of a civil trial were used. But they penalized him as criminally guilty.

You really don't understand what the phrase due process means, do you?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-4-1/ALDE_00013750/

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.​

This decision is not depriving Donald of life, liberty or property. That said, due process is still relevant to civil cases. From the linked article:
>> The core requirements of procedural due process are notice12 and a hearing13 before an impartial tribunal,14 though specific requirements in each case vary based on the particular interests at stake.15 Due process may also require other procedural protections such as an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, a decision based on the record, or the opportunity to be represented by counsel.16 <<

Donald received notice.
A hearing was held before an impartial panel (you will disagree, but your disagreement is tribalism, not the law).
Donald was represented by counsel.
There's nothing in the 14th Amendment or 170 yeas of civil case law requiting a criminal conviction before a civil case can be litigated.