Oh… they just made a good point…
So Congress and elector’s are listed because they do not hold office’s they hold seats. So they are not Offices under the US and therefore needed to be called out. Okay, an argument that makes sense finally.
Love how Supreme courts operate.
Point made, no one ever came back and argued that POTUS is not covered and should be. Because it was covered by the words and excepted by all.
WHOA… judges questions SOS authority to eliminate a candidate for a primary under 14A sec3… Are they setting this up to kick the can down the road, like other states have done?
Both lawyers for the State, seem very intelligent, well read and prepared. Really wondering how Trumps lawyers will come off.
Judges really going over, does SOS have the authority to remove a primary candidate.
Colorado law on primaries was written in 2017 - im shocked, given, its not including 14a or 2x (only hold office for 8 yrs).
This clearly is a big concern for the court, does SOS have the power to remove him even if not qualified.
Trump attorney up…
First appearance, cheaper not as well fit suit… (LOL Yeah coming from me)
Going after self execution or not for section 3. Judges seem to be struggling with this concept.
Other theme doing this by state causes chaos – was discussed with past attorney (sorry using attorney / lawyer intermixed, maybe means different things no offense meant) –
Now saying section 3 is not a qualification its a disqualification clause.
This to CO form that candidate signs saying they meet all federal qualifications for the office.
Still here… we seem to be doing a lot of lawyering around how this should have been filed how those are handled. lots of sections and past cases being discussed. most over me. But judges do not see to be in support of trumps lawyers arguements. Maybe Ike or someone can explain all this better than me.
Trumps attorney does come off well, well spoken, seems to now what he wants to say, well studied.
Potus is an officer of the constitution, not an officer under the United States.
As this goes on… nearing the end
They are struggling to see Trumps side on how this doesn’t include the President.
They are now asking to explain, why would potus be left off. He is struggling to answer it.
LOL he is now giving my answer… Its a national election, and if everyone choose the insurrectionist they should be POTUS.
Not sure if that’s a good thing on his side.
Okay, judges just said, we seem to be going in circles lets move to the 1st amendment topic.
(I think he lost on Potus not covered in Sect 3)
Thanks for the detailed report. I did not watch, but will see if it is recorded.
If the CO SCt rules that he engaged in insurrection and is ineligible for the general election, but not ineligible for the primary (the MN SCt said that its primary has no such eligibility rule), then we could be left with a procedural mess. The US SCt might decline the case while we are still in a primary phase, though that leaves little time if Trump gets nominated.
Interesting argument that electors and members of Congress don’t hold office, so they had to be called out.
Okay, getting into the issue Ike raised earlier, on the did he incite inseruction, and I am going to blow this, but a judge is asking about the lower court ruling of fact and not legal standing? – I think I got this, but its what ike said about they would have a harder time to change this… Trump lawyer is saying its clear error, and its a miss application of the facts.
Dang forgot what he just said, but clear error sorry lost it…
Thanks for the detailed report. I did not watch, but will see if it is recorded.
If the CO SCt rules that he engaged in insurrection and is ineligible for the general election, but not ineligible for the primary (the MN SCt said that its primary has no such eligibility rule), then we could be left with a procedural mess. The US SCt might decline the case while we are still in a primary phase, though that leaves little time if Trump gets nominated.
Interesting argument that electors and members of Congress don’t hold office, so they had to be called out.
Yes all their cases are available to watch back later, this will be in there also.
It was, and was enough to convince me why its written that way.
Judge just gave a narrow scope of insurrection of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, and Trumps lawyer said he wasn’t sure if that qualified or not… It was not his hard no its not…
So he says, (trumps lawyer) J6 was a riot but not an insurrection. My argument would be the difference is intent. and that riot was to stop a federal election which makes it an insurrection.
My wife just asked, who’s side this attorney was on, I said Trumps, she is like that’s what I thought, but his arguments at time don’t seem it.
They forced him to define insurrection. He says it needs to be more than 3 hrs, and on a bigger scale, it was the capitol not the pentagon or the white house.
Okay, getting into the issue Ike raised earlier, on the did he incite inseruction, and I am going to blow this, but a judge is asking about the lower court ruling of fact and not legal standing? – I think I got this, but its what ike said about they would have a harder time to change this… Trump lawyer is saying its clear error, and its a miss application of the facts.
Dang forgot what he just said, but clear error sorry lost it…
I would need to listen to get the full question. But, the insurrection finding by the trial court really has two dimensions:
-
What is the meaning of insurrection as used in 14A3? That is a question of law, which the SCt reviews from scratch.
-
What actions did Trump, and his followers, take relevant to a possible insurrection? That is a question of fact, and the SCt can reverse the lower court only if the lower court’s factual findings are clear error. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I’d be shocked ( no cattle prod) if they said it was clear error.
A LOT of discussion of Fraiser, I liked the show but struggle to see how it applies here (LOL) also coon, but I am not touching that one.
So he says, (trumps lawyer) J6 was a riot but not an insurrection. My argument would be the difference is intent. and that riot was to stop a federal election which makes it an insurrection.
My wife just asked, who’s side this attorney was on, I said Trumps, she is like that’s what I thought, but his arguments at time don’t seem it.
Is the lawyer Scott Gessler?