Unable to load image

Link to Colorado court ruling for any Chud who actually cares and isn't r-slurred

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Why yes, I am expecting maga chuds to read this and come up with well-reasoned arguments for why the ruling is invalid and Trump is being wrongfully persecuted :marseyclueless:

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The part were the court claims to have found convincing evidence that he committed treason.

They can't do so without a trial and I don't recall them allowing the defendant his rights so this won't pass for shit when it reaches the supreme court.

They've had four years to charge him, they didn't.

To bad so sad, now let me enjoy my election drama.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17030391453472393.webp

They never claimed he committed treason nor that treason has any bearing on the ruling

They also explain that disqualification for insurrection (not treason) does not require any criminal conviction

We are similarly unpersuaded by Intervenors' assertions that Congress created the only currently available mechanism for determining whether a person is disqualified pursuant to Section Three with the 1994 passage of 18 U.S.C. § 2383. That statute makes it a crime to “assist[] or engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.” True, with that enactment, Congress criminalized the same conduct that is disqualifying under Section Three. All that means, however, is that a person charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would also be disqualified under Section Three. It cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.

If you want actual ammunition for election drama arguments, try smugposting about how the ruling includes a stay order and the state court very clearly expects some kind of review by the Supreme Court, or how the precedent set by Justice Chase on the self-execution of section 3 of the fourteenth amendment should be upheld

I believe the internet should be a more toxic place, but also that the bullets you fire shouldn't be blanks :marseythumbsup:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Their ruling means that any court that decides any one is "guilty" treason can be removed off the ballots.

They're literally giving ammunition for trumptards to screen rigged voting. Sadly it will be overturned and I doubt the left will throw a hissy fit when it happens so it probably won't make any drama.(even if it lasted for the election it would just cause the same tired "stealing the election" crap so it's boring.)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow my expectations for chuds were low, but I thought you'd at least be able to comprehend a couple of sentences :marseyfacepalm:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What do you think I missed?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17031178062472844.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yea this is the part where they throw away the only legally defined definition of treason. They declare Trump treasonous with out fair trial or an accepted scope of what is and isn't treason, opening the floodgates to interpretation.

Do you think the red states won't do the same thing if this is allowed to stay? This shit will be shut down by necessity. Just because a judge said it doesn't make it legal.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can't be this clueless! This is a troll! You are gaslamping me! AAAAAAAHH :marseytrollgun: :marseytrollgun:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#seethejaktalking:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.