Maggie's Farm

"Well, no. Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, was never convicted but was barred from office."

More half--more like eighth--truths, little fella. Disregarding the fact that comparing Trump's actions to those of Stephens is ludicrous, the ban was only temporary--he was elected to the US Congress in 1873, served, and was later elected governor of Georgia. He died in that office.

But that's OK, keep showing us who you are, happy as a clam to let four people decide who can and can't run for president, finally ridding us of this turbulent priest.


The following is code for "Go take over the government", but the only one around here smart enough to decipher it is Zachie-poo...

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong … I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building. To peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard.”

Congress--elected representatives of the people--correcting a mistake--nice. They should try it more often.

And now we have what amounts to a star chamber deciding who can and can't run, with no ability by the "accused" to subpoena witnesses, to cross examine. And I'm supposed to be worried about Trump? Keep telling us who you are--it's helpful.

"That is incorrect. There was a five-day trial that included witnesses under direct and cross examination, along with other evidence. Colorado law requires a preponderance of the evidence, but the court found “clear and convincing” evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection per Section 3."

Right, in the civil case--almost the entirety of the evidence presented before the judge in the case--there was NOT a jury--was mostly gleaned from the J6 hearings, at which there were no Republican cross examinations.

This is a gross denial of due process in one of the most important cases in history and the fact that you're sanguine about it puts the lie to your pose of objectivity and probity.

Have a merry Christmas, and don't celebrate too soon--the tiny cabal of elites you want to run the country hasn't won yet.

Y"ou had falsely claimed there was no ability to call witnesses or to cross examine. Colorado allows voters to bring suit in the state to challenge a candidate’s qualifications. See Sections 1-4-1204, 1-1-113."

I lost in a pre-submission edit the point I was making that much of the "evidence" presented was obtained from the J6 hearings, an extraordinary proceeding in which Republicans supporting the president were nearly shut out from participation and prevented from cross examining witnesses. My post was confusing because of that. It's frustrating not being able to edit after submission.

To your second point, the suit was put together by a DC based "advocacy group", (funded in part--no surprise and I'm sick of hearing the name myself--by people like the Soros folks), not organically by a group of Colorado voters. The only part that seems odd is that Andrew Weissmann himself didn't argue it.

Again, the fact that you think all this is peachy isn't a surprise. It's a little sad, but not a surprise. It just crushes your credibility on anything you say, but that sort of self abuse seems almost fetishistic with you.

I agree about SCOTUS likely overturning it, another reason there would have been some nice symmetry if Weissmann had argued the case--he's accustomed to that.