Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing

[BADecker]

But that's the kind of people you like, right? Back stabbers.

If you believed your country was still a Democracy (and you clearly don't), you'd realise the lunatic you're rooting for is the one betraying all the principles your nation was founded upon.  

You are mistaken. America is a Republic. The so-called government is the Democracy. The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow a 12-person jury of the Republic to strike down any Government law... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called.

[1714858739]

1714858739

[1714858739]

1714858739

[1714858739]

1714858739

[1714858739]

1714858739

[1714858739]

1714858739

[paxmao]

But that's the kind of people you like, right? Back stabbers.

If you believed your country was still a Democracy (and you clearly don't), you'd realise the lunatic you're rooting for is the one betraying all the principles your nation was founded upon.  

You are mistaken. America is a Republic. The so-called government is the Democracy. The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow a 12-person jury of the Republic to strike down any Government law... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called.

I have told you a million times: youtube is not a credible source of information in general, but those channels that you seen to be following are probably the humour section of some short of outlet.

6th

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7th

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There absolutely nothing of what you say on this nor any other amendment. A jury cannot fucking "strike down" any law dumbass, much on the contrary, they have to decide on specific questions about the charges following the criteria setforth in the common law.

Go to kindergarten dumbass.

[BADecker]

But that's the kind of people you like, right? Back stabbers.

If you believed your country was still a Democracy (and you clearly don't), you'd realise the lunatic you're rooting for is the one betraying all the principles your nation was founded upon.  

You are mistaken. America is a Republic. The so-called government is the Democracy. The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow a 12-person jury of the Republic to strike down any Government law... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called.

I have told you a million times: youtube is not a credible source of information in general, but those channels that you seen to be following are probably the humour section of some short of outlet.

6th

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7th

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There absolutely nothing of what you say on this nor any other amendment. A jury cannot fucking "strike down" any law dumbass, much on the contrary, they have to decide on specific questions about the charges following the criteria setforth in the common law.

Go to kindergarten dumbass.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

You quoted it right in your quoting of the 7th Amendment, "... and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." In other words, what the jury decides is the thing that becomes law for the case at hand... even the striking down of a Congressionally mandated law.

But that is only for, "... Suits at common law," as the 7th Amendment says. There is no common law trial for criminal cases listed in these two Amendments. So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

However, Even if he accepts a criminal jury trial, the decisions of the jury cannot be changed except through a proper declaration of mistrial. If the jury decided that Trump was innocent of everything, he would get off, free. It would only apply to him. The next person accused of breaking the same law(s) as Trump, would have to get his own jury, and jury decisions for himself. They might be different than in Trump's case.

Now you can see why the judge won't allow Trump a jury trial. Trump is popular enough that many juries might set him completely free. The judge is partially wrong in this. He isn't supposed to dis-allow a trial by jury, even if the defendant agrees to such, or hires attorneys, becoming a ward of the court, thereby. But nobody seems to want to take the judge to task over his failure to obey his own Rules of Court.

[TwitchySeal]

So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

This doesn't work.   It's been tried.

The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before.  All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS.  If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about.  It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

So how about some examples of a jury  "striking down a law".  

That's not how it works.

Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws.  If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill,

Judges interpret the laws.

Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch:  

3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse Rock
I'm just a bill - Schoolhouse Rock

[BADecker]

So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

This doesn't work.   It's been tried.

The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before.  All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS.  If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about.  It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it.

The reason it doesn't work most of the time is that the so-called defendant didn't go far enough. A man/woman can't accept being the defendant, and stand unrepresented at the same time. The two are contradictory. But that's what most of them try to do. So, most of them lose by contradicting themselves.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

So how about some examples of a jury  "striking down a law".  

That's not how it works.

Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws.  If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill,

Judges interpret the laws.

Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch:  

3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse Rock
I'm just a bill - Schoolhouse Rock

Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html.

The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.

[paxmao]

But that's the kind of people you like, right? Back stabbers.

If you believed your country was still a Democracy (and you clearly don't), you'd realise the lunatic you're rooting for is the one betraying all the principles your nation was founded upon.  

You are mistaken. America is a Republic. The so-called government is the Democracy. The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow a 12-person jury of the Republic to strike down any Government law... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called.

I have told you a million times: youtube is not a credible source of information in general, but those channels that you seen to be following are probably the humour section of some short of outlet.

6th

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7th

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There absolutely nothing of what you say on this nor any other amendment. A jury cannot fucking "strike down" any law dumbass, much on the contrary, they have to decide on specific questions about the charges following the criteria setforth in the common law.

Go to kindergarten dumbass.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

You quoted it right in your quoting of the 7th Amendment, "... and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." In other words, what the jury decides is the thing that becomes law for the case at hand... even the striking down of a Congressionally mandated law.

But that is only for, "... Suits at common law," as the 7th Amendment says. There is no common law trial for criminal cases listed in these two Amendments. So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

However, Even if he accepts a criminal jury trial, the decisions of the jury cannot be changed except through a proper declaration of mistrial. If the jury decided that Trump was innocent of everything, he would get off, free. It would only apply to him. The next person accused of breaking the same law(s) as Trump, would have to get his own jury, and jury decisions for himself. They might be different than in Trump's case.

Now you can see why the judge won't allow Trump a jury trial. Trump is popular enough that many juries might set him completely free. The judge is partially wrong in this. He isn't supposed to dis-allow a trial by jury, even if the defendant agrees to such, or hires attorneys, becoming a ward of the court, thereby. But nobody seems to want to take the judge to task over his failure to obey his own Rules of Court.

I have never seen such as an amount of misreading. I though you needed a brain transplant, but it is much more simple: You need to go back to kindergarten and learn what words mean. There is absolutely nothing in the text saying what you say it says, absolutely nothing. And it is also absolutely out of any legal precedent or practice anywhere - I mean anywhere in the modern world, not just the US.

By the way, you are also a complete mess on the rest, it is just to boring to even discuss.

Now, let's talk about "Nullification", which is likely to be the topic of some video you must have seen in your shitty outlets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#:~:text=The%20decision%20stated%20that%20%22juries,permit%20of%20no%20other%20course%22.

A jury cannot "strike down" a law. The law can be nullified, but is not just 12 persons saying so, there is a whole process to it. And it is something certainly contested.

Potentially, a jury may decide not to apply a law by reasons of conscience, declaring innocent to someone who is clearly breaking the law - veeery different of removing the law altogether and even that creates all short of fairness and consistency issues between different cases.

For some people juries are fact finders, while others pretend that they are also interpreters of the law. Another topic for discussion (how can someone who has no legal background interpret the law?)

Overall, dumbass BA is banking on a jury deciding to ignore the law for Trump. But you have to understand that:

a) A jury may no consider the facts as proven an acquit OR
b) A jury may disagree with the law and acquit.

For Trump to be acquitted for (a) is a possibility, but my guess is that the case presented will be factually strong.

For Trump to be acquitted for (b) the jury has to decide that the law that does not allow to, for example, send a murdering mob to the Capitol is wrong - so it would be OK to send murdering mobs to the Capitol .... for anyone.

or they may decide that the law that says that a president can't ignore the results of an election is wrong, so ANY president can ignore ANY future election.

do you see how stupid this is dumbass?

[TwitchySeal]

So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

This doesn't work.   It's been tried.

The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before.  All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS.  If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about.  It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it.

The reason it doesn't work most of the time is that the so-called defendant didn't go far enough. A man/woman can't accept being the defendant, and stand unrepresented at the same time. The two are contradictory. But that's what most of them try to do. So, most of them lose by contradicting themselves.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

So how about some examples of a jury  "striking down a law".  

That's not how it works.

Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws.  If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill,

Judges interpret the laws.

Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch:  

3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse Rock
I'm just a bill - Schoolhouse Rock

Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html.

The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.

You: "juries can strike down laws"
Me: "No they can't"
You: "Juries can vote how they want"
Me:


Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification?  You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right? 

Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal?

[paxmao]

So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.

This doesn't work.   It's been tried.

The judge would just deny his stupid request like all the stupid requests he's made before.  All the appellate courts would decline to intervene, including SCOTUS.  If your theory worked, nobody would ever be prosecuted by DOJ for breaking federal laws. It wouldn't be a secret nobody knew about.  It would just take one successful case, and then everyone would do it.

The reason it doesn't work most of the time is that the so-called defendant didn't go far enough. A man/woman can't accept being the defendant, and stand unrepresented at the same time. The two are contradictory. But that's what most of them try to do. So, most of them lose by contradicting themselves.

Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.

So how about some examples of a jury  "striking down a law".  

That's not how it works.

Congress (or state lawmakers) make laws.  If they want to get rid of a law, they have to pass a bill,

Judges interpret the laws.

Executive branch enforces the laws....wait you learn better from youtube videos...I have two perfect videos for you, please watch:  

3 Ring Government - Schoolhouse Rock
I'm just a bill - Schoolhouse Rock

Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html.

The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.

You: "juries can strike down laws"
Me: "No they can't"
You: "Juries can vote how they want"
Me:


Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification?  You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right? 

Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal?

Yes, that is what he is doing.

In reality, dumbass BA thinks that a popular jury with 12 people will just say that Trump is innocent just because it is Trump. If that's where all the hopes of these people lie as of now, it is certainly a sign of how badly things are going for Trump in the legal front.

Anyway, in the end Trump may end up having his fate in the hands of the Supreme Court, some of them appointed by him. I think they may try to find some fine grain justification to say he is all right. I wonder how creative they may become on such justification.

[BADecker]

~

Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html.

The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.

You: "juries can strike down laws"
Me: "No they can't"
You: "Juries can vote how they want"
Me:


Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification?  You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right?  

Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal?

Not at all. But you seem to be confusing what I said with both, striking down laws, and jury nullification.

If the law in a school zone is 15mph, and a driver drives through at 120mph, and a cop pulls him over and it goes to court in a jury trial, the jury can strike down the law with regard to the driver so that he gets off totally free. Generally a jury won't do this, because the jury has friends and family with kids going to the school. But they can do it if they want, even if there is no good reason. It's up to them, totally. This does not strike down the law for anybody else, however. For every other person who breaks this law, it's a totally new court case.

If, however, there are bunches of people who drive 120mph through this school zone, and the juries for most of them declare these drivers innocent, the city or state just might change the law so that the speed limit for this school zone is no longer only 15mph. The reason might be that it's an old, condemned school that is not being used, and has a chain link fence around it, and the school zone speed limit SHOULD be removed.

The point is that the jury rules in a trial-by-jury court case. In general, when they strike down a law, it's for that court case only, not for the whole country... although other court decisions might base themselves on this one to some extent.

[paxmao]

~

Ammon Bundy didn't know what he was doing in court. The jury simply liked what he did in the wildlife refuge takeover. The jury freed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html.

The jury has the authority to vote how they want regarding any case they hear... provided it is a jury based on the 6th or 7th Amendments. There is evidence of court cases all over the place, where juries even reversed the charges in some cases, so that the plaintiff had to pay the fine.

You: "juries can strike down laws"
Me: "No they can't"
You: "Juries can vote how they want"
Me:


Are you confusing 'striking down a law' with jury nullification?  You know just because a guilty person is acquitted or has a hung jury doesn't mean that law they broke is struck down, right?  

Did OJs jury strike down the law that makes murder illegal?

Not at all. But you seem to be confusing what I said with both, striking down laws, and jury nullification.

If the law in a school zone is 15mph, and a driver drives through at 120mph, and a cop pulls him over and it goes to court in a jury trial, the jury can strike down the law with regard to the driver so that he gets off totally free. Generally a jury won't do this, because the jury has friends and family with kids going to the school. But they can do it if they want, even if there is no good reason. It's up to them, totally. This does not strike down the law for anybody else, however. For every other person who breaks this law, it's a totally new court case.

If, however, there are bunches of people who drive 120mph through this school zone, and the juries for most of them declare these drivers innocent, the city or state just might change the law so that the speed limit for this school zone is no longer only 15mph. The reason might be that it's an old, condemned school that is not being used, and has a chain link fence around it, and the school zone speed limit SHOULD be removed.

The point is that the jury rules in a trial-by-jury court case. In general, when they strike down a law, it's for that court case only, not for the whole country... although other court decisions might base themselves on this one to some extent.

First of all, nothing of what you says in the constitution, at most is your interpretation or something coming from some shitty YouTube channel, probably paid for by Ruzzia and what you call "strike down a law" is simply "ignoring the law" dumbass.

So I am guessing right, you are banking on a jury declaring Trump innocent because it is Trump, and that has to happen for the tens of felonies that he is now indicted for - so any future president will know that it is ok to send murdering mobs, rant about judges, ...  Trump is the example of how liberties can be abused.

And, let's not forget, calling the army to kill their own citizens protesting:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/bender-book-trump-milley-protests/index.html

he top US general repeatedly pushed back on then-President Donald Trump’s argument that the military should intervene violently in order to quell the civil unrest that erupted around the country last year.

So much for liberty.

[BADecker]

~


Not at all. But you seem to be confusing what I said with both, striking down laws, and jury nullification.

If the law in a school zone is 15mph, and a driver drives through at 120mph, and a cop pulls him over and it goes to court in a jury trial, the jury can strike down the law with regard to the driver so that he gets off totally free. Generally a jury won't do this, because the jury has friends and family with kids going to the school. But they can do it if they want, even if there is no good reason. It's up to them, totally. This does not strike down the law for anybody else, however. For every other person who breaks this law, it's a totally new court case.

If, however, there are bunches of people who drive 120mph through this school zone, and the juries for most of them declare these drivers innocent, the city or state just might change the law so that the speed limit for this school zone is no longer only 15mph. The reason might be that it's an old, condemned school that is not being used, and has a chain link fence around it, and the school zone speed limit SHOULD be removed.

The point is that the jury rules in a trial-by-jury court case. In general, when they strike down a law, it's for that court case only, not for the whole country... although other court decisions might base themselves on this one to some extent.

First of all, nothing of what you says in the constitution, at most is your interpretation or something coming from some shitty YouTube channel, probably paid for by Ruzzia and what you call "strike down a law" is simply "ignoring the law" dumbass.

So I am guessing right, you are banking on a jury declaring Trump innocent because it is Trump, and that has to happen for the tens of felonies that he is now indicted for - so any future president will know that it is ok to send murdering mobs, rant about judges, ...  Trump is the example of how liberties can be abused.

And, let's not forget, calling the army to kill their own citizens protesting:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/bender-book-trump-milley-protests/index.html

he top US general repeatedly pushed back on then-President Donald Trump’s argument that the military should intervene violently in order to quell the civil unrest that erupted around the country last year.

So much for liberty.

I agree that people are and have been dumbed down regarding the ways they can use the Constitution and the laws. But I showed you a little of what the 6th and 7th Amendment say. And you even quoted them, but forgot to consider what they say. The Amendments are part of the Constitution.

Because of the way the people have been trained by the 'Perry Mason' show, and by the courts, themselves, it will be difficult for them to use the full law as they could if they simply knew how. So, let me explain it to you simply.

In the US, there are three basic things regarding the standard populace. They are written into the Constitution, underlying the whole thing:
1. The right to contract;
1. The right to own private property, including themselves;
3. The right to influence government in certain ways.
Everything that goes on in the country flows out of those 3 things. If it doesn't, it is criminal activity... sometimes by the general populace, and other times by government people.

All you need to do is read the Constitution, the laws, and the court cases, to see this. Of course, simply reading that stuff doesn't do anything. You have to think. And like many Americans, the evidence is that you are finding that thinking is difficult for you.

[paxmao]

....

All you need to do is read the Constitution, the laws, and the court cases, to see this. Of course, simply reading that stuff doesn't do anything. You have to think. And like many Americans, the evidence is that you are finding that thinking is difficult for you.

...

Hey BA, look, someone in Colorado must have read the US Constitution...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/takeaways-trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Colorado’s historic ruling that Trump is ineligible for office based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’

The Colorado Supreme Court made history Tuesday with an unprecedented, freeze-in-your-tracks ruling that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office covers his conduct on January 6, 2021.

[...]

All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is posed to play a major role in the 2024 election as it grapples with a series of major Trump —related cases.

So Trump is not, as of now, in the primaries for Colorado, which is not that much... except that similar cases are filled all over the US.

[Hispo]

....

All you need to do is read the Constitution, the laws, and the court cases, to see this. Of course, simply reading that stuff doesn't do anything. You have to think. And like many Americans, the evidence is that you are finding that thinking is difficult for you.

...

Hey BA, look, someone in Colorado must have read the US Constitution...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/takeaways-trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Colorado’s historic ruling that Trump is ineligible for office based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’

The Colorado Supreme Court made history Tuesday with an unprecedented, freeze-in-your-tracks ruling that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office covers his conduct on January 6, 2021.

[...]

All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is posed to play a major role in the 2024 election as it grapples with a series of major Trump —related cases.

So Trump is not, as of now, in the primaries for Colorado, which is not that much... except that similar cases are filled all over the US.

There could be other several states to try to pull off this, but let us be realistic. This legal issue on whether Trump is elegible to run for the charge of President of the United States again is going to be brought up to the Supreme Court itself sooner or later, and keeping in mind the political position of this SCOTUS, is almost guaranteed they are going to rule in favor of Trump.
In the midtime, these attempts to disqualify Trump from running for the presidency will likely just increase his popularity and polls numbers, in the same way it has already happen with all the indictments in the several jurisdictions he has been processed.
It has not even been a day yet and I already see a lot of people (most of them republicans) doing a very serious deal of this. (Well,.it is indeed serious and historical).
Even if the supreme court of the USA was not so obviously in favor of conservative ideas, it would take a lot of courage to rule against a leading candidate in a case like this, which could easily create civil unrest and get people killed.
Whatever happens, the people of the United States needs to wield their vote with wisdom.

[paxmao]

....

All you need to do is read the Constitution, the laws, and the court cases, to see this. Of course, simply reading that stuff doesn't do anything. You have to think. And like many Americans, the evidence is that you are finding that thinking is difficult for you.

...

Hey BA, look, someone in Colorado must have read the US Constitution...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/takeaways-trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html

Colorado’s historic ruling that Trump is ineligible for office based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’

The Colorado Supreme Court made history Tuesday with an unprecedented, freeze-in-your-tracks ruling that former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run in 2024 because the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding public office covers his conduct on January 6, 2021.

[...]

All eyes are now on the US Supreme Court — which is posed to play a major role in the 2024 election as it grapples with a series of major Trump —related cases.

So Trump is not, as of now, in the primaries for Colorado, which is not that much... except that similar cases are filled all over the US.

There could be other several states to try to pull off this, but let us be realistic. This legal issue on whether Trump is elegible to run for the charge of President of the United States again is going to be brought up to the Supreme Court itself sooner or later, and keeping in mind the political position of this SCOTUS, is almost guaranteed they are going to rule in favor of Trump.
In the midtime, these attempts to disqualify Trump from running for the presidency will likely just increase his popularity and polls numbers, in the same way it has already happen with all the indictments in the several jurisdictions he has been processed.
It has not even been a day yet and I already see a lot of people (most of them republicans) doing a very serious deal of this. (Well,.it is indeed serious and historical).
Even if the supreme court of the USA was not so obviously in favor of conservative ideas, it would take a lot of courage to rule against a leading candidate in a case like this, which could easily create civil unrest and get people killed.
Whatever happens, the people of the United States needs to wield their vote with wisdom.

Is not that some states will try, it is that the motions are already filled in many states:

Lawsuits challenging Trump's candidacy have been filed in more than 25 states ahead of the 2024 election,

I said that a few posts ago, it will end up in the SCOTUS, but you are too convinced that they are going to be ok with Trump running. My view:

Firstly, judges do not like to be cowed, threatened, called names and told what to do - and Trump has been doing a lot of that. In SCOTUS their appointments are for life, that gives them certain freedom.

Secondly, judges are about the law and order. In US an even in places that are not democratic... it is just why they are there. I am not sure how keen they are on letting a murdering mob sent to the Capitol be equal to nothing. If Trump is allowed, I do not see why the next ones cannot be anyone unhappy with the next election.

Lastly, there are many judges appointed by Bush, one by Biden, another by Obama,...  I would not take for granted that the Bush appointed ones will support Trumps behaviour -  and they are going to be deciding as the Trump appointees and the dems appointees are pretty much balanced. They could decide to close the Trump era and free the Republicans from his dictatorship - I am sure Trump is not the Bush's preferred candidate.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-04-20/george-w-bush-condemns-the-trump-era-republican-party

The former president didn’t criticize his successor by name, but he said in a rare interview that his party has become ‘isolationist, protectionist and, to a certain extent, nativist.’

There seems to be an interest in equalling mobs to democracy and freedom to the "right to ignore the laws". This is the product of years of mis-education and frustration with the system that is failing many people in the US (Yes BA, that's you dumbass, the frustrated and mis-educated best example).

[BADecker]

~

There could be other several states to try to pull off this, but let us be realistic. This legal issue on whether Trump is elegible to run for the charge of President of the United States again is going to be brought up to the Supreme Court itself sooner or later, and keeping in mind the political position of this SCOTUS, is almost guaranteed they are going to rule in favor of Trump.
In the midtime, these attempts to disqualify Trump from running for the presidency will likely just increase his popularity and polls numbers, in the same way it has already happen with all the indictments in the several jurisdictions he has been processed.
It has not even been a day yet and I already see a lot of people (most of them republicans) doing a very serious deal of this. (Well,.it is indeed serious and historical).
Even if the supreme court of the USA was not so obviously in favor of conservative ideas, it would take a lot of courage to rule against a leading candidate in a case like this, which could easily create civil unrest and get people killed.
Whatever happens, the people of the United States needs to wield their vote with wisdom.

Is not that some states will try, it is that the motions are already filled in many states:

Lawsuits challenging Trump's candidacy have been filed in more than 25 states ahead of the 2024 election,

I said that a few posts ago, it will end up in the SCOTUS, but you are too convinced that they are going to be ok with Trump running. My view:

Firstly, judges do not like to be cowed, threatened, called names and told what to do - and Trump has been doing a lot of that. In SCOTUS their appointments are for life, that gives them certain freedom.

Secondly, judges are about the law and order. In US an even in places that are not democratic... it is just why they are there. I am not sure how keen they are on letting a murdering mob sent to the Capitol be equal to nothing. If Trump is allowed, I do not see why the next ones cannot be anyone unhappy with the next election.

Lastly, there are many judges appointed by Bush, one by Biden, another by Obama,...  I would not take for granted that the Bush appointed ones will support Trumps behaviour -  and they are going to be deciding as the Trump appointees and the dems appointees are pretty much balanced. They could decide to close the Trump era and free the Republicans from his dictatorship - I am sure Trump is not the Bush's preferred candidate.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-04-20/george-w-bush-condemns-the-trump-era-republican-party

The former president didn’t criticize his successor by name, but he said in a rare interview that his party has become ‘isolationist, protectionist and, to a certain extent, nativist.’

There seems to be an interest in equalling mobs to democracy and freedom to the "right to ignore the laws". This is the product of years of mis-education and frustration with the system that is failing many people in the US (Yes BA, that's you dumbass, the frustrated and mis-educated best example).

The States must have write-in places on their ballots.

The States are not necessarily the people. Rather, they are the so-called leaders.

If the people are not allowed to have their vote counted, there is election interference.

There is a long time,yet, before the elections. The corrupt State leaders are doing this against the will of many of their people. That's why they are doing it now... to see what will happen, rather than waiting until the last minute, and getting hurt by doing something that the Federal Supreme Court might consider illegal.

The people are getting fed up with the Dem and RINO leaders. They saw the good that Trump did while in office. And they see the mess that the Dem elect Biden has done.

Trump is now 'MORE likely to beat Biden' after Colorado ruling: - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12885509/trump-beat-biden-colorado-disqualification-supreme-court-decision.html.

This will backfire on State leaders who have done this.


Colorado Supreme Court launches actual INSURRECTION against America with election de-platforming of Donald J. Trump


https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-12-20-colorado-supreme-court-launches-actual-insurrection-against-america-election-de-platforming-trump.html
The following is a partial transcript of Brighteon Broadcast News for December 20, 2023, covering the breaking Colorado Supreme Court decision that deprives voters any ability to vote for Donald J. Trump for any political office. The full broadcast and interview will be found at this link: Brighteon.com/channels/hrreport

We now have an actual insurrection in America, with the traitors leading the charge from the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado. Welcome to today's broadcast of Brighteon Broadcast News. I'm Mike Adams. It's Wednesday, December 20 2023. And the biggest breaking news probably in the world right now is that the Supreme Court of Colorado has declared, completely outside of due process, they have declared that President Trump is guilty of insurrection, and therefore he is disqualified from even appearing on the ballot for the President of the United States in the state of Colorado.

So in one decision, the clearly treasonous insurrectionist Supreme Court of the state of Colorado has declared that the voters of Colorado have no right to choose Donald J. Trump to represent them as president. This is extraordinary. And this is the tip of the iceberg of the real insurrection that is taking place in America right now. By the way, also today, I have an amazing interview for you with Dr. Michael Nehls. He's the author of an extraordinary book that we have to talk about here. This book is called The Indoctrinated Brain, how to successfully fend off the global attack on your mental freedom. This book is amazing, and the interview with Dr. Nels was also amazing. He's an MD and a PhD. He's an expert in human neurology and brain disorders and mental health and so on.

What's also amazing, I did three interviews today. I also interviewed Liz Gunn, who is the journalist and attorney who helped blow the whistle for Barry Young, the New Zealand database administrator who is now facing prison time for telling the truth about how vaccines were killing New Zealanders. I'll play that tomorrow. And then I did the third interview today with another extraordinary man, a Qigong master, an author, someone who's an expert in what's called personal energy prepping. Francesco is his first time and we're gonna play that interview real soon. But I gotta say, it was probably the best day of triple interviews that I can remember. You've got to hear this interview with Dr. Nehls, who is German. This is coming up here today. And it's quite fitting, by the way based on today's news, which is, of course all about the assault on your mental freedom and the psyops that are being run against us by the establishment.

Trump the victim of "election de-platforming" - a form of political censorship that should be utterly intolerable in a so-called "democracy"

...

Democrats are terrified of allowing the American people to vote
...

[paxmao]

...

The States must have write-in places on their ballots.

The States are not necessarily the people. Rather, they are the so-called leaders.

If the people are not allowed to have their vote counted, there is election interference.

There is a long time,yet, before the elections. The corrupt State leaders are doing this against the will of many of their people. That's why they are doing it now... to see what will happen, rather than waiting until the last minute, and getting hurt by doing something that the Federal Supreme Court might consider illegal.

The people are getting fed up with the Dem and RINO leaders. They saw the good that Trump did while in office. And they see the mess that the Dem elect Biden has done.

Trump is now 'MORE likely to beat Biden' after Colorado ruling: - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12885509/trump-beat-biden-colorado-disqualification-supreme-court-decision.html.

This will backfire on State leaders who have done this.




...
The following is a partial transcript of Brighteon Broadcast News for December 20, 2023, covering the breaking Colorado Supreme Court decision that deprives voters any ability to vote for Donald J. Trump for any political office.
...

Trump the victim of "election de-platforming" - a form of political censorship that should be utterly intolerable in a so-called "democracy"

...

Democrats are terrified of allowing the American people to vote
...

The usual play: Trump breaks the law and when there are consequences he plays the victim.

Trump has been declared an insurrectionist for sending a murdering mob to kill his political opponents. He is the only one who has excluded himself from the system by organising this.

Trump is the one who tried to make the votes of millions of democrat null and overtake the government of the US via a coup. It is as simple as that. You should not be allowed to try it twice.

https://youtu.be/b3_O91gyj9o?t=382



What are they saying here BA? what is it they want?

https://youtu.be/b3_O91gyj9o?t=526

Because it seems to me that they are either asking to hugh Nacy Pelosi or they want to take her for walk.

The Supreme Court of Colorado has simply given a verdict. You may call them whatever, they are not running for POTUS.

[BADecker]

^^^ Since Trump didn't do what you claim, above, what is happening is obvious. And it seems you are in favor of it... paxmao the world conqueror.

Below is why we need people like Alex Jones to show us what is really going on.


EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship...


https://banned.video/watch?id=65839589d73929b3eee2c3d0
EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship in America! This Coup Is Not Just Against Trump But the American People's Right to Elect Who They Want to Represent Them! — WEDNESDAY 12/20/23

Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree: Trump could not be barred from being on the ballot unless he had been convicted of insurrection. President Trump has been convicted of nothing! This fraudulent action convicts the Deep State of openly attempting to steal the 2024 election!
...

[paxmao]

^^^ Since Trump didn't do what you claim, above, what is happening is obvious. And it seems you are in favor of it... paxmao the world conqueror.

Below is why we need people like Alex Jones to show us what is really going on.


[EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship...



EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship in America! This Coup Is Not Just Against Trump But the American People's Right to Elect Who They Want to Represent Them! — WEDNESDAY 12/20/23

Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree: Trump could not be barred from being on the ballot unless he had been convicted of insurrection. President Trump has been convicted of nothing! This fraudulent action convicts the Deep State of openly attempting to steal the 2024 election!
...

Go to kindergaten and learn to read.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

... More specifically, they asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

On December 14, 2020, the Electoral College officially confirmed the results: 306 electoral votes for President Biden; 232 for President Trump. President Trump continued to challenge the outcome, both in the courts and in the media.

President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which he, along with several others, spoke to the attendees. In his speech, which began around noon, President Trump persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol . . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not “fight like hell, [they would] not . . . have a country anymore.”

That is an armed assault, with the intent of overturn an election, resulting in the killing of several officers and a grave danger to the lives of Trumps political opponents.

This is not freedom, this is not "free man" crap, this is a mob overturning a democracy, get it into your head dumbass. You are the people trying to get a dictator into the White House, you are not defending "freedom" you are actually alienating the freedom of millions of voters of the democrat party.

[BADecker]

^^^ Since Trump didn't do what you claim, above, what is happening is obvious. And it seems you are in favor of it... paxmao the world conqueror.

Below is why we need people like Alex Jones to show us what is really going on.


[EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship...



EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship in America! This Coup Is Not Just Against Trump But the American People's Right to Elect Who They Want to Represent Them! — WEDNESDAY 12/20/23

Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree: Trump could not be barred from being on the ballot unless he had been convicted of insurrection. President Trump has been convicted of nothing! This fraudulent action convicts the Deep State of openly attempting to steal the 2024 election!
...

Go to kindergaten and learn to read.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

... More specifically, they asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

On December 14, 2020, the Electoral College officially confirmed the results: 306 electoral votes for President Biden; 232 for President Trump. President Trump continued to challenge the outcome, both in the courts and in the media.

President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which he, along with several others, spoke to the attendees. In his speech, which began around noon, President Trump persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol . . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not “fight like hell, [they would] not . . . have a country anymore.”

That is an armed assault, with the intent of overturn an election, resulting in the killing of several officers and a grave danger to the lives of Trumps political opponents.

This is not freedom, this is not "free man" crap, this is a mob overturning a democracy, get it into your head dumbass. You are the people trying to get a dictator into the White House, you are not defending "freedom" you are actually alienating the freedom of millions of voters of the democrat party.

Reading and reading between the lines are two different things.

Anybody can write all kinds of things. Take a look at the science fiction that is written here - https://www.luminist.org/archives/. Sure, there might be a little truth in some of it. But if you want to gain anything of value, you need to read between the lines.

Regarding Trump and the situation in the US, you need to read between the lines to understand what is really going on. To say it plainly, all the things that Trump is being accused of, are exactly the things that the current administration is doing... including the Trump accusations and trials... and doing a lot more than Trump would/could ever think of doing. If he even thought like they are accusing him, he wouldn't be in this mess, because he would have figured a way out ahead of time.

You are kinda fun, though. So, I hope it doesn't hurt you too much when things straighten themselves out again.

[paxmao]

^^^ Since Trump didn't do what you claim, above, what is happening is obvious. And it seems you are in favor of it... paxmao the world conqueror.

Below is why we need people like Alex Jones to show us what is really going on.


[EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship...



EMERGENCY BROADCAST: The Democratic Party Is Officially Establishing A Permanent Dictatorship in America! This Coup Is Not Just Against Trump But the American People's Right to Elect Who They Want to Represent Them! — WEDNESDAY 12/20/23

Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree: Trump could not be barred from being on the ballot unless he had been convicted of insurrection. President Trump has been convicted of nothing! This fraudulent action convicts the Deep State of openly attempting to steal the 2024 election!
...

Go to kindergaten and learn to read.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/20/1220583273/trump-colorado-supreme-court-ruling

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

... More specifically, they asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

On December 14, 2020, the Electoral College officially confirmed the results: 306 electoral votes for President Biden; 232 for President Trump. President Trump continued to challenge the outcome, both in the courts and in the media.

President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which he, along with several others, spoke to the attendees. In his speech, which began around noon, President Trump persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol . . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not “fight like hell, [they would] not . . . have a country anymore.”

That is an armed assault, with the intent of overturn an election, resulting in the killing of several officers and a grave danger to the lives of Trumps political opponents.

This is not freedom, this is not "free man" crap, this is a mob overturning a democracy, get it into your head dumbass. You are the people trying to get a dictator into the White House, you are not defending "freedom" you are actually alienating the freedom of millions of voters of the democrat party.

Reading and reading between the lines are two different things.

Anybody can write all kinds of things. Take a look at the science fiction that is written here - https://www.luminist.org/archives/. Sure, there might be a little truth in some of it. But if you want to gain anything of value, you need to read between the lines.

Regarding Trump and the situation in the US, you need to read between the lines to understand what is really going on. To say it plainly, all the things that Trump is being accused of, are exactly the things that the current administration is doing... including the Trump accusations and trials... and doing a lot more than Trump would/could ever think of doing. If he even thought like they are accusing him, he wouldn't be in this mess, because he would have figured a way out ahead of time.

You are kinda fun, though. So, I hope it doesn't hurt you too much when things straighten themselves out again.

Is not "anyone" dumbass, it is the Colorado Supreme Court. I know you are in the business of making any opinion or view count the same, but they are not. These are people who actually not only can read - which gives them an advantage over you - they have devoted their lives to understanding the law. You are not even a fly compared to them.

You do not need to read between the lines. Trump sent a murdering mob to the Capitol, it is recorded, it is illegal and in any other country he would be facing life sentence or death penalty.

did anyone force trump to send a violent mob to the Capitol? did anyone told him to interrupt a legal process, killing police in their way?

We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore

We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.