IGotWorms

You would not even be able to receive the handoff before you were dead. Let’s get real here, fellas

The First Lady? Really?? Are you actually this dumb?

I had not realized how entrenched some people were in their anti-renewables stance, until this thread.

I’ve said that several times

I think the idea is there’d be no infrastructure as everything could have its own built in power generation. I believe? But anyway it’s obviously nowhere near that scalable and won’t be for decades. Still pretty exciting though

jonmx gets it. He may be crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but he is smart and stuff

See this is why you got stuck as some sh1tty paralegal or something. The trial court found that Trump did engage in insurrection. Oops However, the trial court also found that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidents. So even though Trump definitely engaged in an insurrection, per the trial court, he could not be removed from the ballot. Legal nuance is hard

Interesting issue as to whether that civil judgment is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Some are and some aren’t. I’m not a bankruptcy guy but I believe it basically comes down to whether it was for an intentional tort like fraud

Yep. Might be. These are very thorny issues with few black and white answers

It’s done all the time in civil cases. But even in civil cases, you often have the right to a jury trial. So I don’t necessarily disagree, but it’s also not nearly as bizarre as some are making it out to be.

I see you have no retort to the link

He had due process in the Colorado trial court. It’s not necessarily a criminal conviction, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say and it almost makes no sense to refer to the federal criminal statute because a) he can’t be sent to prison (for this particular one, anyway) and b) Congress could define the crime however they want but that doesn’t mean it’s coextensive with the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.

However, I do fully expect that the US Supreme Court will reverse the decision, and it may even be correct to do so

Uh, yeeeeeees In November, a trial court in Denver found that the events on Jan. 6 satisfy the definition of insurrection, and concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement. Judge Sarah B. Wallace ultimately determined that the language of Section 3 is unclear as to whether it covered the presidency and the former president, and ordered Griswold to list Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review the district court's ruling, and held argumentsin the case earlier this month. The justices weighed whether the events of Jan. 6 could be considered an "insurrection," and, if so, one that Trump "engaged in." They also considered whether the president is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3. … The justices rejected claims from Trump's lawyers that the breach of the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection and instead concluded that the record in the case "amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country." In determining that Trump engaged in insurrection, the Colorado high court said there is "substantial evidence" that the former president was "laying the groundwork for a claim that the election was rigged" before the November presidential contest. Trump, the majority said, "continued to fan the flames of his supporters' ire, which he had ignited" by making false claims about the integrity of the election on social media and in a speech outside the White House on Jan. 6. "President Trump's direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary," the justices wrote. "Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power." The high court found that Trump "did not merely incite the insurrection," but "continued to support it" by continuing to urge then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally toss out state Electoral College votes. "These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection," the majority wrote. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-colorado-supreme-court/

The CO trial court found he had done so and CO Sup Ct affirmed. HTH

Anyone who says anything besides option 1 is kidding themselves

It’s too smooth. No feeeback and it makes me queasy

Actually I do hate the way electric cars drive

Because it’s super alpha manly?

It has to be an insurrectionist, so if there are others that tried to overthrow the government, then by all means

He’s had some doozies like Citizens United, but he’s probably the most centrist

That’s fairly meaningless since the Supreme Court is completely partisan these days. Only if it’s like a 7-2 decision or something

Well it’s certainly a slippery slope. That is a fair point. But, as with the prosecutions of a former president (also a slippery slope), it ultimately comes back to Trump’s conduct. It’s his conduct that led to these things and so you should really blaming him.

The ultimate sign of poor character. Well, in a 76 year old man, anyway