quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
As usual, I don't understand what the Colorado Republican Party is trying to achieve. ...

No, no, no. What you do is defy the court. Put him on the ballot anyway.

The state prints the ballots. If the state won't put him on the ballot, he won't be on the ballot.

What the Colorado GOP seeks to achieve by switching from a primary election to a caucus for their nominee is to take it out of the state's hands. I would imagine their thinking is, were Trump to prevail in a caucus election and thus become the party's nominee for the general election, Colorado wouldn't dare try the same trick.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
And of course California does not want to be left out of the news cycle.

CA seeks to remove Trump from primary ballot

I think SCOTUS will eventually have to rule on the Constitutionality of this behavior.

The seven-person Colorado Supreme Court, which found in a historic ruling Tuesday that Donald Trump is ineligible to be on the state's primary ballot, is composed entirely of judges appointed by Democrats.

The court's justices weren't unified in the decision; three dissented, arguing that Trump should not be booted from the ballot.

The justices serve at least two years, and then have to run for retention at the next general election.
If successful, they win a 10-year term.

All members of the current court have won retention , except Berkenkotter, who has not yet faced a vote. There are no term limits, but there is a mandatory retirement age of 72.

Colorado Supreme Court Justices Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez, William Hood and Richard Gabriel comprised the one-vote majority that found on Dec. 19 that Trump engaged in an insurrection and was therefore disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment from appearing on the Colorado ballot. The judges said they experienced “little difficulty” in arriving at their verdict.

Victor Davis Hanson

The Colorado Insurrection

Donald Trump is being erased from the Colorado primary (and general?) ballot, by warping the 14th Amendment, and in a way never envisioned by its creators.

So now can one be guilty by fiat of Confederacy-like “insurrection,” when he has never been charged with, much less convicted of, such a crime?

How can a buffoonish January 6th riot become an “insurrection,” when no one was armed, there was no plan to seize power, and protestors were advised by the purported insurrectionist leader “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”?

As far as election insurrectionary interference, why did liberal journalist Molly Ball label the leftwing effort to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election a “cabal” (e.g., “That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”)?

And why did Ball double-down and further call it a “conspiracy” (“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans, of CEOs, Silicon Valley billionaires, street protestors…Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.”)?

As far as efforts to nullify the popular vote, do we remember the pathetic 2016 ensemble of C-list Hollywood celebrities (e.g., Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Noah Wyle, Freda Payne, Bob Odenkirk, J. Smith Cameron, Michael Urie, Moby, Mike Farrell, Loretta Swit, Christine Lahti, Steven Pasquale, Dominic Fumusa and Emily Tyra)?

They were drafted by leftwing groups to cut commercials urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties of reflecting their states’ popular votes, and instead, as faithless electors, to vote instead for Hillary Clinton, the loser in their respective states’ popular votes.

How did they rationalize that anti-constitutional gambit? Well, remember Martin Sheen’s shameless sophistry to ignore the Constitution and the election results?

“As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

So what makes a high elected official an insurrectionist?

Current or past advocacy for using violence against the government, as represented by, say, the Supreme Court?

Or urging on more protests that had already turned violent, eventually leading to 35 deaths, 1,500 injured police officers, $1-2 billion in property damage, and a torched courthouse, police headquarters, and iconic church?

Attempting to break into the White House grounds? Sending the president into a secure underground bunker?

If so, remember Kamala Harris’s summer 2020 boasts about the protests that, she knew (contrary to “fact checkers”) had already a long history of violence:

“But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”

What was the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer intending, when in 2020 he incited a throng at the very doors of the Supreme Court, warning of violence to come to two justices whom he called out by name?

“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

“Hit you”?

Now we have ballot suppression to add to the long list of farces, hoaxes, and lies all designed to destroy a candidate who otherwise might win popular support for an agenda the majority of Americans have consistently supported.

So the leftwing Colorado Justices join the “Russian collusion” spectacle, the Alfa Bank “pink” hoax, the “Russian disinformation” laptop ruse, the precedent breaking two impeachments of a president in his first term, the caper of trying an ex-president as a private citizen in the senate, and the ploy of raiding an ex-president’s home.

What exactly is the Left doing?

They accept they have no majority support for the current President or his agenda. They fear the voters will elect a Republican. They are horrified that it might be Donald Trump, whom they especially loathe. And they are terrified that Trump might do to them what they would certainly do if they were in his position.

The Left is mightily frustrated that after controlling all the sources of information, communications, and institutions (e.. CEOs, traditional and social media, entertainment, the Internet, Silicon Valley, academia, K-12, foundations, sports, and popular culture, etc.), and having a vast advantage in fund raising and money, they still cannot stop the will of the majority.

And the Left wages lawfare because they assume the Right is either too timid, too incompetent, too preoccupied, or too principled to reciprocate in kind—especially given they gloat that there were never any consequences for all the past hoaxes and ruses they perpetuated.

But this time they may have jumped the proverbial shark and shown themselves to be the true and only insurrectionists that will face the consequences of any angry public in November 2024.

If he's not on the Colorado ballot write him in. Truly embarrassed that this shit is happening in my state.

Link

Chairs of group that led effort to boot Trump from Colorado ballot donated to Biden

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington helped bring the lawsuit against former President Trump on behalf of 6 voters

The board chairs of the group that brought the lawsuit leading to former President Donald Trump's removal from the 2024 Colorado ballot had previously donated large sums to President Biden's campaign and victory fund, filings reviewed by Fox News Digital show.

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the ballot on Tuesday under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots.

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the court's majority wrote. "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."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a self-identified "nonpartisan" watchdog group, brought the Colorado lawsuit against Trump on behalf of "six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials," the group wrote on its website in early September.

CREW's leaders, meanwhile, have showered Biden with thousands of dollars in donations when he previously went head-to-head against Trump.

Beth Nolan, a former general counsel at George Washington University who also served as counsel to former President Bill Clinton, steers CREW's board as its chair. According to Federal Election Commission records, Nolan sent $2,800 to Biden's campaign and $3,000 to the Biden Victory Fund in 2020.

In addition to Nolan, CREW's vice chair, Wayne Jordan, donated substantial amounts to Biden's presidential apparatus by pushing $300,000 to the Biden Victory Fund in 2020. Jordan is married to Democrat megadonor Quinn Delaney, who added $650,000 to Biden's victory fund during the last election cycle, records show.

Neither Nolan, Wayne nor CREW responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Despite its self-identified "nonpartisan" status, CREW has long been viewed as a left-leaning organization. David Brock, founder of the liberal groups Media Matters for America and American Bridge, previously ran the group as its board chair.

In early 2017, Brock huddled with donors at a posh resort in Florida to map out how his constellation of organizations would "kick Donald Trump's a--" throughout his presidency, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Brock had ostensibly stepped away from his position as CREW's board chair at the time of the gathering. However, the documents detailing the upcoming goals and efforts of how his groups would attack Trump during his presidency include the watchdog group.

The documents specified how CREW would hit Trump with "a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues." These actions, in turn, would force the Trump administration to defend "illegal conduct in court."

CREW has also received vast sums from major Democratic donors, including George Soros. Between 2017 and 2021, two nonprofits in the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations network combined to give CREW $2.85 million in funding, which largely went towards general operating support, according to its grant database.

CREW's involvement on behalf of the six voters ultimately led to Tuesday's Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump from appearing on the state's ballots. The watchdog group's website states Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law LLC, and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC were also involved with the effort.

"We just won before the Colorado Supreme Court in our challenge to keep Donald Trump off the ballot as disqualified under the 14th amendment for engaging in insurrection," CREW President Noah Bookbinder said on X following the ruling. "A huge moment for democracy. More to come soon."

In a 4 to 3 ruling, the court argued that under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Trump is "disqualified" from holding the office of president in connection to his alleged role on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore, would not appear on the 2024 ballot.

According to the 14th Amendment, no person shall hold public office who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." The Colorado justices argued Trump violated this clause.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability," the amendment reads.

Justice Carlos Samour, one of the three Democrat-appointed justices who dissented, wrote that the decision "risked chaos in the country" and urged that "there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office." Trump's campaign has vowed to "swiftly" appeal the Colorado court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where observers largely believe it will be overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
If he's not on the Colorado ballot write him in. Truly embarrassed that this shit is happening in my state.

I thought I read that write-ins weren't allowed in Colorado.

I’ve spent my fair share of time and done plenty of business in Colorado but this anti-Democratic shit show from their Supreme Court has put Colorado as a state right in line with China. I will not patronize the state with any tourism dollars and will avoid businesses and products that domicile or come from the state. My own little personal line in the sand that will help me sleep better at night.

I’m confident this will be overturned by SCOTUS, but the implications of such a blatant anti-democratic action moved our country closer to a line we won’t return from.

quote:

Originally posted by dking271:I’m confident this will be overturned by SCOTUS, but the implications of such a blatant anti-democratic action moved our country closer to a line we won’t return from.

Not without real violence.

The Emperor Truly Has No Clothes.

Special counsel in Trump case unconstitutional, former Reagan AG says.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese has presented arguments to the Supreme Court that they should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s requests because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place.

Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

"Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," the brief states.

"Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos," they argued.

The brief was filed in response to Smith’s request to the court to expedite former President Donald Trump’s case arguing presidential immunity for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, which are connected to criminal charges brought by Smith.

Meese argues that the "illegality" of Smith’s appointment is "sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review."

Messe and company noted in the brief that Smith was appointed "to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Donald Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021."

While Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment, Meese argues that "none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel."

"Second, even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel," the former AG wrote.

"Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute… and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel," he added.

Meese, who served as attorney general under former President Reagan, said "the Special Counsel, if a valid officer, is a superior (or principal) rather than inferior officer, and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say."

Earlier this month, Smith petitioned the high court to decide Trump’s immunity claims in his case facing charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Smith asked for expedited consideration of the case to essentially have the high court take over jurisdiction before the lower federal courts have fully decided the matter.

Smith wants the court to expedite the claims in hopes to keep Trump’s Washington, D.C., trial — scheduled to begin March 4 — on track.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ormer-reagan-ag-says

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
Truly embarrassed that this shit is happening in my state.

I left 10 years ago and I’m glad I did. That place is falling apart since the influx of Californian’s and their shit politics. The cartels have taken over the pot operations and it doesn’t seem that any of the politicians care (most were probably in on it to begin with). You can keep that shit. Beautiful place but now it’s full of whackaddodles

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
The Emperor Truly Has No Clothes.

Special counsel in Trump case unconstitutional, former Reagan AG says.
<snip>

Thanks for the excellent post sir.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
If he's not on the Colorado ballot write him in. Truly embarrassed that this shit is happening in my state.

Apparently write-in votes wouldn't be counted for the same BS reason he can't be on the ballot

Colorado state laws on write-in clvotes says “a vote for a write-in candidate shall not be counted unless the candidate is qualified to hold the office for which the elector’s vote was cast.”

Todd told VERIFY in an email that “write-in candidates have to meet the same eligibility criteria that named candidates do” and “if the Courts say he is not eligible for the ballot, that applies to both a named and write-in candidacy.”

https://www.9news.com/article/...mpaign=snd-autopilot

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
If he's not on the Colorado ballot write him in. Truly embarrassed that this shit is happening in my state.

I thought I read that write-ins weren't allowed in Colorado.

Write him in anyway. Defy them. Conservatives are rule followers by nature and progressives have figured this out: they beat us within the confines of rules (which they feel no loyalty towards) then watch as we argue amongst ourselves or grudgingly obey the rules. They burn down police stations when they get angry.

quote:

Apparently write-in votes wouldn't be counted for the same BS reason he can't be on the ballot

Colorado state laws on write-in clvotes says “a vote for a write-in candidate shall not be counted unless the candidate is qualified to hold the office for which the elector’s vote was cast.”

If this stands, the Colorado GOP will go to a caucus system and cancel the primary.

The leftists have screwed up big time this time. Their sick obsession with Donald Trump has really done them in. Several states are now exploring removing Biden from their primaries, due to Biden's abdication of his duties, with his wide open southern border.

It doesn't matter if they are successful in their efforts; the whole shebang will probably be shut down by the Supreme Court, but they have finally opened Pandora's Box with their insane obsession with Trump.

^^^^
I wouldn’t say that they’re insane. The leftists correctly recognize that President Trump is their mortal enemy, and an extremely dangerous one.

As the overused saying goes: "Breaking"

https://twitter.com/TheLeoTerr.../1738281892229886028



It seems to me that this ruling is quite significant.

https://lists.youmaker.com/lin...UuHpYMhQc/ciGWPD2tYc

House Judiciary Seeks Documents From Jack Smith Over Trump Cases

'Based on publicly available information, the Committee has significant concerns about your commitment to evenhanded justice.'

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) have demanded documents from special counsel Jack Smith seeking information about his investigation of former President Donald Trump, and threatening a subpoena if the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to ignore similar requests they submitted earlier this year.

"Based on publicly available information, the Committee has significant concerns about your commitment to evenhanded justice," the House Republicans wrote on Thursday in a letter to the special counsel.

Mr. Jordan and Mr. Biggs are asking for documents, including communications between the special counsel and the U.S. Attorney General's office regarding investigating and prosecuting President Trump, salaries and travel costs incurred by special counsel staff working on the Trump case, and hiring criteria for the team.

They gave a deadline of Jan. 4 for the requested materials.

Mr. Smith is prosecuting former President Donald Trump in two separate federal criminal investigations, one alleging mishandling of classified documents and another alleging interference in the 2020 elections. He was appointed special counsel last November to investigate matters related to Jan. 6, 2021.

The committee chairs pointed out that this is a prosecution by the Biden administration of "President Biden's chief opponent in the upcoming presidential election," and that a record showing partiality has emerged.

"You have a record of attempting to criminalize political discourse, as evidenced by your reported interest in how the Justice Department could prosecute conservative tax-exempt groups engaging in constitutionally protected political speech," the letter reads.

They called into question Mr. Smith's appointment as special counsel, raising questions of "fairness and justice."

cont...