Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:11 am
I don't think that was a very smart thing to say!

1/6 was organized.

1/6 was concerted.

1/6 was violent.

All true.

But what is going to be tied directly to Trump for 1/6?

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:31 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:11 am
I don't think that was a very smart thing to say!

1/6 was organized.

1/6 was concerted.

1/6 was violent.

All true.

But what is going to be tied directly to Trump for 1/6?

The caselaw is quite clear (on insurrection, and analogous actions like arson or pollution) that someone who participates in the organization piece (and the incitement piece) is responsible for the ultimate act.

And, critically, this is also what the Colorado state court system found - and it is not really within the US Supreme Court's scope to disturb the findings of fact by the Colorado state courts.

I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

I mostly just expect the SCOTUS to wriggle out from under this and put Trump back on the ballot in CO due to some flaky technicality.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:39 am I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

That I agree with.

I have trouble coming to the conclusion that Trump helped with the organization and incitement of 1/6.

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:05 pm I mostly just expect the SCOTUS to wriggle out from under this and put Trump back on the ballot in CO due to some flaky technicality.

The argument didn't go well for the Colorado side, because they never really got the Court focused on the big picture. They played the game on the other side's terms.

I think where we're headed where you said (which, to our other friends, is what I "predicted"): the Court will NOT find that 14A-3 categorically does not apply to Trump and 1/6, but WILL find that a finding of disqualification is not appropriate on the basis of the case and facts in front of the Court.

I don't think that is the correct legal finding - but nor would it be as hilariously and egregiously wrong, or as permanently damaging, as (for example) a finding in Trump's favor on immunity.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:11 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:39 am I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

That I agree with.

I have trouble coming to the conclusion that Trump helped with the organization and incitement of 1/6.

I am not well-versed in the facts in the Colorado trial court record, where it found that Trump engaged in insurrection.

I do think the facts alleged in the federal 1/6 case against Trump would, if proven in substance, absolutely support a finding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

That's part of the "not yet" I see happening here - which is not what the Court will likely say out loud (and nor should it), but is I think where this will leave off.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:11 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:39 am I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

That I agree with.

I have trouble coming to the conclusion that Trump helped with the organization and incitement of 1/6.

Then you most certainly shouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of thinking Bill Self had anything to do with our NCAA violations ( which you have ).

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:18 pm

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:11 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:39 am I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

That I agree with.

I have trouble coming to the conclusion that Trump helped with the organization and incitement of 1/6.

Then you most certainly shouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of thinking Bill Self had anything to do with our NCAA violations ( which you have ).

Anyone paying attention knew that Trump and Bannon had telegraphed their strategy and the "wild" insurrection on 1/6. Of note, both houses of Congress labeled him an insurrectionist in majority votes to impeach him.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:11 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:39 am I would note also that this is why the knowingly-frivolous litigation and investigations and fake electors parts of the scheme are so relevant - the Ellipse speech and march on the Capitol were just one part of a scheme to illegally subvert the Constitutional transfer of power.

That I agree with.

I have trouble coming to the conclusion that Trump helped with the organization and incitement of 1/6.

then you aren’t paying attention

Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

Depends what you mean I guess. I'll be sad, but not surprised, that the Court did not follow the Constitution.

But I don't think it was reasonable to expect a different outcome.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

I figured that's what you'd say -- as if the Court has been politicized for more than half a century. That's why I asked about a decision including Roberts and one or more of the Democrat appointees. Kagan, for one, seemed dubious of Colorado's case

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

I will say this - maybe there is a silver lining to the pro-disqualification side not even running its best plays here. The Court holding against that side on non-substantive reasons (without really getting to the substantive stuff) might not be the worst outcome in terms of what comes next.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:39 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

Depends what you mean I guess. I'll be sad, but not surprised, that the Court did not follow the Constitution.

But I don't think it was reasonable to expect a different outcome.

If Kagan joins the majority are you going to continue to believe that it did NOT follow the Constitution?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:40 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

I figured that's what you'd say -- as if the Court has been politicized for more than half a century. That's why I asked about a decision including one or more of the Democrat appointees. Kagan, for one, seemed dubious of Colorado's case

I don't think the Colorado folks did a very good job making their case.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

This.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:42 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:39 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 pm Are you all going to have a sad if we get a 6-3 or 7-2 decision for Trump?

Depends what you mean I guess. I'll be sad, but not surprised, that the Court did not follow the Constitution.

But I don't think it was reasonable to expect a different outcome.

If Kagan joins the majority are you going to continue to believe that it did NOT follow the Constitution?

I think there's a red herring hidden in your question.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:43 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:40 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:37 pm

i’m expecting pro-trump decision…which would only solidify the perceived partisanship and politicized nature of this court

I figured that's what you'd say -- as if the Court has been politicized for more than half a century. That's why I asked about a decision including one or more of the Democrat appointees. Kagan, for one, seemed dubious of Colorado's case

I don't think the Colorado folks did a very good job making their case.

Agreed.

The Colorado solicitor was...well...not good.