the game at play seems to be framing ex-president Trump as evil. Then its ok to do whatever it takes, including ignoring the rules to cancel him.
I expect you did.... doc already made the reference obliquely.
This is interesting, in that Colorado's SC is making a statement about how the 14th amendment applies to governing state law. In theory, that is the last stop, and SCOTUS has nothing further to say. If I had to guess, SCOTUS will try to change how Colorado interpreted the definitions of either a) if the presidency is an "office under the United States", or b) what "insurrection or rebellion" means.
I agree with Godwin that the law has been used in the past mainly as hyperbole, but there is now more concern about the potential emergence of an American fascist state.
Don't know about that. Even aside from the notion that the Constitution should be applied regardless of whom dislikes it, I can't imagine those opinions are not rock-solid already. He was already outvoted, this issue is about whether his attempts to circumvent the results should have ramifications per the 14th.
While it isn't incumbent on the defense to prove a negative, I'll again note that in Colorado neither the defense nor dissenting judges disputed that January 6 plus the fake elector scheme (can't leave that out!) qualified as insurrection, as was established during trial. Theoretically that isn't even the question before SCOTUS. Theoretically...
The game at play on the Trump side seems to be to ignore the extensive of evidence of his miscellaneous wrongdoings and to pretend he's some kind of martyr. There's a lot of clearcut evidence against the man, and mountains of circumstantial evidence; on occasion, there are his own admissions of guilt. Obviously, that's not enough to convince Trump true believers, which is sort of sad.
Ironically your team is the one making him look like a victim, despite being a wealthy, old white businessman....
Evidence and admissions of guilt do not require mindreading. Please do not misrepresent my words.
