Colorado Supreme Court rules insurrectionist Trump ineligible

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

First I dont care about the 14 th amendment. Next I never claimed that the 14th amendment REQUIRED a conviction, unless you can cite where I made such a claim. My point is much less complicated. 

 

The claim has been made that trump incited an insurrection. That's the term leftists have used. It's been said there is evidence of him inciting an insurrection. That's the term the leftist have used. So the point is why is trump walking free if he incited and there is evidence of his crime? This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Apparently an insurrectionist is allowed to walk free. 

 

You know what else is interesting? Trump is said to have incited a riot but not a single j6 protestor was convicted of insurrection? So trump incited an insurrection for which no one has been convicted. Again nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Seditious conspiracy is the equivalent of insurrection except it INCLUDES CONSPIRACY whether you understand that or NOT.

You're posting in the 14th A thread so either you were talking about that or YOU'RE OFF TOPIC.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Seditious conspiracy is the equivalent of insurrection except it INCLUDES CONSPIRACY whether you understand that or NOT.

It's not even close to the same thing. Like - not at all.

Sigh - robolawyer is making crap up to suit is needs again  

[Yakuda]

54 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Seditious conspiracy is the equivalent of insurrection except it INCLUDES CONSPIRACY whether you understand that or NOT.

You're posting in the 14th A thread so either you were talking about that or YOU'RE OFF TOPIC.

A conspiracy is a plan to act not the act itself whether you understand that or not. 

I dont have to care about but to talk about. The 14th amendment was invoked based on a claim of insurrection. Nothing indicates an insurrection not place. It's rather simple. 

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

A conspiracy is a plan to act not the act itself whether you understand that or not. 

It is never CHARGED without the act itself. No act and it's protected freedom of speech.

8 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I dont have to care about but to talk about. The 14th amendment was invoked based on a claim of insurrection. Nothing indicates an insurrection not place. It's rather simple. 

The Co SC held a hearing to determine insurrection and Trump LOST (by not showing up).

He just wanted to PLAY THE VICTIM, and chose to BE ONE.

And the MAGA CULT bought that, just like they do ALL HIS LIES.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is never CHARGED without the act itself. No act and it's protected freedom of speech.

The Co SC held a hearing to determine insurrection and Trump LOST (by not showing up).

He just wanted to PLAY THE VICTIM, and chose to BE ONE.

And the MAGA CULT bought that, just like they do ALL HIS LIES.

Virtually all of that is a lie. And we can tell that you know that by your Freaked out use of alternating caps. It's always a good giveaway  

[Yakuda]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is never CHARGED without the act itself. No act and it's protected freedom of speech.

The Co SC held a hearing to determine insurrection and Trump LOST (by not showing up).

He just wanted to PLAY THE VICTIM, and chose to BE ONE.

And the MAGA CULT bought that, just like they do ALL HIS LIES.

Incorrect. Conspiracy to commit murder can be charged without an actual murder.

It's not the job of any SC to determine guilt of a crime.

Doesn't mean he hasn't been victimized

So it's just hatred that motivated the anti trump crowd. We've known that for some time now. 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Incorrect. Conspiracy to commit murder can be charged without an actual murder.

IF murder is NOT attempted, there is NO EVIDENCE of INTENT. 

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

It's not the job of any SC to determine guilt of a crime.

No CRIME is necessary to disqualify someone based on Constitutional REQUIREMENTS.

And no CRIME was determined, just "engaged in."

You are repeatedly confusing the removal of a PRIVILEGE with a punishment for a CRIME.

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Doesn't mean he hasn't been victimized

The HEARING determined that Trump was the VICTIMIZER. Duh

6 hours ago, Yakuda said:

So it's just hatred that motivated the anti trump crowd. We've known that for some time now. 

You don't know what you don't know. AKA you are confused.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF murder is NOT attempted, there is NO EVIDENCE of INTENT. 

 

LOL  there absolutely is and it's not an uncommon charge If i tell someone "here's a gun, go kill john over there" and he says "Sure" and then goes to the police i wll for sure be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  Even tho no attempt was made, i conspired to make an attempt

Once again Roboattourney shows he doesn't understand the law

[Rebound]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's not even close to the same thing. Like - not at all.

Sigh - robolawyer is making crap up to suit is needs again  

Of course they’re close. Duh. 
“Sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.”

In US Federal Law, seditious conspiracy covers BOTH insurrection and sedition AND requires proof of conspiracy:

”If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.”

QUESTION: How comes I keep quoting US Federal Law to you, and you never do? Your approach seems to be to deny that US Federal Law exists. 

Edited January 10, 2024 by Rebound

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

IF murder is NOT attempted, there is NO EVIDENCE of INTENT. 

No CRIME is necessary to disqualify someone based on Constitutional REQUIREMENTS.

And no CRIME was determined, just "engaged in."

You are repeatedly confusing the removal of a PRIVILEGE with a punishment for a CRIME.

The HEARING determined that Trump was the VICTIMIZER. Duh

You don't know what you don't know. AKA you are confused.

Once again your are incorrect. Conspiracy only requires an act that advances the conspiracy it doesnt have to the the act itself. Buying a weapon to kill the person fulfills that requirement. You never have to actually try and murder the person. 

 

You're so wrong about this the rest isnt worth engaging 

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  there absolutely is and it's not an uncommon charge If i tell someone "here's a gun, go kill john over there" and he says "Sure" and then goes to the police i wll for sure be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  Even tho no attempt was made, i conspired to make an attempt

Once again Roboattourney shows he doesn't understand the law

This is exactly right. 

39 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Of course they’re close. Duh. 
“Sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.”

In US Federal Law, seditious conspiracy covers BOTH insurrection and sedition AND requires proof of conspiracy:

”If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.”

QUESTION: How comes I keep quoting US Federal Law to you, and you never do? Your approach seems to be to deny that US Federal Law exists. 

Some people just dig in their heels when they are proven wrong. 

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

This is exactly right. 

Some people just dig in their heels when they are proven wrong. 

What is the proof you have provided? My proof is the quotation of Federal law. 
 

Without giving you a law school class, I’ll simply explain that seditious conspiracy covers a wide range of conduct and results. The 22 year sentence handed down to Tarrio, and I believe 17 years handed to Rhodes, demonstrates that their conduct was on the most severe end.  
 

As is true in any other form of warfare, the generals don’t do the actual shooting, but “I didn’t shoot anybody, I was just giving orders” doesn’t work any better than “I was only following orders” as a defense.  

Edited January 10, 2024 by Rebound

[Yakuda]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What is the proof you have provided? My proof is the quotation of Federal law. 
 

Without giving you a law school class, I’ll simply explain that seditious conspiracy covers a wide range of conduct and results. The 22 year sentence handed down to Tarrio, and I believe 17 years handed to Rhodes, demonstrates that their conduct was on the most severe end.  
 

As is true in any other form of warfare, the generals don’t do the actual shooting, but “I didn’t shoot anybody, I was just giving orders” doesn’t work any better than “I was only following orders” as a defense.  

What are you talking about? I agreed with you.....

[Rebound]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

What are you talking about? I agreed with you.....

Awesome! My bad! 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Once again your are incorrect. Conspiracy only requires an act that advances the conspiracy it doesnt have to the the act itself. Buying a weapon to kill the person fulfills that requirement. You never have to actually try and murder the person. 

 

You're so wrong about this the rest isnt worth engaging 

In FACT the mere act of buying gun is NOT proof of any particular plan to use it for murder.

If it were, millions could be arrested for a conspiracy to murder just by telling someone about a plan.

But like you a-holes gave Trump a pass on his pu$$y grabbing confession it can ALWAYS just be "locker room talk."

You might get charged, but if you have a decent lawyer, NO CONVICTION for speech without action which proves INTENT.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Of course they’re close. Duh. 

Wow - you're even starting to drool like him

Quote

“Sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.”

Soooo - not rebellion or insurrection at all.  Just speech which might incite people.  And rebellion or insurrection isn't speech, it's actually trying to take over the gov't.

LOL - not the same at all, sorry.   And here's a good way to tell, you can have one completely without the other entirely.  Sedition is just talking smak about the gov'.t. Even if a rebellion doesn't happen and isn't even attempted or even planned or even considered.

It's like saying wishing someone was dead is the same thing as murder.  Nope.

“Sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.”

Quote

 

In US Federal Law, seditious conspiracy covers BOTH insurrection and sedition AND requires proof of conspiracy:

”If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.”

 

Take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof huh?

Sooo - every time a protest group seizes a gov't building it's seditious conspiracy?    So black lives matter and the floyd rioters seized numerous gov't buildings and property... should they have been tried as seditious conspirators? LOL Funny nobody mentioned it at the time

And again - an insurrection is very specifically an attempt to overthrow the gov't unlawfully. The law you just referred to doesn't say that - it says to CONSPIRE.. whether it happens or not. Again - not the same in teh slighest.

Which is why they're not being charged with insurrection. Which is a crime.  Because that is very different from sedition. Which involves planning, but not necessarily execution or even attempted execution.

They are very different things. IF they weren't you can bet those charges would be in there. They are not

 

 

Quote

QUESTION: How comes I keep quoting US Federal Law to you, and you never do? Your approach seems to be to deny that US Federal Law exists. 

well interestingly you never cite it.  And it's harder for me to cite a law that nobody's being charged under. Most of us have an aweful lot of laws that we're not being charged with

When you or robowrong make a claim like "Sedition and insurrection are the same thing" as he did, the onus is actually on  you to demonstrate that is true. Which he didn't even attempt and which you failed to do.

Sedition and conspiracy to commit sedition is not the same thing as insurrection.  Attempting to cliam they are synonomous is completely false. That's why there are different charges and definitions of them.

 

 

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

What are you talking about? I agreed with you.....

You initially said NO ONE was convicted of INSURRECTION, when many have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

AKA you denied how  closely they are RELATED. Good idea to back track on that blunder.

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In FACT the mere act of buying gun is NOT proof of any particular plan to use it for murder.

If it were, millions could be arrested for a conspiracy to murder just by telling someone about a plan.

But like you a-holes gave Trump a pass on his pu$$y grabbing confession it can ALWAYS just be "locker room talk."

You might get charged, but if you have a decent lawyer, NO CONVICTION for speech without action which proves INTENT.

Again if two people conspire to kill someone and one of them purchases a weapon that advances the conspiracy and no attempt to commit the murder needs to happen to get a conspiracy conviction. Period. 

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You initially said NO ONE was convicted of INSURRECTION, when many have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

AKA you denied how  closely they are RELATED. Good idea to back track on that blunder.

Correct a plan to act not the act itself. No one was convicted of insurrection or sedition. 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Again if two people conspire to kill someone and one of them purchases a weapon that advances the conspiracy and no attempt to commit the murder needs to happen to get a conspiracy conviction. Period. 

You're not a lawyer and have quoted NO LEGAL OPINION from EXPERTS, so ^this OPINION is just you practicing law without a license. AKA, a crime. 

Meanwhile you've been shown that the definition of seditious conspiracy INCLUDES INSURRECTION and that was determined by the Co SC in a legitimate HEARING; not as a crime, but sufficient evidence to deny the PRIVILEGE of QUALIFICATION for holding the OFFICE.

On TOP OF THAT, insurrection is just ONE of the several things that can disqualify you from holding office based on the 14 A of the CONSTITUTION.

The Co SC is composed of EXPERTS, which you ARE NOT.

[Yakuda]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're not a lawyer and have quoted NO LEGAL OPINION from EXPERTS, so ^this OPINION is just you practicing law without a license. AKA, a crime. 

Meanwhile you've been shown that the definition of seditious conspiracy INCLUDES INSURRECTION and that was determined by the Co SC in a legitimate HEARING; not as a crime, but sufficient evidence to deny the PRIVILEGE of QUALIFICATION for holding the OFFICE.

On TOP OF THAT, insurrection is just ONE of the several things that can disqualify you from holding office based on the 14 A of the CONSTITUTION.

The Co SC is composed of EXPERTS, which you ARE NOT.

Merely pointing out that planning to commit a crime isn't the same as committing the crime. 

[Rebound]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're not a lawyer and have quoted NO LEGAL OPINION from EXPERTS, so ^this OPINION is just you practicing law without a license. AKA, a crime. 

Meanwhile you've been shown that the definition of seditious conspiracy INCLUDES INSURRECTION and that was determined by the Co SC in a legitimate HEARING; not as a crime, but sufficient evidence to deny the PRIVILEGE of QUALIFICATION for holding the OFFICE.

On TOP OF THAT, insurrection is just ONE of the several things that can disqualify you from holding office based on the 14 A of the CONSTITUTION.

The Co SC is composed of EXPERTS, which you ARE NOT.

I think he is correct. If two people plot to kill someone and buy a gun with the purpose of committing the murder, the gun purchase is definitely evidence. For instance, if there’s a recorded conversation about planning the killing, and in the recording the one guy says, “I’ll go buy a gun tomorrow so we can kill him,” and the next day he buys a gun, that’s definitely evidence of conspiracy to murder. 

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I think he is correct. If two people plot to kill someone and buy a gun with the purpose of committing the murder, the gun purchase is definitely evidence. For instance, if there’s a recorded conversation about planning the killing, and in the recording the one guy says, “I’ll go buy a gun tomorrow so we can kill him,” and the next day he buys a gun, that’s definitely evidence of conspiracy to murder. 

A gun purchase may be evidence, but not proof of INTENT.

And what you've cited is NOT JUST the gun purchase, but an actual recording of a convo which when COMBINED with the purchase, may be enough evidence to prove INTENT.

Such recordings are fairly rare because getting them requires MORE EVIDENCE in advance.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

A gun purchase may be evidence, but not proof of INTENT.

And what you've cited is NOT JUST the gun purchase, but an actual recording of a convo which when COMBINED with the purchase, may be enough evidence to prove INTENT.

Such recordings are fairly rare because getting them requires MORE EVIDENCE in advance.

Yes, that is so. I think the three of us are in agreement. 
 

A better example is the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case, in which the conspirators received explosives from an undercover FBI agent with the intent of using them to execute their kidnapping plot.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're not a lawyer and have quoted NO LEGAL OPINION from EXPERTS, so ^this OPINION is just you practicing law without a license. AKA, a crime. 

ROFLMAO - oH MY GOD - now anyone who has an opinion is committing a crime

Do you even realize that YOU are not a lawyer and so YOUR giving legal advice without a license which would mean YOU"RE committing a crime  

The only thing that's still up in the air is are you guilty of that or just guilty of being a complete 1diot   

[OftenWrong]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Do you even realize that YOU are not a lawyer and so YOUR giving legal advice without a license which would mean YOU"RE committing a crime  

The only thing that's still up in the air is are you guilty of that or just guilty of being a complete 1diot   

He really should arrest himself after that.