Subj : Re: Trump Team Didn't Que To : IB JOE From : Mike Powell Date : Tue Jan 09 2024 12:12:00 > MP> During the Colorado proceedings, Trump's legal team did not question > MP> whether or not an insurrection took place. > MP> > MP> I have been reading the full text of the Colorado SC's decision. One > MP> interesting tidbit is that Trump's team didn't question whether or not an > MP> insurrection occurred. Rather, they only questioned whether or not > MP> "inciting" an insurrection is the same as "engaging" in one. > MP> > Trumps team also didn't mention about the moon landing either. > No-ONE to date has been charged with Insurrection... So why talk about somethi > that didn't happen. Trump wasn't being accused of landing on the moon. The trial centered on whether or not he was involved in insurrection. His team did NOT question whether or not there was one, just whether or not he *engaged* in it by *inciting* it -- i.e. his level of involvement in it. People have been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced for Seditious Conspiracy. You NEED to look the definition of that up. It is INDEED an Insurrection charge. It MEANS that the person in question was found guilty of "conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the US, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority of, or to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of US law." In other words, they were found guilty of *plotting an insurrection*. The SCOTUS, in past, has determined that an insurrection does NOT have to be successful in order to be considered. Also important in this case was the admission of the Congressional January 6th Report, and also the findings of the Federal District Court of DC. Note here, that is a Federal Court. Both confirm that a the execution of US law was opposed by force on January 6th, which meets the definition of insurrection. > NO-ONE to date... That means ANYONE... So... If trump aided in an insurrection > ho was found guilty of it?? Who?? names?? One that has been all over the news is the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, Henry Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years for Seditious Conspiracy and other charges, for "conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power." At least 5 other Proud Boys, and several members of Oath Keepers, have either been found guilty of, plead guilty to, or are on trial for Seditious Conspiracy for conspiring to oppose, by force, the lawful execution of federal law -- i.e. to commit insurrection. > It's like Trump being found guilty of assisting someone in robbing a bank and > ot bank was robbed... The 14th Ammendment includes people who assisted. Plus, people who assist in robbing banks do get charged. Depending on their involvement, some get charged with being an accessory while others may be charged with actual bank robbery. Same with murder. > This has been said to you soooooooooooooo many times in the past... Trump's de > nse team would be talking about CONSTITUTIONALITY of Colorado making that choi > ... CONSTITUTIONALITY ONLY!!! The Supreme Court will only look at the constit > ion and how it relates to Colorado and Trump's name of the ballot. And it is constitutional. Colorado's legislature has put into place Election Codes (i.e. laws), per the delegation to states by the US Constitution, that state (among other things) that a candidate must be US Constitutionally eligible to hold the office in question, and that their SoS must follow said laws. In order to appear on the Colorado ballot, a candidate MUST SIGN and have notorized, a document that clearly states that they are eligble, by *all laws*, to hold the office. This means that: -- They must be of age -- They must meet the citizenship requirements -- They must not have already exceed a term limit -- They must be eligible by the 14th Amendment -- They must not have been stripped of eligibility via impeachment or other legal action. The Colorado delegates challenged based in part that this official document, which Trump signed and submitted, was not truthful and that the SoS could therefore not act on it. > They won't bring up insurrection because no one at all ever was charged with i > urrection. For Trump to assist in it. Insurrection was indeed brought up during the trial, and Trump's defense team DID NOT QUESTION THIS. They only questioned whether or not "inciting" counts as "engaging." YOU NEED to read the court documents. > Now, constitutionally, Trump's team will talk about Due Process and the US sta > ard that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW... > rump hasn't... or ANYONE else for that matter, has been charged with insurrect > n. They'll discus things like Presidential candidates & Presidents are not in > uded in Amendment 14... They'll talk about things like that. They won't bring > p the moon landing or other irrelevant things like insurrection when not 1 per > n has been charged with or found guilty of said charge. Trump's team only questioned DUE PROCESS during the trial in regards to the speed that it had to be held, and due to the length. The court documents cover this well. Trials involving elections must be held with deadlines in mind, and Trump's team was given the opportunity to extend the trial, but did not take it AND did not even use the full amount of time given to them. The court used the Congressional January 6th findings, and the findings of a Federal District court in DC, to determine that an insurrection did take place. AGAIN, TRUMP'S TEAM DID NOT QUESTION whether or not one took place, although they DID try to have the Congressional findings dismissed as hearsay. The court found that these documents were admissable. The 14th, per congressional debate at the time, was clearly meant to cover all offices under the United States. Congresspersons are specifically mentioned in the amendment because the US Constitution does not refer to them as "offices." On the other hand, it refers to the "Office" of the President of the United States, in multiple places, as an "office." Your the only one bringing up the moon landing or spiders. > Unlike you the Supreme Court will not make their decisions based on their Spid > Senses tingling... There maybe on descending vote... and that's the new Justi > that can't define what a woman is... If they make it based on Constitutionality Only, it is not so cut and dried. They will need to determine whether or not "inciting" is "engaging," which is the Trump team argument. Trump does go on trial in March. Based on that outcome, this could all be moot. * SLMR 2.1a * Limit Congress to 2 terms: one in office, one in jail! --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105) .