Bob Ness

Sorry to hear this. He held up very well for many years under sometimes withering criticism from some of his colleagues.

Ben, I'm begging you to read what you post before you submit. It's ridiculous.

It's being appealed. Her finding will most likely stand. They may remand back to her. The plaintiffs may appeal up if not.

It's before the State Supreme Court. I'm curious as to how they are going to rule the President isn't an officer of the United States. Does that mean SCOTUS will have to revoke POTUS' authority also? It's a CF. Hot potato. That's why she punted it IMO. Doesn't take Harvard law to figure this out: 18 USC §2383. Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Check back in April when Ben starts arguing Trump got a bum steer on this one. To me this confirms the intent of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Any one who is convicted of this gotta sit out.

It wasn't a trial. The trial was for removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado State. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no one should hold office in the U.S. if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The finding of fact relates to whether Trump did just that and whether he should be disqualified or not. The Judge found that the Presidential office is not an office of the United States (I can't fathom that but whatever) but also found he did engage or helped those who were. It creates a problem because there is a finding that he did in fact engage in insurrection. Appellate courts aren't likely to overturn that.

Or when an Orange dumbass and their attorneys decide they prefer a bench trial such as the civil case being tried in New York.

A federal court is not the appropriate venue obviously. The action is in Colorado and involves Colorado law. A state judge presiding is how that "tricky" and suspicious legal framework is supposed to go. Why would it be in federal court? Shoot Ben, I'll bet that judge even went to law school and has presided over other trials! This is why it's so easy to con Trumpers. You really ought not believe everything you hear on Faux News. Maybe you just made it up. I don't know.

It stands as you don't know what you're talking about. That's about it. I explained it in simple terms. You don't understand and that's ok.

Ben. It's the standing everywhere. Juries aren't asked to make findings of fact. They're plumbers and schoolteachers and so forth. Please don't do this. Would you really have that in a case brought against you? Have me and Sandy and a bunch of other numskulls determine the facts of say the chemical compounds found in a drink you served to a person who later died? The role of the jury is mostly limited to reaching a verdict based on the facts presented, while the judge retains the responsibility for making legal decisions and providing findings of fact and conclusions of law. They do this in conjunction with the parties who have supplied the arguments both pro and con in hearings and submissions. Juries don't do that because that's not what they're tasked to do nor are they qualified to do that. Sometimes they determine a limited set of facts in civil cases. For instance, regarding damages. The role of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts presented to them, not determine the facts themselves. In short: juries do not make specific findings of facts in a case because their role is to determine the facts and reach a verdict, while judges make findings of facts to establish the truth and make legal decisions based on those facts. Juries do not directly hear arguments between the parties; instead, they listen to the presentations made by the lawyers and evaluate the evidence and facts presented to them. A finding of fact is a determination of truth or existence made during legal proceedings, while a conviction is a formal declaration of guilt resulting from a trial or guilty plea. In the sense that Trump has been convicted? No that isn't at issue nor was it the purpose of the case. What is closer is that he isn't GUILTY in the legal sense but the judge found his alleged conduct to be true. It's distinguishable in that way.

Gonna have to have somebody proof him hahaha!

Ben this is nonsense. That is a finding of a court. Please read your response before hitting submit. FCS what do you think the judge's finding was? It's no wonder why people think you're cloaking your Trumpinosis hahaha!

Yeah there are occasions where we're restricted by agreements or treaties from revealing information. I don't know of any here but it is possible. I believe the UKs official secrets act demands restrictions that we have to abide by for that reason for example.

Nice political thread everyone. My 2c - who in their right mind would ever consider having this clown fly an airplane for them? But president is fine? It's beyond ridiculous. Sandy can't we please shoo this doggy off into the political discussions forum?

Sorry for late reply Sandy. JFK related stuff and I don't care to reveal who it is publicly.

I dunno. I've offered to help connect members here with probably the third most powerful person in the county and have been blown off so I get the impression a lot of the discourse here is BS. It's too bad. I'd do it myself but don't have the expertise to forward the argument.