Bob Ness

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.

Mods... Here we go again. This is BS. This has nothing to do with the JFKA but is a convenient way to hook into a political argument.

Not necessarily Russian. Other Eastern Bloc countries could reveal information. It's not as likely though. I haven't looked into archives from those countries though.

The only extensive information I'm aware of (there is probably other sources) is the Vassiliev files but I believe they predate most of what Newman's talking about. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/search?f[0]=topics:86448&fo[0]=86448 It's possible that Oleg Kalugin may have written about it but I haven't looked at that book for a while. He can probably be contacted directly. Bob Baer wrote something along those lines: Russia Had “Fourth Man” as Spy Inside CIA, Book Says (theintercept.com)

Ludicrous is an understatement. The ol' BS meter is pinned right.

My take has always been there is a Deep State but not the cigar chomping back room cabal that seems to be insinuated in these discussions. I believe the Deep State is basically an outgrowth of bureaucracies that in and of themselves institutionally tend toward survival and foster those within them toward that aim. At the top of most of them are political appointees who may or may not have a firm grip on the true heads of the bureaucracy they lead, the deputies who are likely in career positions. One of the advantages of an experienced politician is their familiarity with how the bureaucracies function. Inexperienced Presidents are routinely flummoxed by them unless their main advisors are good at fighting them. Bush-Cheney is a good example. The same with Obama and Biden and Reagan- Bush. Trump and Carter are bad examples IMO. Kennedy and Johnson is an interesting dilemma to that theory. Maybe that pairing is an outlier.

Seriously. How much does a mask cost and many refused to do that. Well done for your son. I have less than zero respect for the people who couldn't even be bothered to take precautions.

Thanks Pat. As a spouse of a physician who battled this crap for two or three years from people whose primary qualifications were as self-proclaimed experts on Youtube and Facebook it was a nightmare beyond belief. RFK Jr. or anyone else criticizing the efforts to stop the spread of Covid have played this game out of willful ignorance and stupidity and deserve ridicule. We had the freezer trucks also and I read the comments of people comparing wearing masks to being marched off to gas chambers and had to wonder just how stupid we've become as a country. She just gave up on the idiots and now one less Oncologist (along with many other medpros) have left their practice because of these fools. I assume they'll be able to cure their cancer by watching YouTube videos. Maybe RFK Jr. can help them out. I wish you well.

This seems to me to be an ok order but I have a question for you based on a cursory reading of the original Government's response. Weren't they really testing your standing in the court and didn't that get rejected? That seems significant. I also think I remember they were claiming the Act itself expired after the ARRB closed and that has also been rejected?? Sorry if I'm going over stuff I should read more carefully- been awfully busy lately ...

Haven't looked at it yet but here you go. Link to order: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlWejpY-MH3jjnf52tBXRuTH_VG6?e=KrDWqW

Because of course Morales was critical in distributing humanitarian aid, democratic values and disaster assistance to beleaguered countries throughout the world. I'm sure of it.

Yep. Totally agree.