The minority's opinion on today's case is truly mindblowing.

I knew you couldn't...lol

 

Its called a bench trial.

 

No, a civil trial can't do that. Just like a civil trial can't determine if someone committed murder.

 

The indictment comes BEFORE the trial.

When was there a CIVIL TRIAL like that? It's impossible, by the way. A CIVIL COURT cannot handle a charge of insurrection.

 

Why don't you type your second sentence into Google.

Make some sort of effort, at least, to educate yourself on the very basics.

 

How many trials have you participated in? I’m guessing 5 x 0.

There was already a wealth of evidence that the court could consider before taking testimony. That would shorten the proceedings. “Only 5 days”…LOL!

 

So what? And, no Trump didn’t testify.

 

Of course an indictment comes before a trial. My point - to make it clearer for you - is that there was no indictment because there was no plan for a criminal trial, rendering an indictment unnecessary.

Of course a civil court can determine if someone engaged in insurrection. The co-existing option for a criminal trial does not negate the option for a civil proceeding.

 

Actually it's lasted 6 months.

 

The lawsuit was filed on September 6th, 2023...lol. The six month point doesn't arrive until tomorrow... LMAO!

 

Insurrection is a crime. The charge can't be levied in a civil trial.

 

Can you count?... LMAO!

Oct. 30-Nov. 3
More than one dozen witnesses testified in a hearing about whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from the presidency based on his conduct leading up to Jan. 6.

 

Yeah, you should run with that.
Do tell us when Democrats fire up their Congressional hearing because they found out you know more about the issue then they do.

 

Are you saying that Trump waved his right to a jury trial?

 

I’ve done it over and over again. I’m not surprised that you don’t remember.

 

He probably didn’t have the right to a jury. He probably didn’t have the money for it anyway.

 

Defendants are charged for the jury? HFS... LMAO!

The 6th and 7th Amendments guarantee the right to a jury. I thought you knew all that stuff.

 

You're the one thinks juries are paid for by the defendant...lol

 

Lashing out in impotent anger? I made no such claim. I think you’re just confused.

 

What would (will?) happen if a state government decides to name its own slate of electors to the Electoral College? Say, Colorado, if Trump wins there in November? It was what Trump said should be done in 2020.

 

You mean the case in which Colorado Justices Maria E. Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour dissented stating.

“Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”

The very same case that was turned down by 13 other states that was being whored around the country by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington who lose their cases against Trump so always?

The very same organization who pushed for Trumps impeachment the day he was inaugurated?

Yeah, everyone (including the SCOTUS) got a good whiff of that judicial manure. How did that work out for ya?
Oh yeah, 9-0 Unanimous ruling slapping down Colorado's idiocy.

 

Well, much better than the majority and conservatives making up law out of thin air. Nowhere in Section 3 does it say Congress can remove from ballot as they claim. It only says Congress can put them back on the ballot. This is also a wild violation of States' rights.

 

The claim will be that the feds are interfering with a state running its election.

 

Again, only in those 3 states. California(and many others rejected standing). Hell, like I pointed out(and you couldn't refute), the Colorado Republicans on the COLO Supreme Court openly questioned whether there was standing.

So yes, you found 3. You also have to ignore basically the rest of the union telling them they didn't have standing.

 

We've still yet to see how they would apply insurrection in a civil penalty LMAO. It's not like some car accident where one party doesn't have insurance, or wages garnished.

Hell, you brought up wrongful death and even in that, obviously there was a 'death' to be liable for in the first place. Even presuming standing(let's say I give it to you), they can't point to the injury of this insurrection that none of them(Colorado, MaIne, Illinois) were privvy to(TV doesn't count I'm afraid)