Donald Trump Private Citizen

cannabineer said:

A proposed gag order on Trump in his federal election case is putting the judge in a tricky position

A request from prosecutors for a gag order aimed at reining in Donald Trump’s rhetoric is putting the judge overseeing his federal election interference case in a tricky position.

apnews.com

Judges can threaten gag order violators with fines or jail time, but jailing a presidential candidate could prompt serious political blowback and pose logistical hurdles.

I think we need to take this one head-on. We need to find out by doing it. The bolded, if heeded, places candidates above the rule of law. Were that man anyone else (like Teixeira) he’d be jailed pending trial after all his judicially proscribed behaviors, such as the infamous “if you go after me” post.

The above looks to me like a distortion of the legal process grounded in politics. This is an opportunity for Judge Chutkan to show courage in containing that man’s ongoing criminal defiance against already existing restrictions.

Click to expand...

What happens to his unofficial and magical powers after the SCOTUS disqualifies him in December? Is Chutkan making a list? Why doesn't she just say. that as far as she is concerned, he is disqualified from running under the 14th, until the SCOTUS or congress say otherwise? Would Trump dare to contest her "ruling" from the bench? In any case I figure we have 60 or 70 days to find out with big hints along the way as the case is resolved in state court. In Colorado, a case like this can go directly to the state supreme court for appeal and then to the SCOTUS who can't duck or defer it. The people suing also have standing there and the support of the secretary of state.

DIY-HP-LED said:

What happens to his unofficial and magical powers after the SCOTUS disqualifies him in December? Is Chutkan making a list? Why doesn't she just say. that as far as she is concerned, he is disqualified from running under the 14th, until the SCOTUS or congress say otherwise? Would Trump dare to contest her "ruling" from the bench? In any case I figure we have 60 or 70 days to find out with big hints along the way as the case is resolved in state court. In Colorado, a case like this can go directly to the state supreme court for appeal and then to the SCOTUS who can't duck or defer it. The people suing also have standing there and the support of the secretary of state.

Click to expand...

I believe she’s smart enough to stay focused on the case before her as written.

For her to voice an opinion regarding the 14th would be outside her current duties. “Activist” when applied to a judge is never a compliment. I have no doubt she is monitoring that situation and is contented to let the ongoing lawsuits advance the question.

I’ll pay attention to the disqualification issue when an appellate court publishes a ruling. Til then, I won’t speculate. Between Ukraine, Gaza and our own maga epidemic, I’ve got plenty to spectate.

cannabineer said:

I believe she’s smart enough to stay focused on the case before her as written.

For her to voice an opinion regarding the 14th would be outside her current duties. “Activist” when applied to a judge is never a compliment. I have no doubt she is monitoring that situation and is contented to let the ongoing lawsuits advance the question.

I’ll pay attention to the disqualification issue when an appellate court publishes a ruling. Til then, I won’t speculate. Between Ukraine, Gaza and our own maga epidemic, I’ve got plenty to spectate.

Click to expand...

I agree, she can wait, it won't be long and well before the case is tried. We should see decisions by the court in early November and the appeal settled in days by the state supreme court. Then it will be up to Trump to appeal at all levels and this one will be on steroids. I figure it will be out of state court by the middle of November with a decision at the latest. Next the SCOTUS and they won't sit on it very long and can't refuse to hear it either. Civil court rules of evidence apply, and the results of these suits can be used in others involving money, like that of the capitol hill cops.

DIY-HP-LED said:

… up to Trump to appeal at all levels and this one will be on steroids.

Click to expand...

with what money?

cannabineer said:

I believe she’s smart enough to stay focused on the case before her as written.

For her to voice an opinion regarding the 14th would be outside her current duties. “Activist” when applied to a judge is never a compliment. I have no doubt she is monitoring that situation and is contented to let the ongoing lawsuits advance the question.

I’ll pay attention to the disqualification issue when an appellate court publishes a ruling. Til then, I won’t speculate. Between Ukraine, Gaza and our own maga epidemic, I’ve got plenty to spectate.

Click to expand...

There are some "logical" particulars about the 14th in this case that led me to believe the SCOTUS will have little choice but to concur with a state court disqualification., If a secretary of state dug in their heels about a 2/3 vote for reinstatement it would create a constitutional crisis if they refused to disqualify Trump. I find it unlikely they will disagree with the state supreme court and secretary of state in Colorado, considering the evidence and standards of proof in this case. Disqualification is not criminal; it is a mere disability to hold office (or run for it by necessary extension).

We also have the opinion of the federalist society and the liberals in the justice system and that counts for a lot when they put it in an academic article.

cannabineer said:

with what money?

Click to expand...

Having his lawyers bullshit the SCOTUS won't work very well or work out for the lawyers involved! He will need a lot of upfront cash for that one!

cannabineer said:

with what money?

Click to expand...

I was thinking Donald could call upon the great legal mind of Ted Cruise to act as his defense counsel pro bono of course! He could put a lot of heat on Ted to argue his case before the SCOTUS! Free legal help, Josh Hawley is a smart lawyer too I hear... All the best schools and all the best people, so start squeezing their nuts for help Donald!

DIY-HP-LED said:

There are some "logical" particulars about the 14th in this case that led me to believe the SCOTUS will have little choice but to concur with a state court disqualification., If a secretary of state dug in their heels about a 2/3 vote for reinstatement it would create a constitutional crisis if they refused to disqualify Trump. I find it unlikely they will disagree with the state supreme court and secretary of state in Colorado, considering the evidence and standards of proof in this case. Disqualification is not criminal; it is a mere disability to hold office (or run for it by necessary extension).

We also have the opinion of the federalist society and the liberals in the justice system and that counts for a lot when they put it in an academic article.

Click to expand...

what academic article?

cannabineer said:

what academic article?

Click to expand...

The one the two conservative legal scholars wrote it, one was a founder of the federalist society, printed in a law journal read by judges and justices. It lays out the case for disqualification and the 14th in meticulous detail. Legal standards of argument and evidence stuff, things judges can hang their hat on and cite in opinions and it will be cited by the lawyers.

DIY-HP-LED said:

The one the two conservative legal scholars wrote it, one was a founder of the federalist society, printed in a law journal read by judges and justices. It lays out the case for disqualification and the 14th in meticulous detail. Legal standards of argument and evidence stuff, things judges can hang their hat on and cite in opinions and it will be cited by the lawyers.

Click to expand...

Link to 'what academic article'?

printer said:

Link to 'what academic article'?

Click to expand...

It was out awhile back I'll have a peak. Legal pundits say lawyers and judges will cite it in briefs and opinions.

DIY-HP-LED said:

It was out awhile back I'll have a peak. Legal pundits say lawyers and judges will cite it in briefs and opinions.

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

Click to expand...

Does not do any good.

printer said:

Does not do any good.

SSRN Alert

Click to expand...

Just the abstract I'm afraid, it is under academic lock and key. It is the article that legal pundits said would be cited right up to the SCOTUS. All the conservative justices are federalists and originalists and one of the authors was a founder of the federalist society. That is the conservative side of the legal spectrum, the liberal one is worse for Trump!

DIY-HP-LED said:

Just the abstract I'm afraid, it is under academic lock and key. It is the article that legal pundits said would be cited right up to the SCOTUS. All the conservative justices are federalists and originalists and one of the authors was a founder of the federalist society. That is the conservative side of the legal spectrum, the liberal one is worse for Trump!

Click to expand...

I would like them to outline what actions Trump did which to disqualify himself. Who decides? They could say (and have done) "We did not try to overthrow the election but just wanted to pause the process to protect the integrity of the election."

Happy Thanksgiving! November 23 doesn't leave a lot of time to get to appeal and then to the SCOTUS, a week later than I thought, but there it is, and reversing her decision might not be easy.


Judge hopes to decide by Thanksgiving whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot

A Colorado judge said Monday she hopes to decide by Thanksgiving whether the 14th Amendment’s ban on insurrectionists holding office means former President Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s presidential ballot in 2024.

Judge Sarah Wallace made the comments at a hearing in which she set an expedited schedule for the case, which was initiated by a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters.

Lawyers for Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, did not take a position on the lawsuit Monday but emphasized a “hard deadline” of January 5 for it to be settled. Her office is required by that date to certify the names of all candidates that will be printed on the state’s presidential primary election, set for March 5.

Hearings are scheduled for late October to review evidence, hear from witnesses and handle various challenges to the lawsuit – the majority of which have not yet been filed by Trump’s attorneys – paving the way for a likely ruling by Thanksgiving.
...

printer said:

I would like them to outline what actions Trump did which to disqualify himself. Who decides? They could say (and have done) "We did not try to overthrow the election but just wanted to pause the process to protect the integrity of the election."

Click to expand...

They will settle that in court with a call by Nov 28th and it might be a hard decision to reverse. Civil standards of evidence apply here, a much lower standard than criminal conviction. The Judge will read the article I mentioned and cite it among other things in her opinion, that she doesn't want reversed. Appeals should be brief, in Colorado this kind of case goes directly to their supreme state court and can bypass the usual appeals process. If they affirm it, then off to the SCOTUS it goes and I'm assuming they will disqualify him from the get-go.

I was wondering if they would televise Trump's Colorado civil disqualification case and I think they will. Get popcorn.

Does Colorado televise trials?

The act requires all courts in Colorado to provide remote access for the public to observe any criminal court proceeding conducted in open court, unless:

• The court does not have the technology available to do so;
• The court has ordered that the public is excluded from the proceeding;

More items...

Remote Public Access To Criminal Court Proceedings

DIY-HP-LED said:

The one the two conservative legal scholars wrote it, one was a founder of the federalist society, printed in a law journal read by judges and justices. It lays out the case for disqualification and the 14th in meticulous detail. Legal standards of argument and evidence stuff, things judges can hang their hat on and cite in opinions and it will be cited by the lawyers.

Click to expand...

If you mean the Tribe/Luttig piece in The Atlantic, that is no academic publication. The Atlantic is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, but journalistic in nature. It’s important to use terminology without license.

(edit) you mean something else. UPenn Law Review. That’s sorta academic.

printer said:

Does not do any good.

SSRN Alert

Click to expand...

I got in and found the abstract.

Abstract
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.

Keywords: Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three, Insurrection, Rebellion