Yes, there was a full and complete trial, in which the court bent over backwards to give the Trump side every opportunity they wanted. His side won. You really don't remember this? It's all online, you can find it if you bother to search.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and said this huge amount of info the lower court collected supports the opposite conclusion. And all of this is online, you can find it if you bother to search.
The Colorado Supreme Court also stayed their ruling: it won't take effect until the very last day that the Secretary of State has to certify who is on the ballot. And this is online, you can find it if you bother to search.
The Trump side is being given special treatment that you would never get if you ever got sued.
If Trump and his running dogs didn't summon the rioters, who did?
And what if evidence existed that Antifa or BLM agitators were responsible, as Republicans tried desperately to propagate as soon as it became clear the coup was a failure? [1]
Would that change your opinion that the people responsible for January 6 are experiencing premature judgment and unfair punishment?
What? Republicans should love the NYT! Not only did they sell the Iraq war for them, but they arguably helped elect Trump by legitimizing him in the eyes of the national press (setting aside that they did so at the DNC's behest.) The value of the resulting publicity was measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, likely over $1B, that Trump and the GOP didn't have to spend.
More to the point, if you had clicked on the article, you'd have primary sources in the form of dozens of screencapped tweets from Trump and his inner circle. You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.
Again with the media. How big a settlement did the NYT and NBC have to pay for bringing Trump's big lie to you? What will it take before you realize that you're a victim of a con job, and not an insider?
Party affiliation is very material because it's the GQP who has stalwartly protected Trump from the consequences that you (and I) would want a Biden or an Obama to a Clinton to face if the tables were turned. There is no room to BSAB this argument, contrary to those tweets about Antifa and BLM. It was all Trumpers, all along.
As usual with you people, it's not the ideology that "triggers" me, it's the hypocrisy. That, and the loss of a viable conservative opposition party. Something we desperately need in my deep blue state but no longer have, thanks to the Trumpist takeover.
Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright, in his dissent, wrote that the "absence of an insurrection-related conviction" against Trump should have called for the case to be dismissed.
Absolutely there was. As a Colorado resident, this trial has been in the news for weeks or months. Trump got every bit of due process - motions, briefings, rulings, and a trial. It looked like it was done very carefully, at least by the courts (district court ruled first), the Republican and independent plaintiffs, and 3rd parties like the CO Republican party. The reason the CO supreme Court ruled was because of appeals by both Trump and the plaintiffs. Hard to imagine more due process was possible.
Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright, in his dissent, wrote that the "absence of an insurrection-related conviction" against Trump should have called for the case to be dismissed.
You're grasping at straws. This was a civil case. I don't know why you're demanding a conviction. CO Secretary of State Jena Griswold was the respondent, I believe.
Beyond that, are you objecting because the vote wasn't unanimous? Lots of very controversial SCOTUS votes have been 5-4. We all live with them. Wait, are you a CO voter? If not, then you don't have to live with this decision. As it happens, I am a CO voter, so I am glad there was due process and it was decided correctly.
I'm honestly curious why you think this. The CO Supreme Court made an originalist interpretation and ruling, based on some of Associate Justice Gorsuch's rulings from when he was a 10th circuit judge in Colorado.
Do you think SCOTUS thinks this is a genuinely wrong ruling, or that SCOTUS will find a way to reverse it because of their partisan leanings, or ...?
