patrick.net

Despite online hysteria, to be abundantly clear, President Trump remains on Colorado’s primary ballot, since the state’s Supreme Court stayed its own order pending appeal. Nothing will change until the appeal is resolved, one way or the other. If the primary happens first, then the whole case will be mooted, and I would not be surprised if that is what happens.

But yesterday the process started all over again in Maine. The New York Times ran a non-paywalled story misleadingly-headlined, “Maine Joins Colorado in Finding Trump Ineligible for Primary Ballot.” That headline is misleading because, unlike Colorado, there was no court decision in Maine; just the unilateral action of its Trump-deranged democrat Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows.

Ms. Bellows, who before she took office used to run Maine’s ACLU, reviewed a citizen complaint and “ruled” that Trump lied on his application form, because he checked a box that says he is “qualified” to run for President but he was not actually qualified, because January 6th:

“I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection,” Ms. Bellows, a Democrat, wrote.
This Maine story represents nothing but the very first step in the very same democrat challenge brought in thirty different states over the last few weeks. Later in the Times article, the paper admitted the Secretary of State’s decision was a pre-condition to bringing a legal challenge:

Because of a quirk in Maine’s Constitution, (to challenge Trump’s qualifications in court) registered voters there must first file a petition with the secretary of state. Mr. Trump can appeal Ms. Bellows’s decision to Maine’s Superior Court within five days. Her order will not go into effect until the court rules on an appeal, which the Trump campaign says it intends to file soon.

Republican primaries in Maine and Colorado are both scheduled for March 5th, also known as “Super Tuesday” (when many states hold primaries). Meanwhile, California’s democrat Secretary of State just announced she would not remove Trump from that state’s ballot. She might have been informed by recent federal court dismissals of two lawsuits challenging President Trump’s qualifications on the same grounds.

https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1740781567268778342

North Caroiina kicks all Biden primary challengers off the ballot, like Florida did.

Even if the Colorado decision stands (and personally I don't think it will) what would prevent people from simply writing in Trump, even if he's not "on" the ballot per se?

Even if the Colorado decision stands (and personally I don't think it will) what would prevent people from simply writing in Trump, even if he's not "on" the ballot per se?

Because the Colorado decision specifically included disregarding any write-in votes for Trump.

The man who has been filing lawsuits in every state to get Donald Trump removed from the 2024 election ballot has been arrested & charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS

In total, John Anthony Castro has been charged with 33 counts of aiding the preparation of false tax returns. Prosecutors claim he ran a virtual tax preparation business that provided customers with tax returns beyond what they were actually owed, defrauding the government.

Castro announced his "campaign" for President in the Republican primary which was clearly all for show in order for the deep state to use him as a vehicle to file the ballot lawsuits (all of which have failed).

You literally cannot make this up, this guy told judges Donald Trump was a criminal when in actuality, he was a criminal.

SCOTUS smashes Colorado's "case" on Trump (and, along with it, the "insurrection" narrative)

Kagan, Jackson seemed to share the doubts of the conservative majority as to this latest "liberal" effort to condemn both Trump and those Americans who'd vote for him to "civil death"

Regardless of your take on Trump, or anybody else’s, the Court was somehow overtaken by lucidity—a rare thing in Year 4 of the “COVID crisis.”

original link

As The Federalist reported, federal authorities informed Baker and his legal team on Tuesday of a signed warrant for his arrest and instructed him to self-surrender for “alleged J6 crimes” in Dallas, Texas, on Friday morning. Baker has been at the forefront of reporting on the more questionable aspects of the Jan. 6 demonstrations.

While told he was being charged with “non-violent misdemeanors,” federal authorities declined to disclose to Baker or his lawyers what specific crimes underlie the arrest. According to Blaze News, the feds refused to reveal the charges ahead of Friday’s arrest because “they believe[d] Baker [would] post them on social media.” The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals accused of a crime a right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

tanked says

There is 0 chance this will stand after review by the SCOTUS. All the Colorado supremes did was embarass themselves. Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

BTW

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/

UkraineIsFucked says

tanked says

There is 0 chance this will stand after review by the SCOTUS. All the Colorado supremes did was embarass themselves. Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

BTW

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/

This was obvious it would happen. Colorado was so bad even the SCOTUS libs didn't stand for it.

Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

You:

tanked says

Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Me:

UkraineIsFucked says

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

Colorado SC justices won't be impeached. Just as as I said. Has no bearing at all on how SCOTUS ruled, either.

Why would you say "don't count on it" to what I said "perhaps" about. If I was counting on it I wouldn't have said "perhaps". So what you said only made sense if you were referring to the SCOTUS striking down the Colorado decision and you were saying don't count on it. Even though it was obvious it would happen.

tanked says

Why would you say "don't count on it" to what I said "perhaps" about. If I was counting on it I wouldn't have said "perhaps". So what you said only made sense if you were referring to the SCOTUS striking down the Colorado decision and you were saying don't count on it. Even though it was obvious it would happen.

Not my problem if you cherry pick the wrong part of what you wrote that I wasn't replying to.

not my problem if you make no sense

Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

tanked says

not my problem if you make no sense

I make perfect sense. Not my prob you can't fucking comprehend what you yourself wrote:

You:

tanked says

Perhaps this can now start an impeachment process on them.

Me:

UkraineIsFucked says

Everything is going to shit. So don't count on it.

Unless you still want to jack off over the fantasy that CO SC justices will be impeached over this.

What I thought you meant, was dumb. But it turns out what you actually meant was even dumber,

tanked says

What I thought you meant, was dumb. But it turns out what you actually meant was even dumber,

^^^^^ don't do drugs while posting on PatNet, kiddies. You'll come across as a Libtard...or just don't come across as anything at all.

Don't count on the Colorado Supremes getting overturned...

don't count on them perhaps possibly getting impeached. Yeah that's it.