Illinois election officials to weigh recommendation to remove Trump’s name from primary ballot

Former President Donald Trump should be removed from Illinois’ primary ballot, but the decision should be left to the courts, a retired judge recommended Sunday to the state’s election board, arguing that it was clear Trump engaged in insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Illinois State Board of Elections is expected to consider the recommendation Tuesday. Attorneys for Trump and citizens seeking to keep the Republican former president off the ballot presented their arguments Friday before the hearing officer, Clark Erickson. The retired longtime Kankakee County judge is a Republican.

Erickson’s 21-page recommendation concluded that a “preponderance of the evidence” presented proves that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Source

The state of Illinois has joined the fray of other states seeking to remove Donald Trump from the March primary ballot by convicting him of a crime for which he has never been formally charged. Add to that recent revelations that the J6 committee was a farce to put it mildly...
Committee Set Up By Nancy Pelosi to Investigate 1.6.21 are Being Exposed as Unethical Liars
...and you begin to better understand what Thomas Sowell was addressing when he said,
"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly, and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence."

The SCOTUS will end up deciding if all of these claims using the 14th amendment as an excuse for political assassination will be allowed or broadly denied, but after the courts recent ruling in Texas, their reputation as a non-partisan entity has been rightfully called into question.

The 2024 battle for the soul of this nation is heating up and we are likely to see the uni-party pull out all the stops this year.

a reply to: Klassified

arguing that it was clear Trump engaged in insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Being a judge and expert on the law you'd ecpect him to wait until Trump was convictedof 'insurection' before calling for such measures.
When judges and lawyers start playing the guilty until proven innocent card you know the legal system is no longer legal.

a reply to: nugget1

When has the "legal system" ever been legit when it comes to Trump?

They are trying to burry him in any way possible, whether it's legal and follows due process or not.


But, if Biden had really won 7 million more votes, why would they need to remove Trump from any ballots?

a reply to: Klassified

The state of Illinois has joined the fray of other states seeking to remove Donald Trump from the March primary ballot by convicting him of a crime for which he has never been formally charged

This. This right here.

I'm about to my last nerve with all of this legal court crap going around with repercussions and fallout based on something that hasn't been properly, legally established.

Last time I checked, this isn't how the legal system was supposed to work - you're supposed to be found guilty of something after a trial and evidentiary hearing and discovery before you suffer any consequences and/or receive a sentence.

a reply to: Klassified

with so much talk of the Jan 6th insurrection, shouldn't there be a huge fact finding mission and a trial? If this was a democracy ending event (A DEE rather than an ELE), then there should be no stone left unturned. Put everyone on the stand under oath. Steve Sund, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Miller, Gerald Naddler, Eric Swallowswell, and of course Trump. Find the answers to how this all happened, and whomever is responsible for causing this event to happen, shoot them in the face on prime time TV. Or some such penalty. This is the worst thing the US has faced since the loss of the Dinosaurs.

I say do it. Last state that did caused a surge of support for Trump.

The politically persecuted martyr narrative writes itself without him having to even do anything.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

with so much talk of the Jan 6th insurrection, shouldn't there be a huge fact finding mission and a trial? If this was a democracy ending event (A DEE rather than an ELE), then there should be no stone left unturned. Put everyone on the stand under oath. Steve Sund, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Miller, Gerald Naddler, Eric Swallowswell, and of course Trump. Find the answers to how this all happened, and whomever is responsible for causing this event to happen, shoot them in the face on prime time TV. Or some such penalty. This is the worst thing the US has faced since the loss of the Dinosaurs.

Why do Trump supporters have such a hard time understanding the facts around the insurrection disqualification issue?

There WAS a huge fact finding mission around Jan. 6. It was called the United States House select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack. It began on July 1, 2021 and ran through the end of 2022. They interviewed over a thousand people and reviewed over a million documents and published a final report. They subpoenaed Trump to get him to tell his side of the story under oath, but of course he gave them the middle finger and refused. The large majority of the 1,000 witnesses were Republicans, by the way. I guess 18 months, 1,000 witnesses, and 1,000,000 documents isn't huge enough for you?

It was this report that formed the main basis for the court rulings in the Colorado case. That WAS a trial, BTW, in case you weren't paying attention. It was a CIVIL trial, not a CRIMINAL trial because the 14th amendment clause on insurrection is NOT a criminal statute. It does not, I repeat NOT, require conviction of criminal insurrection. It never has, in any of the 8 or 10 cases in which it has been used over the decades. If someone tries to run for President who is not at least 35 years old, a natural born US citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years, they are not put up against a wall and shot in the face. They are not put in prison. They are not fined large amounts of money. That's because failing to have those qualifications is not a criminal offense. It just means that you have to go find some other job than POTUS. It also means that in order to reach a finding that someone is not qualified to be POTUS under one or another of the various Constitutional requirements, the standard of proof is NOT the criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt") it is the civil standard ("preponderance of evidence", or "more likely than not").

You probably didn't read the Colorado court cases (which are easily available online), otherwise you would know all this stuff, but they very carefully considered exactly this question of what constitutes a competent investigation into the matter of civil insurrection. They considered all the case law and precedent before coming to their conclusion because they knew this case would certainly end up before the Supreme Court which, of course, it has. One of the important factors in their finding was the fact that Trump refused to testify under oath before the Jan. 6 Committee even though he was just a private citizen by the time he was subpoenaed. That makes it really hard to argue that he was treated unfairly, since he refused to show up and tell his side of the story. The Colorado Supreme Court didn't find any flaw in the findings of the lower court on this matter, but the Supreme Court can review that part of the case, if they want to.

Is Illinois becoming the new California ?
With all the gun BS and now this
the USA is becoming more divided every day now

a reply to: Klassified

Are you making a reference to the Nancy Sh!t Show ?
a reply to: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

with so much talk of the Jan 6th insurrection, shouldn't there be a huge fact finding mission and a trial? If this was a democracy ending event (A DEE rather than an ELE), then there should be no stone left unturned. Put everyone on the stand under oath. Steve Sund, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Miller, Gerald Naddler, Eric Swallowswell, and of course Trump. Find the answers to how this all happened, and whomever is responsible for causing this event to happen, shoot them in the face on prime time TV. Or some such penalty. This is the worst thing the US has faced since the loss of the Dinosaurs.

Why do Trump supporters have such a hard time understanding the facts around the insurrection disqualification issue?

There WAS a huge fact finding mission around Jan. 6. It was called the United States House select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack. It began on July 1, 2021 and ran through the end of 2022. They interviewed over a thousand people and reviewed over a million documents and published a final report. They subpoenaed Trump to get him to tell his side of the story under oath, but of course he gave them the middle finger and refused. The large majority of the 1,000 witnesses were Republicans, by the way. I guess 18 months, 1,000 witnesses, and 1,000,000 documents isn't huge enough for you?

It was this report that formed the main basis for the court rulings in the Colorado case. That WAS a trial, BTW, in case you weren't paying attention. It was a CIVIL trial, not a CRIMINAL trial because the 14th amendment clause on insurrection is NOT a criminal statute. It does not, I repeat NOT, require conviction of criminal insurrection. It never has, in any of the 8 or 10 cases in which it has been used over the decades. If someone tries to run for President who is not at least 35 years old, a natural born US citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years, they are not put up against a wall and shot in the face. They are not put in prison. They are not fined large amounts of money. That's because failing to have those qualifications is not a criminal offense. It just means that you have to go find some other job than POTUS. It also means that in order to reach a finding that someone is not qualified to be POTUS under one or another of the various Constitutional requirements, the standard of proof is NOT the criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt") it is the civil standard ("preponderance of evidence", or "more likely than not").

You probably didn't read the Colorado court cases (which are easily available online), otherwise you would know all this stuff, but they very carefully considered exactly this question of what constitutes a competent investigation into the matter of civil insurrection. They considered all the case law and precedent before coming to their conclusion because they knew this case would certainly end up before the Supreme Court which, of course, it has. One of the important factors in their finding was the fact that Trump refused to testify under oath before the Jan. 6 Committee even though he was just a private citizen by the time he was subpoenaed. That makes it really hard to argue that he was treated unfairly, since he refused to show up and tell his side of the story. The Colorado Supreme Court didn't find any flaw in the findings of the lower court on this matter, but the Supreme Court can review that part of the case, if they want to.

please tell me you are kidding. This is that part where intelligent people seem to completely disregard their smarts due to their anger and hatred programmed in them by the MSM.

The Sham 6th committee was a partisan joke.

The real issue is that security was intentionally subverted in hopes that the people could be enticed to riot. Amazingly enough human nature is still just that, and it worked swimmingly. Now who's fault it was to collect that many people in one spot, whip them into anger and then NOT provide enough security seems to be the real issue.

And keep in mind, Trump is not blameless. He is the reason all those people showed up and were pissed off. But who didn't plan for that number of people, and provide adequate security is equally as guilty. Then there is the real possibility that Trump's and his followers anger was not misplaced and the election really was stolen. An aspect that would likely cause that civil war so many speak of.

There is a lot more to this than just Orange Man Bad. I'd go onto more detail, but you won't be around for it, as you post one silly blob of words and scamper off, as your usual MO.

the c0mmunists and m0ney lenders have hijacked our Republik.
the mini0ns eat the c0mmunist soup.

we are doomed.

its all mexikans in my area. no more ammericans around.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The problem with that is that all of the other qualifiers are matter of fact statements.

Is he/she 35? Either yes or no, can't be anything else

Were they born here? Yes or no, can't be anything else

Have they lived here for 14 years? Yes or no, can't be anything else


But, were they involved in an insurrection? Could be yes, could be no, could be maybe. That is such an open ended question that anyone can answer it in any way they please.



All it takes is one biased person to say that "x" was part of an insurrection, whether they were or weren't and they are disqualified from holding office. More of that "guilty until proven innocent" issue we have been seeing a lot when it comes to dealing with Trump.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The same Colorado Supreme Court where half the court dissented on the decision?

Saving "democracy" by telling people you shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
Why do Trump supporters have such a hard time understanding the facts around the insurrection disqualification issue?

Why do YOU have such a hard time understanding the fact that the FBI has stated that there was NO insurrection? You've been informed of this fact before, but yet you keep ignoring reality. Why is that?

originally posted by: bluesman023
Is Illinois becoming the new California ?
With all the gun BS and now this
the USA is becoming more divided every day now

I think California must have studied Illinois and their methods of corruption. Because Illinois has been at it for longer than California. The Chicago Machine has corruption down pat. They are nothing but crooks.

a reply to: Klassified

If they could take him off the ballot, they and half a dozen other states would have done so. The fact they are bothering to defer points to this reality, which is they don't know how to properly delete him without the actual conviction as nugget1 has mentioned. Same for the sexual assault case, no conviction but a fee to pay which implies guilt because who pays damages if they didn't do the crime. Such brilliant legal strategy can only come from the DNC.

a reply to: Boomer1947

1. The 'real' 1/6 Commission called National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex was an unsuccessful proposal to created on February 15th. It lost in the Senate. This is how real committees are made.

2. During his second impeachment, which is a trial, he was found not guilty by the Senate for "incitement of insurrection".

3. On June 8, 2021, the Senate released the results of its investigation of the riot, led by the Senate Rules and Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs committees, and conducted on a bipartisan basis. A Senate investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol found a broad intelligence breakdown across multiple agencies, along with widespread law enforcement and military failures that led to the violent attack.

Link

4. Then, on July 1st, Nancy Pelosi created her own House Select Committee called the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. This is where the Jack Smith case came from.

As an elected official, which he was on 1/6 he was still president, he was found not guilty of the incitement of an insurrection. FBI also found no evidence of an Insurrection.

This is the truth about what happened so you are either leaving it out on purpose or like most of America had no idea all of the already happened. There is no legal basis to remove him from any ballot in the nation.

This is, like everything else, about fundraising.

They are really trying hard to get precedent based solely on hearsay and conjecture. Sounds like something Marxists would like. 😃

a reply to: Boomer1947

butwhatabout real and genuine due process and real and genuine proof ?? 🤣

You realize your guidelines make Biden guilty of selling classified material to foreign countries don't you? 😃