I think Trump was always going to win this one, but it's too bad the other side didn't have a better lawyer arguing the case:

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal

Court is now really frustrated with this lawyer for Trump challengers. Accused of changing the hypothetical (Gorsuch), accused of not answering the questions (Alito). It's not going well, and he still hasn't even answered Trump's lawyer's main argument about Griffin's case and Sea Clammers. I have heard near nothing reassuring Chief Justice/Kavanaugh/Barrett about how dangerous the CO Supreme Ct decision is. The Court is really concerned about the consequences of the CO Ct decision and as Justice Alito says, he's not getting help from the advocate on why it wouldn't be a nightmare.

We've heard nothing about the nightmare on the other side, about what it would mean for an insurrectionist to hold high office. How that would be something that would set the Founders' intent of the 14th amendment on fire, about how our Founders laced into the amendment a solution to an outlier state -- the 2/3 Cong solution.

Finally heard a good answer. Justice Kavanaugh asks if Trump denied due process. Lawyer for challengers forcefully says no, he had robust process, 5 day trial, opportunity for witnesses/depositions/etc. Unfortunately, far too little, and too late.

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal

Now this lawyer for Trump challengers is ... losing Justice Jackson. She's getting frustrated with the lack of answers.

Telling question from Justice Jackson: if you lose here, is it done? Can you go back to court?

Lawyer says no more litigation, it would then be an issue for Congress.

This question is a good indicator of where the Court is.

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck

My bet: Between 7-2 and 9-0 for the very specific proposition that states can't unilaterally disqualify candidates running for President on the ground that they engaged in insurrection.

That's just a prediction based on the oral argument"not what I think the Court *ought* to do.

Careful. You'll be accused of getting all of your news from Twitter.
#12 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I am careful of the people on Twitter I pick to quote. Neal Katyal: "Supreme Ct lawyer; law professor; extremist centrist. Former US Acting Solicitor General." Steve Vladeck: "C.A. Wright Chair in Federal Courts @UTexasLaw; #SCOTUS nerd @CNN."

It must be hard for Katyal, who has argued many times before the SC, watching these newbies:

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal

Now lawyer for Colorado Secretary of State is up. It's also her first argument (like the challenger to Trump who just spoke) and she has a momentous task ahead of her given all of the Court's unanswered questions in the first two hours.

Court asking technical questions about Colorado election law more than anything. Not even bothering asking questions about the big questions about the 14th amendment. Seems like even they feel like it's over.

Yep, the attorney for the Trump challengers is just not good.
#18 | POSTED BY YAV

No, he wasn't that good either, but several of the conservative justices helped him out by making his arguments for him by asking him such leading questions.

Correction: Trump's lawyer wasn't that good either, but several of the conservative justices helped him out by making his arguments for him by asking him such leading questions.
#20 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I posted a couple of reeefs and certain people on this site lost their ----.
You're probably fine - you play for the right team. :)
#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

My stance on that is that Twitter/X is a hodgepodge of the good, the bad and the ugly, and as such it really depends on who you quote.

Sigh:

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal

The lawyer isn't driving the conversation at all, there are awkward silences, and those silences should be filled by the lawyer returning to the big 14th amendment questions. Instead it is all about just waiting for the next query from the Court.

Justice Alito returns to the big question about whether 1 state can alter candidate eligibility in all 50 states. Lawyer for CO says there are often disputes from one state to another, that its a feature of our federalism.

Right now, if I'm Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, I would waive my rebuttal. All he could do is mess up where he is.

No one tied to J6 has been charged with or convicted of insurrection... Including Trump.
Colorado may have an opinion but that's all they have.
#86 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Some January 6ers were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Emphasis mine:

The courts are sending a message: January 6 insurrectionists will answer for their crimes

Five members of the Proud Boys, a far-right militia group, were criminally convicted Thursday for their role in planning the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. Four of the five face seditious conspiracy charges. Their conviction marks one of the rare instances in which federal prosecutors have successfully pursued those charges, and they could be a warning sign for former President Donald Trump, who is under investigation for his role in inciting the insurrection.

The new convictions are the third time in the last year that a jury has convicted those involved in the insurrection of seditious conspiracy, which is defined as a plot involving two or more people "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States ... or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States." Members of another right-wing militia group, the Oath Keepers, have also been previously convicted on the charge, as was an additional member of the Proud Boys.

Among those convicted Thursday on the most serious charge of seditious conspiracy were Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, as well as members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl. They face up to 20 years in prison. Another Proud Boy, Dominic Pezzola, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy but was convicted of other charges, including assault.

After the 2016 election Democrats pressured electors to change their vote in order to change the outcome of the election. By current standards that would be participating in an insurrection.
#97 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

No, not true. Again emphasis mine:

After the 2016 election Democrats pressured electors to change their vote in order to change the outcome of the election. By current standards that would be participating in an insurrection.
#97 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

More from the above linked to text:

It's important to note that 18 U.S. Code 2383 insurrection and rebellion charges are rarely filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) because they recognize the First Amendment right to free speech. Still, specific unlawful behavior could result in criminal charges under this statute.

For example, recall the events at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, when a group of people stormed a government building to disrupt Congress' formal certification of presidential election results.

They broke windows, destroyed government property, and were aggressive against federal law enforcement officers. Other potential charges tied to the storming of the Capitol include trespassing in a federal building, disorderly conduct, obstructing a law enforcement officer, unlawful entry of restricted buildings or grounds, and theft of public money, property, or records.

. Besides that's not how the law works. You don't get to just give classified docs back and say "oopsie, I took these but I'm giving them back so I get off unscathed"
POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2024-02-08 03:36 PM

You also don't get to hide them in a closet and say, "They are mine, all mine, and I intend to keep them."
And yet that's exactly what Trump did and is likely still doing.

No one has been charged with or convicted of insurrection - I stand by that statement. Feel free to prove me wrong. There was one who was convicted of seditious conspiracy but that doesn't mean everyone there, up to and including Trump, are also guilty of it.
#120 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

There was more than one Proud Boy and more than one Oath Keeper charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy. It will take me a minute to find the exact number.

No one has been charged with or convicted of insurrection - I stand by that statement. Feel free to prove me wrong. There was one who was convicted of seditious conspiracy but that doesn't mean everyone there, up to and including Trump, are also guilty of it.
#120 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

It's difficult to come up with a precise figure, but here's a good ballpark range:

I take that back, 14 seems to be the total number of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were charged and convicted or pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. 14, not 1.

Gal - technically that's not "insurection".

Yeah, just like technically in NY state Trump didn't rape E Jean Carroll. Isn't it a distinction without a difference?

BTW, Trump himself thinks it was an insurrection, but that he didn't cause it:

Trump: I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.

"I've been listening to some of Murray's arguments and answers again tonight and they sound much better than they did when I was listening live this morning. At least the snippets do. "

I was just thinking the same thing. I think it would have helped if he could have slowed down just a bit when he was speaking, so that his strong points would have had time to sink in.

I think the system is worth saving, but maybe not enough of our fellow citizen are deserving of it. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The government you elect is the government you deserve."