Oh, he said "I won this election". Therefor he says and believes he was elected to the office of the President twice, therefor he should be kept off the ballot. Pretzel logic.

Pretzel logic. — NOS4A2

Again, it was tongue-in-cheek. Do you honestly not understand this? Are you that incapable of inferring the intention behind someone's words? Can you only ever take words at literal, face value?

No, I wouldn't doubt it. The "tongue-in-cheek" attitude on such a grave and unprecedented matter gives more evidence to the malice and delusion of their intention. They don't like that Trump contested the election, that much is clear.

They don't like that Trump contested the election — NOS4A2

They don't like that he tried to illegally prevent the legitimate transfer of power.

If that's what you want to call contesting an election, that's fine, but then it all comes off as bogus as they illegally prevent a legitimate campaign, disenfranchise voters, violate due process and other rights.

they illegally prevent a legitimate campaign — NOS4A2

If he's ineligible under the 14th Amendment then it isn't illegal and isn't a legitimate campaign.

He is eligible under Article II Section 1, which explicitly uses the word "president". The 14th doesn't mention presidents. Second, there is no indication of any insurrection, or that he engaged in it. The Senate acquitted him of such charges long ago. Lastly, this lady isn't a lawyer and used youtube videos for her case. It's just tragic nonsense all around.

The 14th doesn't mention presidents. — NOS4A2

It mentions "officer of the United States" and the President is an officer of the United States.

Second, there is no indication of any insurrection, or that he engaged in it. — NOS4A2

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

Lastly, this lady isn't a lawyer and used youtube videos for her case. — NOS4A2

Under Maine law it is the Secretary of State who must make any initial rulings on a candidate's eligibility. She is simply following the established legal process. The next step is for an appeal to be made to the Superior Court.

It mentions "officer of the United States" and the President is an officer of the United States.

There is no indication the president is considered an Officer in the constitution. He is the Commander in Chief. The constitution says he appoints officers. The wording of the 14th insurrection clause clearly points to those who take the oath under Article 6. The president takes a different oath. Everyone else takes a different oath, and only their oath adopts the wording found in Article 6 and the 14th.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

Then they do so against the constitution. Senate has already acquitted him of such charges.

Under Maine law it is the Secretary of State who must make any initial rulings on a candidates eligibility. She is simply following the established legal process. The next step is for an appeal to be made to the Superior Court.

She's following her own process, to be sure, and it's marred by political bias and anti-Trumpism.

There is no indication the president is considered an Officer in the constitution. — NOS4A2

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

Then they do so against the constitution. Senate has already acquitted him of such charges. — NOS4A2

I didn't realise that the Senate was the ultimate authority and final arbiter on the matter.

She's following her own process — NOS4A2

They're not her own processes. They're Maine state law:

1. Review. When presented with a primary petition, the Secretary of State shall review it and, if the petition contains the required number of certified names and is properly completed, shall accept and file it.

2. Challenges. The procedure for challenging the validity of a primary petition or of names upon a petition is as follows.

A. Only a registered voter residing in the electoral division of the candidate concerned may file a challenge. The challenge must be in writing and must set forth the reasons for the challenge. The challenge must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State before 5 p.m. on the 5th business day after the final date for filing petitions under section 335, subsection 8.

B. Within 7 days after the final date for filing challenges and after due notice of the hearing to the candidate and to the challenger, the Secretary of State shall hold a public hearing on any challenge properly filed. The challenger has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to invalidate the petitions or any names upon the petitions.

C. The Secretary of State shall rule on the validity of any challenge within 5 days after the completion of the hearing described in paragraph B.

D. A challenger or a candidate may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. This action must be commenced within 5 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State. Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue a written decision containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and setting forth the reasons for its decision within 20 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State.

E. Any aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Superior Court, on questions of law, by filing a notice of appeal within 3 days of that decision. The record on appeal must be transmitted to the Law Court within 3 days after notice of appeal is filed. After filing notice of appeal, the parties have 4 days to file briefs and appendices with the clerk of courts. As soon as the record and briefs have been filed, the court shall immediately consider the case. The court shall issue its decision within 14 days of the date of the decision of the Superior Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

They're wrong.

I didn't realise that the Senate was the ultimate authority and final arbiter on the matter.

It says right there in the constitution.

They're not her own processes.

Well, she's certainly not following the constitution, or else she would not have violated anyone's rights.

It says right there in the constitution. — NOS4A2

They are the ultimate authority and final arbiter on whether or not a President is to be removed from office. They are not the ultimate authority and final arbiter on whether or not someone committed a crime or on whether or not someone is eligible to be President.

The Colorado Supreme Court is under no constitutional or legal obligation to accept the outcome of an impeachment trial as binding precedent.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

You're denying the antecedent.

Also see https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download

The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues. — NOS4A2

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.

He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He cannot be removed from office and disqualified to enjoy any Office of Honor. You and the Dems in the Colorado Supreme Court are denying this…for what reasons again?

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity.

He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He cannot be removed from office and disqualified to enjoy any Office of Honor. You and the Dems in the Supreme Court are denying this…for what reasons again? — NOS4A2

Being acquitted under Article 1 Section 2 Clause 7 doesn't entail that the 14th Amendment no longer applies. You're reading something into it that just isn't there.

As per the 14th Amendment it takes "a vote of two-thirds of each House" to revoke its imposed ineligibility.

The 14th amendment applies to those listed who engaged in insurrection, neither of which is true in Trump's case. You're reading into something that just isn't there.

The 14th amendment applies to those listed who engaged in insurrection, neither of which is true in Trump's case. — NOS4A2

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

The Colorado Supreme Court is wrong.

The Colorado Supreme Court is wrong. — NOS4A2

Possibly, and that will be for the Supreme Court to decide. It certainly hasn't already been decided by a Senate minority.

Whether Trump has engaged in insurrection has already been decided by the senate. Acquitted. And the plain language of the constitution tells us what an officer is, those who have previously taken the oath to support the constitution. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see these charades tried in the Supreme Court.

This is New York Attorney General Letitia James’ star witness.

"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s onetime personal lawyer and fixer, says he unwittingly passed along to his attorney bogus artificial intelligence-generated legal case citations he got online before they were submitted to a judge.

Cohen made the admission in a court filing unsealed Friday in Manhattan federal court after a judge earlier this month asked a lawyer to explain how court rulings that do not exist were cited in a motion submitted on Cohen’s behalf. Judge Jesse Furman had also asked what role, if any, Cohen played in drafting the motion.

The AI-generated cases were cited as part of written arguments attorney David M. Schwartz made to try to bring an early end to Cohen’s court supervision after he served more than a year behind bars. Cohen had pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payment of hush money to a porn actor and to a former Playboy model to fend off damage to his 2016 presidential bid."

https://apnews.com/article/michael-cohen-donald-trump-artificial-intelligence-777ace9cc34aa0e56398fd47a1d6b420

Conviction can't be required, because insurrection isn't a crime (Congress has passed no law against engaging in insurrection). Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment spells out a penalty for engaging in it: ineligibility for office.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher. — Relativist

The gap is there. The authors of the amendment seem not to have imagined an insurrectionist(s) who would act like they are not one in some places.

With Maine also striking Trump from the ballot, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will come up with more than a due process objection which you pointed out is quite possible. With States having undergone interference from a national party organization in the electoral vote process, it would be helpful to recognize how that is wrong if it is to be distinguished from insurrection. If the Electoral College is to continue, it needs a basis upon which States can protect themselves from partisan influence.

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members. — Relativist

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity. — NOS4A2

I'm impressed! You are actually admitting members of the Trump cult are stupid! We've gotten through to you!

With Maine also striking Trump from the ballot, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will come up with more than a due process objection which you pointed out is quite possible. With States having undergone interference from a national party organization in the electoral vote process, it would be helpful to recognize how that is wrong if it is to be distinguished from insurrection. If the Electoral College is to continue, it needs a basis upon which States can protect themselves from partisan influence. — Paine

I think it's becoming clear that in 2024 - one day away! - the entire American Presidential Election process is going to be racked with Trump's forthcoming criminal trials and questions of eligibility, injecting an enormous element of chaos into the electoral process. Of course, any normal person would realise the potential consequences of this and graciously withdraw from the field - but not Trump! The Ego Must Be Served. His bosom buddy Steve Bannon had a memorable phrase for dealing with threats to the Trump supremacy, 'flooding the zone with shit'. It means creating so many distractions and outrages that the media and the electorate can't keep up with any single issue and loose focus. But here the stakes are becoming life-threatening for the democratic process. Let's hope it simply becomes obvious that Trump can never be considered a viable candidate, the sooner the better, because it ought to be abundantly obvious that he is not.

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions are essential to what degree Trump is considered a 'viable candidate'. The decisions will require a profound change of law if the 'electorate' does not agree. Change of that sort takes a lot of time.

Of which there is precious little. Don’t you think the Supreme Court will have to take into account the Jan 6th case, which is material in determining if he is in fact guilty of inciting insurrection.

The odd thing about the situation is that there is no overriding context of law on the Federal level to place a judgement made by a State into.