re: 14th Amendment applies to presidents, "expert" argues at Trump’s Colorado trial

I love how all the “experts” are radical liberals for everything. It’s comical to look at democrats of today and think, “they will certainly get this country going in the right direction”.

quote:

---

14th Amendment applies to presidents, "expert" argues at Trump’s Colorado trial

---

Someone should spend more time looking at the 25th Amendment and it's correlation to the current fraudulently installed White House occupant, in my humble opinion.

Also ...

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Getting a liberal judge in Colorado to call it an insurrection so that the 10th Circuit can call him an idiot, so that it can be taken up to SCOTUS and 1,000,000 liberal-oriented PAC's can file amicus briefs which can be cited on MSNBC by Hakeem Jeffries.

---

You're not wrong, except that this is State Court so I think it will go straight from the Colorado Supreme Court to SCOTUS.

I'm just saying it's in the Courts now. Everyone complaining that a Court needs to decide these issues can relax, because that is what's happening.

quote:

---

The "expert":

---

quote:

---

Colorado’s secretary of state can be ordered by the court to keep him off the state’s ballot because of it.

---

If they keep him off the ballot but enough people write him in. what happens then?

There’s actual caselaw banning the use of expert testimony to explain the law. The judge is supposed to be the “legal expert” in a case.

quote:

---

[The expert’s] testimony as to the applicable legal standard was plainly erroneous, thus demonstrating the danger in allowing experts to testify as to their understanding of the law. Each courtroom comes equipped with a “legal expert,” called a judge, and it is his or her province alone to instruct the jury on the relevant legal standards.

---

quote:

---

It's unreal how butt arse ugly progs are.

---

My exact first thoughts too. Like damn, these are some ugly arse people inside and out.

The activities on Jan 6 only stop Trump’s allies in Congress from formally objecting to the Elections of the states. The “insurrection” started as soon as they called for the vote to accept Arizona’s election. Then the operation was shut down. Pelosi declared an emergency and they streamlined the vote certicaiton later that evening and push thru the electoral votes.

Who benefited from the “insurrection”?

Oh….and the process Team Trump used to object was change by congress in 2022.

quote:

---

In the time after voting ended in 2020 and results were certified, Trump and his team argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to interfere with the counting of electoral votes because the law as it currently stands names the vice president as the presiding officer over the joint session of Congress where those votes are counted.

Legal experts across the political spectrum debunked that reading of the law, but Trump's pressure campaign still led to the powder keg that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when chants of "Hang Mike Pence!" rang through the halls of Congress.

The update passed by the Senate would clarify that the vice president's role in the proceedings is purely ceremonial.

Importantly, the measure also would raise the bar for objecting to a state's slate of electors. As it stands now, it takes just one member of the House and one senator to challenge a state's electors and send both chambers into a potentially days-long debate period, even without legitimate concerns. The new legislation would raise the threshold for an objection to 20% of the members of each chamber.

---

LINK to Liberal NPR so you see that it actually happened

quote:

---

There’s actual caselaw banning the use of expert testimony to explain the law.

---

Is there? Applicable in a Colorado State Court?

I litigate patent cases in federal courts. We sometimes use patent law experts to help explain very technical legal issues. Some judges deny them because it is their job to interpret the law, and they would rather have us write legal briefs than bring in a professor.

I cited the actual caselaw from one of the federal circuit courts cited in the comments to FRE 702. Patent and trademark cases are a bit unique but ultimately expert testimony as to interpretation of a constitutional amendment or statute is inadmissible. This is hornbook law.

Attorneys can educate the judge as to the proper application or interpretation of the law through a brief. Allowing an expert to testify as to the law is basically like allowing someone to read a brief or law review article to the court. And for practical purposes, the cross-examination would essentially be an argument between counsel.