...FROM BALLOTS:

1. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment section three actually does not apply to a sitting president. The stupids are claiming that the language "officers of the united states" includes the president of the united states but there has already been a legal opinion abt that terminology by SCOTUS:

2010 SCOTUS Case:
Free Enter Fund v. Pub Co Acct Oversight Bd.
Chief Justice Roberts stated:
"The people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.' Rather, 'Officers of the United States' are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an 'officer of the United States.'"

Pics are of exact wording Chief Justice Roberts was referring...

2. January 6th was not an insurrection. That is a favorite buzzword to be used by the democrats. It was a riot. That is not my opinion, there is a legal definition of what an insurrection is and it does not fit what happened on january 6th.

• Regardless of that fact, if you read The Fourteenth Amendment section three, Trump would have had to participate in it for it to apply. They can claim that trump incited it but that STILL would NOT make the Fourteenth Amendment apply.

So for all of the stupids out there... Prove me wrong.

They are trying to do this in colorado - currently using a foundation to bring it to court. It should not go through based on the reasons I stated alone. If for some reason the judge is an activist or anti trump, it could because we have a judicial philosophy that exists in the courts vs straight up law being used. The Ninth circuit proves that 100%. That would not be the final say anyway because Trump can bring it to the Supreme Court.

The End!

• RURdy4It