This should be interesting.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/...6-attack-2023-12-06/

Can "common sense" be applied in a court case?
I like the idea of common sense being applied, but is that a standpoint of law?

it'll be interesting -

I don't recall a federal case (jurisdiction) where there was an actual trial on 14a3s, and I don't believe any State court has jurisdiction -

I would LOVE to see a federal case, live on c-span, on trump and 14a3s, as it would certainly present "new" information

As I recall, the CO case was to remove Trump from the CO ballot, due to PERCEIVED, but unproven, actions leading to Jan6

I'd LOVE to see that in court, and do it PDQ

quote:

As I recall, the CO case was to remove Trump from the CO ballot, due to PERCEIVED, but unproven, actions leading to Jan6

The state court considered a ton of evidence supporting the insurrection ruling. As far as I know Trump is not disputing the evidence on appeal, but something else.

How is the best way to prove something perceived? A ton of evidence works for me, and probably the judge too.