Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   In allowing a lawsuit brought by 1/6 victims against Trump to proceed, a federal judge finds that there is a "colorable claim" the Trump incited the riot that day. Just what you'd expect from a liberal activist judge appointed by... oh that's awkward   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, Appeal, Jury, Judge, Donald Trump, Lawyer, Washington Post, Judge Gregory G. Katsas  
•       •       •

2177 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2022 at 7:18 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-07 10:09:38 PM  
Burn him like a proper witch hunt would do.
Pull him into court forever.
No free time.
No freedom in or out of prison.
And keep taking his money.
 
2022-12-08 3:02:25 AM  
"Colorable claim", huh?
i.ebayimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 6:01:05 AM  
No shiat, Sherlock.
 
2022-12-08 7:26:42 AM  
Despite believing the best thing for America would be Donald Trump and a frighteningly large number of others to take a short drop off a gallows... I find myself concerned for his political well-being.

Should the right manage to turn on him now that he's no longer useful to them, he won't be useful to anyone else as a way to split the right and create a window of opportunity for some recovery and progress in the country.
 
2022-12-08 7:27:47 AM  
According to the internet:
A colorable claim is a plausible legal claim. This means that the claim is "strong enough" to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. Note that the claim need not actually result in a win.
 
2022-12-08 7:28:05 AM  
I just picture him following the janitorial staff around Mar a Lago haranguing them about how he's the victim of the biggest witch hunt in history, and no one is ever treated so unfairly, they just roll their eyes and turn on the floor buffer to drown out the whining
 
2022-12-08 7:28:30 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]


Being a Jan 6 Rioter, crayons may actually be involved.
 
2022-12-08 7:30:27 AM  
So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."

But throughout American law, judicial opinions and legal theorists (I guess like let's see, Robert Cover for eg), have used the word "colorable" to decribe cases that are colored by a prejudice in the law, like sexism's double standard. If that's the use here, then we don't knwo what the fark the judge was saying without knowing what the prejudice is.

Anyhow, either way, I raelly wanted that article to tell me something about what the judge was saying, but I can't parse it as all. Except that the judge, Katass, thinks that there are no good legal arguments to indict Trump:

FTA:
Katsas also said during hearings on Wednesday that he did not believe Trump's speech ahead of the riots alone would be enough to bring criminal charges against him, but he said that a broader look at all Trump's actions leading up to and during the riots, then his conduct "looks maybe dangerous."
 
2022-12-08 7:35:56 AM  
My fingers are so excited I don't know what to do with my self.
 
2022-12-08 7:37:07 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: My fingers are so excited I don't know what to do with my self.


Squeeze a ketchup packet.
It's the new stress reducer.
 
2022-12-08 7:37:44 AM  
Have you or a loved one suffered letdown from usually reasonable expectations? Call 1-800-AINTNOTHINGONNAHAPPEN. You maybe entitled to a lump sum settlement of disappointment.
 
2022-12-08 7:39:39 AM  

vudukungfu: Night Train to Wakanda: My fingers are so excited I don't know what to do with my self.

Squeeze a ketchup packet.
It's the new stress reducer.


I'd be throwing hamburgers left and right in celebration if I could.
 
2022-12-08 7:40:35 AM  
The plaintiffs in this case will be able to source the published Congressional record which will include the J6 committee's report. That's a pretty good place to start.
 
2022-12-08 7:42:21 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."


Tge point is, as far as I can tell, is that since presidents don't normally incite violent riots as part of their duties, then proceeding with the lawsuit will not hinder the work of future presidents.
 
2022-12-08 7:44:58 AM  
Watching Trump implode is more fun than Kanye.
 
2022-12-08 7:48:47 AM  

skin rash_oklahoma: I just picture him following the janitorial staff around Mar a Lago haranguing them about how he's the victim of the biggest witch hunt in history, and no one is ever treated so unfairly, they just roll their eyes and turn on the floor buffer to drown out the whining


He probably moved that lawnmower kid down to Florida.
 
2022-12-08 7:49:04 AM  

shpritz: Bennie Crabtree: So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."

Tge point is, as far as I can tell, is that since presidents don't normally incite violent riots as part of their duties, then proceeding with the lawsuit will not hinder the work of future presidents.


That's my read too. You can't sue the President for giving a speech you don't like or for inviting assholes to a rally. You *can* sue the President for telling those assholes to go riot and you get hurt as a result. The latter is a normal part of presidenting and everyone holding the office has a right to do it; the latter is not.
 
2022-12-08 7:49:12 AM  
TFG never appointed any judges. He just scribbled on whatever Bigly Important Paper Only the most Important Bigly Business President's Get to Scribble On! that the Federalist Society, McConnell, and ALEC put on top of his remote to force him to sign before he could go back to watching television (sorry-"Executive Time").
 
2022-12-08 7:50:54 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]

Being a Jan 6 Rioter, crayons may actually be involved.


I was thinking poo smears on the walls.
 
2022-12-08 7:50:58 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]


The label on all those crayons in the image for TFG is "FLESH".
 
2022-12-08 7:51:29 AM  
Victims? Is it normal that cops can sue criminals that they got injured by whilst in the line of duty?

I would imagine pigs would be doing this all the time. "On top of your drug bust which will ruin your life, the arresting officer hurt his pinkie and now you're on the hook for $1 million in damages for pain and suffering."
 
2022-12-08 7:52:38 AM  

shpritz: Bennie Crabtree: So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."

Tge point is, as far as I can tell, is that since presidents don't normally incite violent riots as part of their duties, then proceeding with the lawsuit will not hinder the work of future presidents.


Hmm okay.

That is another way I've seen "colorable" used. As in, this lawsuit's claim can prejudice future lawful activities because of...[x]... So far I've seen that use the most in judicial discussions or historical of Jim Crow and racist police activites. The reporter quoted the wrong thing. It's just a poorly reported story. :/
 
2022-12-08 7:54:53 AM  

TFerWannaBe: You *can* sue the President for telling those assholes to go riot and you get hurt as a result.


In the article, the judge says nothing about the result of being hurt exposing the rpesident to liability. He says that the president can't be said to incite a riot based on what he said that day, when he told follwoers to go to the Capitol. The jduge said there might be something dangerous if the DoJ can prove the president did more to plan for a riot, beyond telling people to go rally there.
 
2022-12-08 7:55:20 AM  
This is great and I love to see Trump on his heels. But we need to also start really focusing on DeSantis. He's the presumptive nominee at this point, and much more dangerous than Trump (given that he actually understands governmental procedure).
 
2022-12-08 8:06:05 AM  

peterquince: This is great and I love to see Trump on his heels. But we need to also start really focusing on DeSantis. He's the presumptive nominee at this point, and much more dangerous than Trump (given that he actually understands governmental procedure).


Yeah, this.  I don't want to beat Trump down so much that he doesn't run 3rd party.

Unless he's in jail, of course. Go ahead and let him rot.
 
2022-12-08 8:08:06 AM  

Shaggy_C: Victims? Is it normal that cops can sue criminals that they got injured by whilst in the line of duty?

I would imagine pigs would be doing this all the time. "On top of your drug bust which will ruin your life, the arresting officer hurt his pinkie and now you're on the hook for $1 million in damages for pain and suffering."


So.... Dump is a criminal, and they were acting in the line of duty on 1/6? I thought they were just gently jostled by exuberant tourists?
 
2022-12-08 8:08:10 AM  
TFA: 'a civil lawsuit brought against the former president over the Capitol riots would inhibit future presidents from speaking out on important issues for fear of being suedlying about their own felonious behavior to avoid prosecution.
 
2022-12-08 8:10:24 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: TFerWannaBe: You *can* sue the President for telling those assholes to go riot and you get hurt as a result.

In the article, the judge says nothing about the result of being hurt exposing the rpesident to liability. He says that the president can't be said to incite a riot based on what he said that day, when he told follwoers to go to the Capitol. The jduge said there might be something dangerous if the DoJ can prove the president did more to plan for a riot, beyond telling people to go rally there.


That is true. I oversimplified to highlight the difference between "stuff that's normal", where an inappropriate lawsuit could interfere with the normal and healthy functioning of the administration, and "stuff that's not normal" where the cause of the suit is behavior that shouldn't be happening in the first place.
 
2022-12-08 8:12:03 AM  

kpaxoid: Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]

The label on all those crayons in the image for TFG is "FLESH".


Crayola will later rename it "Trumpian Treasonweasel"
 
2022-12-08 8:24:27 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size

a.pinatafarm.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 8:49:32 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]

Being a Jan 6 Rioter, crayons may actually be involved.


Aka breakfast, lunch and dinner.
 
2022-12-08 8:55:05 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."

But throughout American law, judicial opinions and legal theorists (I guess like let's see, Robert Cover for eg), have used the word "colorable" to decribe cases that are colored by a prejudice in the law, like sexism's double standard. If that's the use here, then we don't knwo what the fark the judge was saying without knowing what the prejudice is.

Anyhow, either way, I raelly wanted that article to tell me something about what the judge was saying, but I can't parse it as all. Except that the judge, Katass, thinks that there are no good legal arguments to indict Trump:

FTA:
Katsas also said during hearings on Wednesday that he did not believe Trump's speech ahead of the riots alone would be enough to bring criminal charges against him, but he said that a broader look at all Trump's actions leading up to and during the riots, then his conduct "looks maybe dangerous."


Yeah, except there is testimony that TFG nearly got in a fight with the SS trying to go to the Capitol and march with the rioters, and was extremely agitated at being thwarted. So, he absolutely approved of what was going on. Seriously can't believe we still have to hash these things out 2 years later when it was so obvious then.
 
2022-12-08 9:18:31 AM  

xanadian: brainlordmesomorph: Farking Clown Shoes: "Colorable claim", huh?
[i.ebayimg.com image 500x281]

Being a Jan 6 Rioter, crayons may actually be involved.

I was thinking poo smears on the walls.


Colon Crayon 🖍
 
2022-12-08 9:52:20 AM  

Kiribub: According to the internet:
A colorable claim is a plausible legal claim. This means that the claim is "strong enough" to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. Note that the claim need not actually result in a win.


To provide real world examples: E Jean Carroll has a "colorable" claim that Trump defamed he when he denied raping her and suggested she was making the story up

Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, have been personally sanctioned for even filing  cases on Trump's behalf  alleging that election fraud had taken place in PA, GA,, and Wisconsin, because they had NO colorable claim
 
2022-12-08 9:54:11 AM  

skin rash_oklahoma: I just picture him following the janitorial staff around Mar a Lago haranguing them about how he's the victim of the biggest witch hunt in history, and no one is ever treated so unfairly, they just roll their eyes and turn on the floor buffer to drown out the whining


Well, given that he gives that speech as a way of explaining why they won't be getting a Christmas bonus this year (though it's always SOMETHING)   can you blame them?
 
2022-12-08 10:04:35 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: So, I've read that article 6 times, just to keep with the theme of Jan 6th, and... I can say that the Quote, "How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?" Katsas asked. "It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job."is acutally not easy to explain using that definition of "colorable" from Cornell U's website.

If the Cornell definition is what the judge meant, then whne the judge saud, "How many cases will there be..." he could have meant, "There are unlikely to be many cases that are colorable, so your argument is idenitfying a risk to the presidency."

But throughout American law, judicial opinions and legal theorists (I guess like let's see, Robert Cover for eg), have used the word "colorable" to decribe cases that are colored by a prejudice in the law, like sexism's double standard. If that's the use here, then we don't knwo what the fark the judge was saying without knowing what the prejudice is.

Anyhow, either way, I raelly wanted that article to tell me something about what the judge was saying, but I can't parse it as all. Except that the judge, Katass, thinks that there are no good legal arguments to indict Trump:

FTA:
Katsas also said during hearings on Wednesday that he did not believe Trump's speech ahead of the riots alone would be enough to bring criminal charges against him, but he said that a broader look at all Trump's actions leading up to and during the riots, then his conduct "looks maybe dangerous."


So reading the oral arguments the meaning is pretty clear.  Trump's lawyer under questions from the judges was asserting a near-absolute standard of "presidential immunity" (something that in my considered legal opinion does not actually exist)   in response to a hypothetical posed by a judge he asserted that presidential immunity would apply to purely private matters such as a president raping someone or cheating on their taxes, but contrarywise if he had , say a conference call with a militia group telling them to go to polling place and intimidate the voters and scare them away from voting, that would be "despicable" but his presidential immunity would prevent from being prosecuted.   Another Justice expanded the hypothetical and asked what would happen if the President gave a speech urging his supporters to burn down the Capitol?  Still immune Trump's lawyer said, because to do otherwise would interfere with a president's performance of his duties.  That's when this justice chimed in and opined that Trump is "colorably" accused of inciting a riot, and that doesn't seem to be something most presidents would be accused of very often while doing normal presidential things
 
2022-12-08 3:15:58 PM  

skin rash_oklahoma: I just picture him following the janitorial staff around Mar a Lago haranguing them about how he's the victim of the biggest witch hunt in history, and no one is ever treated so unfairly, they just roll their eyes and turn on the floor buffer to drown out the whining


You mean like this?:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.