Donald Trump is NOT eligible to run for President. Period.

[dpibel]

37. Hot News For You!!

There has been a legal finding that Trump engaged in insurrection.

I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of that fact. "Just one puny little judge!"

Judges make findings of this sort all day every day.

You are, of course, engaging in some careless usage.

Your subject line is just wrong on its face. There was a trial in Colorado, complete with evidence, witnesses, cross examination, and representation for both parties. At the end of that trial, the judge made "a legal finding of participating in an insurrection." This is a matter of public record, and your statement to the contrary is just flat wrong.

Your attempted save later in your post is to demand a "LEGAL FINDING of guilt." But this is not a criminal case. And as everyone knows by now, Article 3 of the 14th Amendment contains no requirement of criminal conviction.

This is closer to an employment law case than it is to a criminal one. There's no precedent for demanding a jury, a finding beyond reasonable doubt, or criminal conviction. People get denied jobs based on their conduct all the time. If they end up in front of an Administrative Law judge, they get no jury, and there's certainly no possibility of being found guilty of a crime. If they end up in a civil court, then they are likely entitled to a jury, but the burden of proof is more likely than not and the sole exposure for anyone is loss of money.

It amazes me how people cannot seem to sort out that different legal matters involve different standards of proof and even different levels of due process.