Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

It’s pretty relevant when all the Trump fans are wailing about democracy and complaining about due process. Trump wasn’t interested in any of that for his rivals.

Still irrelevant.

As irrelevant to this as the Senate acquittal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

His "acquittal" by the Senate would be equivalent to a hung jury in a criminal trial. It doesn't have preclusive effect on future proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

Relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

They'll have to ignore precedent to pretend that a conviction is necessary for exclusion from the ballot under the 14th amendment. (Which I know they will happily do to get the result they want. The "originalists" on the Supreme Court are perfectly happy to play Calvinball with the Constitution whenever it suits them.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Of course it has to be a criminal proceeding. Barring someone from the ballot on the 14th Amendment is a function of engaging in a crime and a serious one at that as insurrection is only one step removed from treason.

Both the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process of law and the 6th Amendment which guarantees a trial by jury and a right to face one's accuser have been violated. Colorado claims to have held a hearing and they did at their district court level but they did not issue an arrest warrant for Trump nor compel him to appear in the dock and therefore he has had no substantive due process.

You guys keep switching sides depending on what your strategy is. If it's not a crime, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

So, make up our minds for us, and STICK with an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

Relevant.

No, dummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

People don’t remember it because you made it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

Impeachment has two votes associated; one to convict and a second to bar from running in the future, or holding any federal office. The second requires only a majority, so if you lose the first and the Senate decides to take the second vote you are done, since the odds of losing that one are near 100%.

There's plenty of reason to believe Biden has committed potentially-impeachable offenses. Not just the shenanigans that allegedly involve bribery and Hunter either -- one can argue quite-cleanly that refusing to protect the nation from unbridled illegal immigration is impeachable as well. Remember that impeachment is a political, not a criminal process; that is, it doesn't have to involve a felony.

So what stops Florida and Texas, for example, from removing Biden from the ballot without him being impeached and removed first under the exact same set of standards? How about every single GOP Governor state doing the same thing? Nothing prohibits that if what Colorado did stands; it is the precise same thing -- the imposition of a punishment without due process, and just as in the case of the 14th Amendment there is such a punishment available in the event of impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Of course it has to be a criminal proceeding. Barring someone from the ballot on the 14th Amendment is a function of engaging in a crime and a serious one at that as insurrection is only one step removed from treason.

Both the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process of law and the 6th Amendment which guarantees a trial by jury and a right to face one's accuser have been violated. Colorado claims to have held a hearing and they did at their district court level but they did not issue an arrest warrant for Trump nor compel him to appear in the dock and therefore he has had no substantive due process.

You guys keep switching sides depending on what your strategy is. If it's not a crime, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

So, make up our minds for us, and STICK with an argument.

Colorado “claims to have held a hearing” because they did conduct an entire five-day trial. Hundreds of exhibits. A 2,117-page transcript. And they subpoenaed Trump but he didn’t show up. His attorneys were there to represent him, and they put on witnesses and presented evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Of course it has to be a criminal proceeding. Barring someone from the ballot on the 14th Amendment is a function of engaging in a crime and a serious one at that as insurrection is only one step removed from treason.

Both the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process of law and the 6th Amendment which guarantees a trial by jury and a right to face one's accuser have been violated. Colorado claims to have held a hearing and they did at their district court level but they did not issue an arrest warrant for Trump nor compel him to appear in the dock and therefore he has had no substantive due process.

You guys keep switching sides depending on what your strategy is. If it's not a crime, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

So, make up our minds for us, and STICK with an argument.

You said engaged, not convicted of. Are you finally getting it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Of course it has to be a criminal proceeding. Barring someone from the ballot on the 14th Amendment is a function of engaging in a crime and a serious one at that as insurrection is only one step removed from treason.

Both the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process of law and the 6th Amendment which guarantees a trial by jury and a right to face one's accuser have been violated. Colorado claims to have held a hearing and they did at their district court level but they did not issue an arrest warrant for Trump nor compel him to appear in the dock and therefore he has had no substantive due process.

You guys keep switching sides depending on what your strategy is. If it's not a crime, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

So, make up our minds for us, and STICK with an argument.

According to your theory, none of the confederate leaders were barred from office by the 14th amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

You are conflating two completely differnent things. Trump was impeached for his January 6 contributions by the House of Representatives. The impeachment then goes to the Senate for trial. But this is a congressional trial, not a judicial trial. In the Congressional trial, the only choices by the Senate are 2/3 majority voting to remove from office or not. But regardless of the outcome, that is only a Congressional trial for consideration of removal from office.

The trial for his insurrection has not gone to trial yet. This is what Jack Smith is currently trying to bring to trial, but Trump and his lawyers keep obstructing and delaying. Their goal is to delay this trial until after the November 2024 election. He has not been acquitted of that. He hasn't even been to trial due to all the legal maneuverings. In the most recent actions, Trump attempted to claim presidential immunity for his actions. The federal court rejected his claim of immunity and he appealed. In order to keep the trial on it's targeted March deadline, Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to consider reviewing the presidential immunity claim and ruling on that, so that the trudge through the appellate court, then verdict, to then be appealed to the SCOTUS will not derail or delay the March target trial schedule. Trump is doing everything he and his lawyers possibly can to derail and delay the start of his trial.

But he has not gone on trial for insurrection yet.

In your opinion, exactly which action of his makes him guilty of insurrection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Of course it has to be a criminal proceeding. Barring someone from the ballot on the 14th Amendment is a function of engaging in a crime and a serious one at that as insurrection is only one step removed from treason.

Both the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process of law and the 6th Amendment which guarantees a trial by jury and a right to face one's accuser have been violated. Colorado claims to have held a hearing and they did at their district court level but they did not issue an arrest warrant for Trump nor compel him to appear in the dock and therefore he has had no substantive due process.

You guys keep switching sides depending on what your strategy is. If it's not a crime, then the 14th amendment doesn't apply.

So, make up our minds for us, and STICK with an argument.

The Constitution does not say "convicted" but rather "engaged" - the plaintiffs proved Trump engaged in the insurrection. Y'all can't have it both ways on being textural with respect to the plain language of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

People don’t remember it because you made it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

Impeachment has two votes associated; one to convict and a second to bar from running in the future, or holding any federal office. The second requires only a majority, so if you lose the first and the Senate decides to take the second vote you are done, since the odds of losing that one are near 100%.

There's plenty of reason to believe Biden has committed potentially-impeachable offenses. Not just the shenanigans that allegedly involve bribery and Hunter either -- one can argue quite-cleanly that refusing to protect the nation from unbridled illegal immigration is impeachable as well. Remember that impeachment is a political, not a criminal process; that is, it doesn't have to involve a felony.

So what stops Florida and Texas, for example, from removing Biden from the ballot without him being impeached and removed first under the exact same set of standards? How about every single GOP Governor state doing the same thing? Nothing prohibits that if what Colorado did stands; it is the precise same thing -- the imposition of a punishment without due process, and just as in the case of the 14th Amendment there is such a punishment available in the event of impeachment.

There is actually no reason to believe Joe Biden has engaged in any treasonous acts. None. The rest of your post is drivel because it eminates from something that has no basis in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

You are conflating two completely differnent things. Trump was impeached for his January 6 contributions by the House of Representatives. The impeachment then goes to the Senate for trial. But this is a congressional trial, not a judicial trial. In the Congressional trial, the only choices by the Senate are 2/3 majority voting to remove from office or not. But regardless of the outcome, that is only a Congressional trial for consideration of removal from office.

The trial for his insurrection has not gone to trial yet. This is what Jack Smith is currently trying to bring to trial, but Trump and his lawyers keep obstructing and delaying. Their goal is to delay this trial until after the November 2024 election. He has not been acquitted of that. He hasn't even been to trial due to all the legal maneuverings. In the most recent actions, Trump attempted to claim presidential immunity for his actions. The federal court rejected his claim of immunity and he appealed. In order to keep the trial on it's targeted March deadline, Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to consider reviewing the presidential immunity claim and ruling on that, so that the trudge through the appellate court, then verdict, to then be appealed to the SCOTUS will not derail or delay the March target trial schedule. Trump is doing everything he and his lawyers possibly can to derail and delay the start of his trial.

But he has not gone on trial for insurrection yet.

In your opinion, exactly which action of his makes him guilty of insurrection?

Not PP but my opinion doesn’t matter when a federal judge’s opinion which survived two levels of appeal does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the best thing that could happen is Trump is excluded, Nikki Haley runs, Biden steps down. Let's have a fair election with new personalities and let the best man/woman win. A fresh start. I am very afraid of where all this insanity is taking us.

Ladies and gentlemen… the aforementioned insanity