Yes, I forgot about that. 
Congress determines the class of people disqualified by law.
~Max
Quote from the article, emphasis mine.
In one of the first moves under Garland, the Justice Department turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to Congressional committees investigating the Capitol attacks. The move, which departed from precedent, was aimed at providing lawmakers with information that they could use more quickly to expose the conduct among people in the former administration who inspired the attack……snip……
The tacit acknowledgment in the move, however, was an indication that it was unlikely that the former President and top officials would face criminal prosecution for actions that incited the attack.
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. The fix is in, the FBI and DOJ have no intention of looking at Clark, Eastman, Guiliani,Navarro, Meadows, Bannon or Stone.
The recent actions against Clark give me a little hope, but not much. Maybe they’ll charge him with some trivial process crime, but I don’t hold out much hope beyond that.
Well, duh. But if anyone SHOULD have thought, “Hmmm, I might be indicted for a crime for which I have evidence in my laptop. Best to pitch this one in a nearby canal, just to be safe.” I mean, did he need an engraved invitation? Apparently so.
There is also Title 18, which for the most part repeats what is in the 14th Amendment, but it is still separate law.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It sets the penalty for engaging in rebellion or insurrection, and includes the inability to hold office as one of the consequences.
I agree. To me, that is a great failing, even if they land trump in Leavenworth. The axe needs to fall on the high level personnel who facilitated that administration’s crimes. Along with trump those folks fomented a movement that led to the anti-vax crusade (killed hundreds of thousands) separated families with no hope of reuniting them (as an announced act of malice to instill fear in refugees), and pardoned convicted war criminals. These folks need to face justice in some way. There is bound to be a rabid prosecutor somewhere in DOJ that could lead this effort. If only the present administration had the will to do it.
Well, yes, but the post I was replying to seemed to suggest there was no point in a search as “Clark [would have known] to destroy evidence”.
By “administration” are you talking “Biden administration”? Or DOJ administration? Because unlike the previous so called administration, the Biden administration is not directing the actions of the DOJ. That’s how it’s supposed to go.
I understand your positions very well. You’ve stated them clearly numerous times, and I can’t refute them in any meaningful way unless/until there are arrests. All I can do is tell you that in my own experience, this case is being run like they’re going for the top banana.
Note that the article from CNN is dated January 5, 2022. Much has happened since then.
I cited the article solely in response to a request for me to cite my basis for saying this was the largest investigation ever undertaken by the DOJ and not for any other purpose.
I don’t put a lot of stock into bloviating reporters like what CNN’s conclusions are as stated in a 6-month old article, or, say, Joy Reid who carries on interminably about Merrick Garland but is obviously talking out her ass.
I do put more stock into what those close or formerly close to the DOJ have to say, such as Joyce Vance, a former US Attorney. Her interpretation of the DOJ’s actions at Clark’s house comport with mine. They are looking for electronic evidence that ties Clark to a conspiracy. Who did Clark conspire with? There’s only one answer. It’s an answer I like.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
Will someone explain how it would be possible to find 12 jurors who have not already made up their minds about Trump’s guilt or innocence? He can be indicted and tried, but conviction seems utterly hopeless to me.
Same way as for Timothy McVey, mass murderers, and so on. You look for people who can put the knowledge of news coverage aside and weigh the evidence. You don’t just throw up your hands and say they cannot be tried!
Yes, but one third of the American people didn’t already believe that McVey was the second coming.
Section 3 Disqualification and Public Debt
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
trump has engaged in insurrection. And just a modest fine would disqualify, note. Maybe even a dollar.
Wrong. Garland is clearly waiting for the House hearings. Even after that, it won’t be overnight. That article is dated January 5, 2022, and thus is terribly outdated.
To finish that quote …"Some Justice officials say that providing the documents to Congress will help provide Americans answers that the Justice Department perhaps may never expose, since the department can only provide a narrative of events when it brings charges.
Justice officials note that prosecutors generally have five years of statute of limitations for most crimes that occurred January 6 and they haven’t foreclosed on the possibility of targeting higher-level figures."
Yep.
It can be done. It will probably be the most intensive jury selection ever endured and will take a long time, but well-known defendants are tried all the time in courts all over the country.
It’s no different that Charles Manson or Michael Jackson in California, for example.
I won’t argue that Trump would bring massive challenges to accomplishing a successful trial. But you’d be surprised at how little attention some (many?) citizens in this country pay to politics. They will probably know he was president. And I do emphasize “probably.” But that doesn’t mean they have intimate knowledge of the charges, what the elements are to prove them or a keen understanding of any of the facts.
The idea is to find people who can set aside their prejudices and preconceived notions to hear the testimony/view the evidence with an open mind. That’s all. It’s done every day, even in very high profile cases.
You’re assuming everyone has a really strong opinion of Trump. Believe it or not, some don’t. Those are the jurors for this trial.
Bolding mine. I liked what I was reading… until I got to that part.
It’s more strict than the impeachment process, if that gives you an idea of how hard that would be to pull it off.
Impeachment only requires a simple majority in the House, then the Senate needs a 2/3 vote to convict. This process requires a 2/3 vote in both.
Right. But sheese. Impeachment conviction can be hard. But blocking someone from an election because of insurrection or rebellion is even harder. That’s nuts IMHO.
I assume you mean unblocking.
It makes sense to me. A court has found the person guilty, and I assume they’ve probably gone through appeals, so it makes sense to set the bar high for an exception.
Ahh. I’m reading it wrong. but I think the bar should be higher for an exception.
A federal statute enforcing section 3 of the 14th Amendment would be worth its weight in gold when it comes time for the DOJ to argue that Donald Trump is disqualified to assume the presidency under that clause. Because there is already a ruling on the books, from the reconstruction era, that the disqualification clause is not self-enforcing.
~Max
I understand. Yes, the last bit is the burden put on both houses of Congress if they want to allow a person to be eligible for office after they’ve been convicted of insurrection or insurrection.
And I’m not even 100% sure if a conviction is absolutely necessary. It says “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. That probably means that they’d have to be convicted of the crime, but what if they aren’t? What if due to some legal loophole there are no legal consequences, but it’s still patently obvious (maybe even through public admission) that they engaged in insurrection or aided insurrectionists. In that case, perhaps the person might still be considered ineligible to hold office.