UltraVires already explained it to you. “Trump is ineligible to be elected President” is your opinion, not a factual statement. It’s rather a shame that many people apparently can’t tell the difference.
Miley Cyrus isn’t 35 is an objective fact. “Trump aided an insurrection” is a subjective opinion.
This is not correct. I quoted the law and then I described the actions Trump took which fulfilled the terms of that law.
If they’re debatable, why are you avoiding that debate? I think the answer is that you know the facts I stated are correct and you have nothing to stand on.
This is not true. If you think it is, back it up by quoting the text where it says a hearing is required. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Thinking it over, I’ve had enough of this one-sided debate. I’m done here.
You, as a random internet poster, are not a trier of fact. That’s up to the jury/judge.
It wouldn’t be like that, though.
What could plausibly happen is opponents can mount a legal challenge that would prevent him even standing. If successful, Trump’s name would be blocked from appearing in the list of candidates. If it appeared anyway, they could apply for a ruling that would declare all votes for him as void. And all of this in the primaries, so it wouldn’t go to a national vote.
It’s too late to challenge after the election has happened.
That standard only applies in criminal prosecutions. In civil disputes the standard is the preponderance of evidence.
I concur. In order to get Trump declared ineligible, you will need to be able to prove (probably beyond a reasonable doubt) that:
(A) what happened on Jan 6th was an insurrection, and (B) that it was actively supported by Donald Trump
Both of these are possible but neither is really a slam dunk.
As far as (A) goes, I will note that none of the people involved in the attack have been charged with insurrection. The closest they have come is conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding. When I think of insurrection I think of the violently overthrowing the government to directly take power by force. This wasn’t the goals of the Jan 6th attackers. Their hope was to create enough chaos to delay the result long enough for a constitutional loophole to kick in that would result in the legal and orderly continuation of the Trump administration.
As far as (B) even if we characterize what went down on Jan 6th as an insurrection, it is going to be really hard to pin it on Trump. The phrase that was pointed to in the impeachment hearing was
“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
But that was one of many uses of fight given in the speech all of which were figurative. For example
The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they’d argue with me. I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight, I’d fight, they’d fight. Pop pop.
Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.
And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.
Now it is entirely possible that he used this violent rhetoric knowing it would incite his followers to violence, but he has plausible deniability that all he really thought would happen is a peaceful protest outside the capitol and that he was shocked! shocked! that it turned violent. In fact speaking as someone who loathes Trump and everything he represents I’d give even odds that he didn’t intend for the storming of the capitol, but was pleasantly surprised (the same way Osama Bin Laden was pleasantly surprised by the World Trade center’s collapse).
Now this only includes the evidence we have so far, if smoking guns related to the Jan 5th Trump Hotel meeting, or his (in)actions during the attack show clear culpability I may revise my assessment, but I think Trump is more likely to go down due to tax fraud or Russia than for the Jan 6th attack.
Personally I think that philosophically the rioters, and Trump with his cronies, are guilty of attempting an insurrection. They tried to deny a legal vote and replace the legitimately-elected President with an unelected one.
Legally, I don’t think it’s nearly that clear. Which bothers me a lot. Because I think they should answer for what they’ve done, and not in a “We got Capone on tax evasion because that’s all we can prove” way.
The world isn’t always fair though, and justice is what you strive for but can’t expect.
It’s the inaction they’re going after. Liz Cheney very carefully alluded to the exact language of the US Code for which the Committee feels Trump is most culpable:
This is cited from MSNBC Maddow because it is not a paywalled link. But the story was covered by Business Insider, the Washington Post and others, if people are inclined to dismiss the information based on the citation.
Cheney used extremely specific language and she used it more than once. I believe she’s telegraphing exactly where the Committee intends to go with their criminal referrals.
Again, I don’t think so. That is a standard that applies in criminal prosecutions.
I think it depends on whether you’re charging the crime of sedition, or declaring ineligibility due to supporting sedition. The former is criminal, the latter is civil. That’s my understanding at least. (Not a lawyer.)
Exactly. And in a legal challenge to Trump’s eligibility, it wouldn’t apply.
I for one thank you for that post
He’s certainly a traitor in my view. But, an analogy…
I person #1, after months of lies and rhetoric, convinces person #2 to rob a bank, is person #1 in anyway culpable? What if person #1 meets person #2 somewhere near the bank and again tells person #2 that they should rob the bank? Person #1 saying I’ll be there with you. Person #1 believes (however incorrectly) that they will benefit from this. Person #1 then sends Person #2 to the bank and then flees to their house. Person #2 commits the crime.
A girlfriend encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. She was convicted by the judge of involuntary manslaughter