Also, David Frum:
If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.
So, Dave? Was it all just an academic point??
Hm.
And what if it is? Are we to be held hostage by a bunch of bottom-feeding gun-toting sedition-lovers? Either we stand up for the rule of law or the 14th Amendment, and the Constitution, aren’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Let these MAGA dimwits march in the streets. They have that right. If they lock and load and start marching toward the Capitol and the White House…that’s what armed helicopters and drones are for.
I agree. Especially the held hostage part. Let these morons riot. And respond with greater force. They will soon discover that they are the minority (if not by much).
I would say in our present system a state’s Sec’y of State subject to a lawsuit by the ineligible candidate.
Anybody remember this one?
“I don’t [expletive omitted] care that they have weapons,” Trump fumed in urging aides to take down magnetometers near the White House before he addressed a “Stop the Steal” rally, Hutchinson testified. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the [expletive omitted] mags away.”"
ISTM that – along with everything else that’s known – if they can corroborate this piece – that Trump was trying to allow armed protestors to join the unwashed masses on Jan 6th – that would go a long way to establishing that Trump gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The defense will be that they are there to protect him from Antifa. And 10 other lies. But it adds to the treason/sedition IMHO.
There seems to be a difference between “aiding” and “allowing”. I agree with what you’re saying from a practical standpoint, but I don’t think it works legally. If he was giving them the guns, that would be closer to providing them aid.
Idunno [by which I, of course, mean … Idunno]. Take a look at this definition of “aid and comfort” as one data point:
Help; support; assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element in the crime of treason, the giving of “aid and comfort” to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be successful and actually render assistance.
It’s an interesting legal question.
That reinforces what I said. All you’re saying is that he chose not to take their guns away. That’s not even an “attempt” to aid.
I know that the old saying is, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.” (Not that Trump is a good man, obviously.) But I don’t think that matters legally.
To me, his complicity is in firing up the crowd with incendiary rhetoric and pointing them at a target. That seems to be a lot closer to the “aid and comfort” definition.
You can point to his knowledge that they were armed, and his request that they not use metal detectors, as a way to show that he knew the danger he was posing and not only wasn’t concerned, but welcomed it. I believe that’s why the January 6 committee highlighted it. But in and of itself, I can’t see any way you can call it a crime or furtherance of sedition on its own.
Maybe this is the only point of contention between our views. I wouldn’t suggest that this action on Trump’s part be taken in isolation.
I agree it looks bad, and pokes holes in any suggestion that he didn’t know what was going to happen.
IMO we’re a little bit missing the point on this aid and comfort thing.
The enemy in this case is Trump. Was he doing anything to aid his cause of illegally overthrowing the government? Clearly yes. Then he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy IOW to himself.
I think it might be worth me clarifying why I brought up that specific bit on this particular thread:
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.
[bolding mine]
So … in the context of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment – the rationale behind precluding another Presidential bid by Trump – I think that particular action on 1/6 could legally constitute “aid or comfort” under the language of the Constitution (ETA: as part of a larger picture charging “insurrection or rebellion”).
This would have to happen state by state, it seems to me, with Secretaries of State of various states deciding to remove his name from their states’ ballots, subject to lawsuit and appeals, but this matters practically only in battleground states which either Trump or Biden could win. It would almost be a favor to Trump, I think, if California or Massachusetts were to declare him ineligible because it would A)rile up his base in other states, while B) telling him “no reason to spend time or resources here.” Of course, it would kill downstate ballots in those two states for Republicans, so maybe there’s a good reason for the GOP to fight it even though it wouldn’t influence the election results for the Presidency.
So which battleground states have Democratic Secretaries of State who might Trump removed from the ballot? Michigan, I think, is one.
Agree overall with your points. But as to this:
It seems to me getting trump off the ballot in any state he might win would be hugely impactful. Whether that was a purple state he could win, or red state he was sure to win if on the ballot. GA is an example of a state where the (R) is all but sure to win, but where he stands a decent chance of being denied a spot on the ballot due to a not-yet-totally-suborned state government.
Or are you suggesting that no solidly red state has a sufficiently honest government?
I was going to say Arizona, but:
Trump can’t be barred from Arizona’s 2024 ballot, says Democratic Secretary of State
“That’s what the Arizona Supreme Court said, so that’s the state of the law in Arizona. Now, do I agree with that? No, that’s stupid,” Fontes continued.
Fontes said despite his dislike of what the Arizona Supreme Court has decided, he will still follow it because it is Arizona law.
“What I’m saying is I’m going to follow the law,” Fontes said. “And the law in Arizona is what the law in Arizona is. Whether I like it or not, is irrelevant.”
Certainly, it would start that way, but then it would almost certainly be challenged and would end up in the Supreme Court where a definitive ruling would apply to all states.
I think there’s a very good chance both that the Supreme Court would fast track a decision and that they very well might bar trump from appearing on the ballot. Yes, the court is heavy with rabid hard-right conservatives, but they’ve shown little in the way of favoritism towards trump in particular. In addition, many of them are “originalists” and lifelong members of the Federalist Society who would almost certainly agree with the conservative lawyers who have argued originalism in saying that trump has disqualified himself. Add in the 4 liberal justices and its extremely possible that the Court would uphold the disqualification. Then it’s no longer a state- by- state piecemeal battle; trump would be considered ineligible to appear on the ballot in any state.
Seems to me there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain by Michigan, or another state, getting the ball rolling. Worst case scenario, Trump gets on all 50 ballots, which he is in the current situation, but best case, he gets disqualified on all 50 ballots.
At what point does a SoS have standing? Trump’s not on any ballot yet, right? Would SCOTUS hear a case that’s technically a hypothetical at this point?
Ok, we all saw what we saw. “Insurrection or rebellion”, did you see the flags those folks were flying? Or yelling “it’s 1776”? Sure looks like it to me. “Aid and comfort”? Sitting with his thumb up his ass for hours sure seems like aid, and as for comfort, well, saying “We love you, you’re very special” appears to qualify, not to mention dangling the prospect of pardons.
As for the Amnesty Act, you can’t amnesty folks for offenses that haven’t happened yet. If that Civil War era law applies to every insurrection or rebellion going forward, what you have is, fundamentally, the Constitution being amended to eliminate Section 3. without going through the amendment process. Nope.