Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
- John Harington
However:
A failed insurrection is still an insurrection, as amply demonstrated by the history of the United States, ca 1861-1865.
Order the military to intervene on the side of the rioters?
I don’t think his failure to do it makes it not insurrection; but it seems to me that that’s a fairly obvious thing that he didn’t do. I don’t think they’d have followed the order, and I suspect that Trump also thought, or at least feared, that they wouldn’t follow it and that that’s why he didn’t try it; but what actually happens in a lot of successful coups elsewhere is that some significant portion of the military takes action on the part of the insurrectionists, isn’t it?
Well, he did try to get the military to seize the voting machines but sensible Rudy talked him out of issuing the order, didn’t he?
There where reports (not sure how credible) that he tried to get his SS detail to take him to the insurrection. Not sure what in the hell he thought he would do.
My theory is that Trump just wanted the proceedings in Congress delayed long enough for his alternative electors to get certified. It was a delaying tactic. I don’t think he expected or even wanted anything like a military coup. Just chaos. Plus, I’m sure he loved seeing people riot on his behalf, that must have really stroked his ego.
Selecting electors is a state function as per a few SCOTUS cases. If the state has chosen the SoS to administer the selection of electors then why would they not have standing?
Or have it turned over to a House vote. One vote per state, not representative. The electors where a delaying tactic, as was the insurrection. Muddy the waters as much as possible until the House votes on it.
Yes, good point. Even if the elector scheme didn’t work itself, it could have (in theory) confused things enough to prompt such a vote.
I’m still sure that would never have happened, but Trump had guys telling him it could work.
Yup. I can’t imagine that Trump could come up with such a scheme. I can imagine that he would easily be talked into it. And would do anything to stay in office.
He could have taken a cab to the Capitol (after his government driver refused) and joined the insurrectionists. When Ashli Babbitt fell, he could have commanded his supporters to continue the assault. Instead, after just one wounding (she died in hospital), they gave up the attempt to break into the largest legislative chamber. This is attributable to lack of leadership from the man they were trying to keep as America’s caudillo.
By the preponderance of the evidence, I think DJT did try to overthrow the legal governmental system of the United States. But he did such a piss-poor job that there may be reasonable doubt.
My real problem with the thread title idea is that there should be, in a democracy, an extremely high bar to disqualifying someone from running for office. And is you are going to have such a bar, there should be a much clearer legal mechanism for keeping the SOB off the ballot.
We’re stuck with what we have. That it’s murky, or the law is too vaguely written, or it doesn’t say what we would like it to say, doesn’t equate to “He must go scot-free.”
Attempting to overthrow the government by insurrection seems to be a very serious crime to me. How much higher a bar could you make it?
Humm… if only there was some precedent for this… 
Here’s an interview with Michael Luttig that clarifies many of the positions he (and Lawrence Tribe) have put forth: from the NYer
What Trump didn’t do, was get convicted of the crime of sedition or of insurrection. He should be, but he hasn’t. I still say that, absent any other guidance in the Constitution or federal law, that’s the only standard that can be legally applied.
There were half a dozen cases following the Civil War where people who were not convicted were kept out of office or lost one because of the amendment in question. So there is precedent that a conviction is not necessary.
Did the Confederates in question dispute those cases?
Everything I know about those half dozen cases is from this section of an electoral-vote.com blog post:
BTW, I heartedly recommend reading electoral-vote.com on a daily basis for those interested in US politics.
I think I used the wrong term of art. My question was, at what point can the suit take place? SCOTUS won’t hear hypothetical / moot cases, for example, so would a suit regarding someone who is currently not on any ballot even be heard?
I know some suits have been filed already since I asked, but I still wonder how the courts would rule on this (very technical) point.
That article says nothing about primary vs. general elections, but it sounds like a lot of Trump-skeptical Republicans are thinking of stopping him from getting on primary ballots:
The 14th Amendment plan to disqualify Trump, explained
Also:
My guess is that few GOP elected office holders, in their heart of hearts, actually like Trump. Maybe this is a bigger threat to him than I thought.
In terms of the legitimacy of the 2024 presidential winner, stopping a candidate from being on primary ballots is much less of a concern than stopping them at the general election level. I may warm up to this.