I think it's a proven fact. But last time I looked, I wasn't a Judge, and my opinion carries zero legal weight. But if you want, I can lay out all the facts against Trump that make him look very guilty of insurrection.
Looking guilty and being guilty are two separate things. If it's a proven fact than why do you say IF? Could it possibly be that we have laws and courts that determine guilt? And I have yet to see a court convict him of insurrection or anything related to it! Guilt is not determined by a bunch of keyboard warriors that think they know all the facts. Not once from either the committee, to any of the indictments surrounding Jan 6 have we heard any defense. I think they call that due process, but then again, I am just a cult member, so I don't think for myself!
The Constitution doesn't require a court conviction for the 14th Amendment, 3rd Article to be enforced. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine Secretary of State have both found Trump violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in an insurrection. And the legal case against Trump brought on by Jack Smith is still pending. If Trump is found guilty, would that be enough to find Trump not eligible to run for POTUS for you? Of course, with all the delays, if the election occurs before the trial, then what? If Trump wins, can he pardon himself? If so, then there is no conviction? At the same time, a pardon requires an admission of guilt, which would mean Trump would be ineligible to hold office under the 14th, which again, doesn't require a conviction.
If Trump is found guilty then by all means that is enough for me!! But because 4 lefty judges of a court of 7 decide he is guilty with no trial or due process, shouldn't be an argument made just by the right but all of us. And most on this board that have spouted their hatred for Trump, still believe this is a over the line for this court. It is only the party over country crowd that cry Trump will destroy democracy, while destroying it themselves, believe this is the right pathway to eliminate him from running.
DeSantis is apparently floating the idea of removing Biden from the ballot in FL. I don’t know which forum would be more of a dumpster fire during the off season if DeSantis actually made that happen.
Florida isn’t in play, I doubt DeSantis has the power to do this anyway, and I doubt he will try. I am sure Trump loves the gesture though.
Another desperate stunt by Meatball Ron in what will be a futile attempt to claw away some of Trump's low information MAGA supporters. He will probably not be able to do it and if he does actually attempt to remove Biden from the ballot it will further embarrass Governor DeSanctimonious. As far as DeSantis is concerned the only question now is whether he withdraws and suspends his candidacy after a relatively respectable loss by a margin of around 10 percent to Trump in the Iowa caucuses or decides to wait until he is thoroughly embarrassed in the New Hampshire Primary in which he will be lucky to end up with 15 percent of the vote in a third place finish behind Trump and Haley.
Welp, we will know soon enough how this particular Supreme Court decides the issue, and I am looking forward to reading the gymnastics required to steer around their recent textual precedent. The constitution, and its amendments, according to jurists such as the beloved Clarence Thomas, must be read as is, with no dive into any other factor. I clearly disagree with Thomas and his new followers on the Court, for so many reasons, on so many decisions. But his “team” is in a real pickle to wrangle around their own words to support the guy that appointed several of them.
Don't be surprised when it's a 9-0 decision in favor of Trump. I can't imagine the Court will appreciate being put on the spot like this, notwithstanding previous precedent which has already established a POTUS or VP doesn't fit the definition of "officer" in the context of the 14th Amendment. They won't have to do any gymnastics.
"...previous precedent which has already established a POTUS or VP doesn't fit the definition of "officer" in the context of the 14th Amendment." Source?
AAgree. If I were betting I would still put my money on Trump although a Trump victory is no longer the slam dunk that it was even a couple of months ago.
The president absolutely fits the definition of an officer. I think Trump will prevail although on the issue of whether he is engaged in an insurrection or rebellion. The court may decide that the January 6th attack on the Capitol did not meet the definition of insurrection envisioned by the drafters of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment or more likely that Trump has never been charged or more specifically convicted of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion. The Court could even use the technicality that the terms "insurrection" or "rebellion" for purposes of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has not been defined through legislation.
At least from my very limited understanding of the Constitution, Luttig and Tribe believe Trump is disqualified based on the self-executing section 3 of the 14th amendment for fomenting a violent insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and this doesn't require a criminal conviction. He further makes the point, this is different than the political aspect. The USSC will have to either follow the Constitution or decide to become a political body. ‘This case will test America’s commitment to its democracy,’ says former judge who crafted 14th Amendment challenge against Trump So did Trump want violence on Jan 6 to overthrow the election? More testimony by his closest advisors, like Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, supports that he indeed wanted the violence. While Scavino and others pleaded with Trump to do something to stop the violence that day, he did nothing to stop the violence and instead: "After unsuccessfully trying for up to 20 minutes to persuade Trump to release some sort of calming statement, Scavino and others walked out of the dining room, leaving Trump alone, sources said. That's when, according to sources, Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done." Special counsel probe uncovers new details about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6: Sources
What previous precedent has established that POTUS or VP doesn't fit the definition of "officer" in the context of the 14th Amendment? I know his lawyers argued that it didn't apply to him because he didn't take an oath to support the constitution, but I don't remember them providing any precedent that already established POTUS wasn't an officer of the United States.
I read different versions of the column by Luttig and Tribe and agree that they presented a very compelling argument. I would also agree that based on the plain meaning of the term Trump indeed did incite an insurrection. That being said I still believe that SCOTUS will find some type of pretext to avoid the removal of Trump from the ballot. While the decision may be based more on politics than on a strict interpretation of the Constitution I don't think the Supreme Court wants to be in a position of removing a presidential candidate with the support of at least 40 percent of the electorate from the ballot.
I’m more interested in reading t he legal gymnastics of certain justices to get there. I personally don’t think it’s good to have a self-executing exclusion to the ballot, but the Supreme Court’s recent opinions will make it very difficult for them to reconcile their textualist construction. The text does not require any findings, exactly as argued to Colorado. And as others have said, the argument that the president is not an officer is a loser at inception.
