Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

Hitler had a failed coup, then came into power years later, yada, yada, yada, today Germany seems pretty OK.
 
acbytesla said:
Oh c'mon. This is patently dishonest. Yes, he spoke in euphemisms. Trump NEVER personally tells others to break laws but makes it implicit that is EXACTLY what he expects. He MAFIA SPEAKS his way through everything.

He wanted violence. He wanted chaos. He wanted to prevent the counting of the votes. That Turd attacked Pence by tweet as the violence unfolded. Phones throughout the crowd went off with tweet notifications from Dur Leader. The crowd instantly started screaming to "hang Mike Pence."

If Trump tweeted for them to stop and immediately taken to the air waves they would have stopped. That he did NOTHING for five hours but watch it on TV should be enough for any reasonable human to know his intent.

I am so sick of people pretending that they don't know this. In a criminal trial, it is required that the defendant is proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond any doubt. It is not reasonable to believe that Trump wasn't trying to prevent the formal peaceful transfer of power. That is a coup.
Click to expand...

as comical as it is now to claim it was just some big misunderstanding, it's interesting because he was pretty non-committal to the whole thing considering what he was attempting to do. i don't think you can be half way in on insurrections. as far as it's role in this, it's been noted before but i want to note it again, is that jan 6 was the last, desperate attempt to create a condition to enact a much broader plan that revolved around either mike pence refusing to certify or the date passing. he was able to achieve neither, but he certainly spent a lot more time and effort into overthrowing the government than inviting a bunch of people to a rally that accidentally got out of hand. on nothing he did during or after really speaks to that being true either.

personally i look at it as an attempt to downplay the severity of what trump did by acting as if this jan 6 thing would have never worked because it was so dumb. which it does seem stupid in isolation of what was going on in the background. if somoene chooses to pretend to believe that's all what was they can but i won't.
 
newyorkguy said:
NPR has a video clip and a transcript of trump's remarks to the crowd at the White House on January 6th.


On Dec 19, 2020 trump was urging his followers to come to DC on Jan 6th. trump tweeted, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"

Fight like hell, will be wild. Telling the crowd to "do it peacefully," was just trump's way of covering his butt. He knew what was going to happen and it was exactly what he wanted to have happen.
Click to expand...

The Things you missed is what Trump's Advisor Jerome Corsi was telling Trump. Supporters on his Corsi Nation on December 5th 2021.
He Told them Trump was going to declare the Insurrection act and put General Flynn in Charge of the Pentagon, not Mike Flynn his Brother I think.
Corsi completely deleted his Corsi Nation YouTube Channel at 3:30 Am on December 7th. He the put out a video saying he was moving in a new direction.
 
theprestige said:
Protests in D.C. have a long and storied history of not being insurrections. I'm sure that everyone here agrees this is a tradition that should be upheld. And I'm sure everyone here who supported the BLM demonstrations acknowledges that a bit of vandalism and trespassing is to be expected and not especially criminalized in such demonstrations.

So "Jan 6 was a coup attempt" doesn't ring true for me. It was a demonstration. It was no more an insurrection than the Bonus Army was an insurrection.
Click to expand...

Trump's Lies and attempted overturning of the Certification prove you wrong, he attempted an Illegal action to keep himself out of Prison by Defrauding the United States, thus remaining in power after his term expired.
 
dirtywick said:
as comical as it is now to claim it was just some big misunderstanding, it's interesting because he was pretty non-committal to the whole thing considering what he was attempting to do. i don't think you can be half way in on insurrections. as far as it's role in this, it's been noted before but i want to note it again, is that jan 6 was the last, desperate attempt to create a condition to enact a much broader plan that revolved around either mike pence refusing to certify or the date passing. he was able to achieve neither, but he certainly spent a lot more time and effort into overthrowing the government than inviting a bunch of people to a rally that accidentally got out of hand. on nothing he did during or after really speaks to that being true either.

personally i look at it as an attempt to downplay the severity of what trump did by acting as if this jan 6 thing would have never worked because it was so dumb. which it does seem stupid in isolation of what was going on in the background. if somoene chooses to pretend to believe that's all what was they can but i won't.
Click to expand...

When you hear the Proud Boy calling out BLM on January 6th, you might realize that Russian bots and Trolls were working trying to bring both groups together on that day, hoping it would stoke a violent conflict that would explode and Allow Trump to declare the Insurrection act.
Unfortunately for the Russian Trolls BLM was warned in advance Trump was going to have an Insurrection on the 6th, and all BLM had to do was stay away, and not give Trump a chance to declare the Insurrection as declaration of the Insurrection act on Trump's own supporters that he himself called to the Capitol would be a major problem for Trump.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Now that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal, what are the possible decisions:
1) Rule that Jan. 6 did not qualify as an insurrection.
2) Rule that Trump has not been proven to have been a participant in what happened at the Capitol.
3) Rule that the 14th amendment only prevents insurrectionists from taking office but not from running for office and that it would be a violation of a political party's constitutional rights to prevent them from running the candidate of their choice.
4) Rule that the parties rather than the govt. organize the primary elections and that it's up to the political parties whether they want to allow an ineligible person to compete.
5) Rule that the determination of the eligibility of candidates under the 14th amendment is the purview of the legislative branch and not the courts.
6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.
7) Rule that the hearings on the disqualification did not afford Trump a sufficient opportunity to present his case.
8) Rule that since the ballots have been printed and mailed out that it's too late to remove Trump from the ballot.
9) Uphold the Colorado decision.

What others have a missed?
Click to expand...

Rule that the original intent of the amendment was to prevent former officers of the Confederacy from assuming federal offices after the Civil War.
 
theprestige said:
Protests in D.C. have a long and storied history of not being insurrections. I'm sure that everyone here agrees this is a tradition that should be upheld. And I'm sure everyone here who supported the BLM demonstrations acknowledges that a bit of vandalism and trespassing is to be expected and not especially criminalized in such demonstrations.

So "Jan 6 was a coup attempt" doesn't ring true for me. It was a demonstration. It was no more an insurrection than the Bonus Army was an insurrection.
Click to expand...
Seriously, that's your excuse for ignoring reality?

At what point did you notice smashing windows, pushing over barricades, and forcing their way past DC police went beyond "a bit of vandalism"? Or maybe you never noticed the difference?
 
Hercules56 said:
He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".
Click to expand...

There you go again ignoring Trump's refusal to stop the violence. Did I miss your reply to that issue?
 
Brainster said:
Rule that the original intent of the amendment was to prevent former officers of the Confederacy from assuming federal offices after the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Original intent was to also apply to any future insurrections. There was debate on the disqualification section in Congress that you can read.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
"States' rights" was a big thing in those days. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the 14th amendment that will over-rlde state laws. If the authors had intended Section 5 to mean that Congress would need to pass laws to enforce the 14th amendment, they would have written something like "The Congress shall enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article".
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
Possibly.
Click to expand...
No, not "possibly". Try obviously.


Hercules56 said:
I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.
Click to expand...
So? Are we too stupid to read between his lines? He's immune because he's clever? :rolleyes:
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
"States' rights" was a big thing in those days. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the 14th amendment that will over-rlde state laws. If the authors had intended Section 5 to mean that Congress would need to pass laws to enforce the 14th amendment, they would have written something like "The Congress shall enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article".
Click to expand...
Is there any section in the constitution that compels the congress to enact any legislation?
 
JayUtah said:
The question of whether the amendment is self-executing has not been consistently answered.
Click to expand...

Considering their previous rulings and public statements, how do you and your lawyer buddies think the current SCOTUS will rule on the CO case?

Do you think they may simply wash their hands of the issue and say the states can do what they like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom