The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Wandering Monk]

I say you are not responsible for the violence because you never told them to commit violence. Trump questioned an election results, that is his right or any politicians right to do so publicly. If a politician say s to harm someone or commit violence then they are accountable. This is not what happened. Saying to fight like hell does not mean violence. It is a term used by many politicians over the years. Even HIllary and Obama used similar language.

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected? These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

No, my argument is you want to punish Trump for your interpretation of what he meant not actually what he said. Punishing people for speech that you have to interpret a certain way to make it violent is tyrannical. You have to make people accountable for what they actually say and not interpret a different meaning. He never called for violence and tweeted several times to stop the violence and respect the police.

Should HIllary Clinton get punished for her comments about the 2016 election? She still cannot admit she lost even though there is not good evidence that she did win.

Trump is not being prosecuted for what he said, but for what he did. Read the special counsel's indictment of Trump. Full text here: Read: Full text of Trump indictment in Jack Smith's 2020 election probe

BTW, every conspiracy starts with speech of some kind.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In the Colorado saga, Trump was found by a court of law to have engaged in insurrection. This was upheld on appeal.

Trump and his attorneys were able to present evidence in both cases.

His defense team was not given the evidence that was going to be presented against him prior to hearing. The standard was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, why are you ok with a court concluding he participated in an insurrection but was never charged for 3+ years? No prosecutor has ever charged him with it. Why is that? If Jack Smith could charge him with insurrection you know he would. The logical conclusion is that he knows he cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t get to kick a person off the ballot because you think he has committed a crime but can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for the charge of insurrection in a criminal court.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Trump is not being prosecuted for what he said, but for what he did. Read the special counsel's indictment of Trump. Full text here: Read: Full text of Trump indictment in Jack Smith's 2020 election probe

BTW, every conspiracy starts with speech of some kind.


View attachment 86739

Yes, but where is the insurrection charge? That is why he is being taken off the ballot in Colorado.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because, as every always knew it would (and as Trump is making every effort to capitalize on), Trump's unique position makes the job of criminasl procedures against him extremely tricky. (He has been found guilty of insurrection in a civil action in Colorado, upheld on appeal.)

Source, New York Times, Charlie Savage, Aug. 4, 2023

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks​

​

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.​

​

In accusing former President Donald J. Trump of conspiring to subvert American democracy, the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged the same story three different ways. The charges are novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances, heightening legal risks, but Mr. Smith’s tactic gives him multiple paths in obtaining and upholding a guilty verdict.​

​

“Especially in a case like this, you want to have multiple charges that are applicable or provable with the same evidence, so that if on appeal you lose one, you still have the conviction,” said Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor.​

​

That structure in the indictment is only one of several strategic choices by Mr. Smith — including what facts and potential charges he chose to include or omit — that may foreshadow and shape how an eventual trial of Mr. Trump will play out.​

​

The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.​

​

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”​

​

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.​

​

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”​

​

For one, Mr. Smith said little about the violent events of Jan. 6, leaving out vast amounts of evidence in the report by a House committee that separately investigated the matter. He focused more on a brazen plan to recruit false slates of electors from swing states and a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.​

​

That choice dovetails with Mr. Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.​

The standard is preponderance of evidence in a civil court. Is that ok with you to take away someone's liberty? Also, all this is to say he is not going to charge Trump with insurrection because he does not think he would win that case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

His defense team was not given the evidence that was going to be presented against him prior to hearing. The standard was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

In what ways do you think that what's been presented in court would fail to meet that standard?

Also, why are you ok with a court concluding he participated in an insurrection but was never charged for 3+ years?

I'm not. I think Trump should already be in prison. The fact that he's still free is an affront to justice.

No prosecutor has ever charged him with it. Why is that? If Jack Smith could charge him with insurrection you know he would. The logical conclusion is that he knows he cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said earlier, prosecutorial discretion is a thing. It's common for prosecutors to pick and choose among the crimes a perp has committed and only indict for the ones they feel have the best chance of conviction.

Capone went to prison for tax evasion. This doesn't mean he was innocent of murder and racketeering.

You don’t get to kick a person off the ballot because you think he has committed a crime but can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard for the charge of insurrection in a criminal court.

Committed insurrection. The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about the insurrection having to be a crime. If a president managed to find a legal way to commit insurrection, they'd still be ineligible for office.

An impossible distinction, considering Trump's argument that everything a sitting president does is legal. Even if he were right, it wouldn't matter, since someone who committed insurrection without breaking any laws has still committed insurrection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The standard is preponderance of evidence in a civil court.

Why would you think that a case about election eligibility would follow anything other than civil law?

Is that ok with you to take away someone's liberty?

Whose liberty do you think is being taken away?

Also, all this is to say he is not going to charge Trump with insurrection because he does not think he would win that case.

Do you have any other psychic powers besides mind-reading?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Committed insurrection. The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about the insurrection having to be a crime. If a president managed to find a legal way to commit insurrection, they'd still be ineligible for office.

I am so glad that I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, why are you ok with a court concluding he participated in an insurrection but was never charged for 3+ years? No prosecutor has ever charged him with it.

The 14th Amendment doesn't require that insurrection
be determined by a criminal court. Only that the Prez
engaged in it. This leaves open who gets to determine
it & how.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said he signed anything. He recommended them. Defense secretary MIller testified that Trump asked him on Jan 3rd if troops were going to be deployed and told him to protect the demonstrators.

You need valid sources when you write such insane nonsense. Did Trump really say "to protect the demonstrators"? That makes no sense at all. Who was going to attack them? Oh wait, North Korea, of course.

EDIT: It appears that yes, Trump did make that insane request. It also sounds as if he wanted to use the troops for his own purposes:

According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/

Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."

"Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.

Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.

Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer."

"Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law."

Here is the TLDR, yes, Trump requested National Guard troops. The military was deliberately restrained that day because they are not idiots and they could see through Trump's thin tissue of lies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The standard is preponderance of evidence in a civil court. Is that ok with you to take away someone's liberty? Also, all this is to say he is not going to charge Trump with insurrection because he does not think he would win that case.

I also have the evidence of what I've seen with my own eyes, as a careful follower of the news (looking on from Canada). I have been watching Trump carefully (holding my nose) since he escalator grand entrance at Trump Tower, and to say that it has been shocking for a contender for President, and then actual President of the United States would be understating it immensely. I take it that you follow only the news you want to hear, ignoring, or willfully forgetting, the rest.

Donald Trump is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar (The Atlantic, Oct, 2016) He expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and is clearly authoritarian himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone wiht control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

Maybe, some people hoped, the Presidency would change him. It did not.

If you read the papers, as I do every day, you would have found it truly difficult to keep up with the velocity of chaos during his Presidency unmanageable. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that he may have been (or may still be) a Russian-intelligence asset.

Let's just review some of what this "hero" of the dumb right is all about:

Six Bankruptcies (not personal, but his businesses), have cheated those who worked for him of their wages, those who lent him money of their returns, owners of stocks and bonds of their savings, many small businesses who provided his companies with merchandise and services (unsecured creditors) of the proceeds they rightly deserved. And because the businesses used Chapter 11, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me." He also said: "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business." Yes, it was all very good for him. It badly hurt a very great many other people, however. As any "good Christian" would want to do.

He has used people and discarded them like used toilet paper. Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Stormy Daniels, whom he shagged for cash and then called "horse-face" -- I won't even bother with the list. Trump cares for nobody but himself. And that, of course, excludes you and every other American he hopes to reign over.

Separating parents from their children at the border -- so many parents extradited, their children left in custody, many who will never see their parents again! Gotta admire the Christian goodness, right?

"Very fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville, an episode that tells you everything you need to know about his philosophy -- which is the preservation of the traditional Americain hierarchies of race.

He has still never released his tax records, and during his presidency his businesses continued to provide Trump money. And don't annoy me by telling me it was in the "blind trust" of his sons -- that wouldn't be accepted for any other person in the United States. That's called emoluments, by the way.

Did you remember to drink your bleach and shove UV lights down your throat and up your butt during the pandemic? That was Trump's advice, you know. Oh, and to take horse pills and unapproved, untested drugs.

"Hey, Puerto Ricans, I know it was a bad storm and lots of damage -- here, I brought some paper towels to help you clean up!"

January 11, 2018, during an Oval Office talk with several U.S. senators about protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries in a new immigration package, Trump revealed the hierarchy he imposes on the world: “Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”

Absolutely vile remarks about John Cain from a faker who got out of any sort of service by complaining of "bone spurs," terrible things that have never bothered him during a golf game.

Remember him trying to kick transgender folk out of the military?

=============================================

Oh, why continue (yet there's so, so much more)? You'll continue to idolize him and I will never be able to understand why, nor be able to give much credit to your discernment or common sense.

 

[Laniakea]

The 14th Amendment doesn't require that insurrection
be determined by a criminal court. Only that the Prez
engaged in it. This leaves open who gets to determine
it & how.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Only that the Prez
engaged in it. This leaves open who gets to determine
it & how."

Not a very strict way of applying standards. If what you said is the standard for what an "insurrection" is, then why should there be any stricter standard for lesser crimes, such as rape, assault, theft, etc. ?

 

[metis]

Oh ok. A one sided partisan committee run by the opposition party where evidence that defends Trump is not allowed. The republicans on the committee hated Trump. That was not due process.

False as it was a legal proceeding that issue subpoenas and had two Republicans aboard. The Republicans hated Trump because he's dishonest and tried to stop the certification of the 2020 election, plus other legal matters.

Frankly, I can't see how any person of a Christian faith can support or even vote for him without walking away from the Gospel.

 

[metis]

Yeah, so he told them to march peaceably, they did not and now you blame Trump for the violence. How have you determined that Trump did not believe what he said about election fraud?

Apparently, you didn't hear what he said just before his crowd moved towards the Capitol, and then later praising them and saying it was peaceful. Many of those arrested, tried, and found guilty did so because they said Trump told them to.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Only that the Prez
engaged in it. This leaves open who gets to determine
it & how."

Not a very strict way of applying standards. If what you said is the standard for what an "insurrection" is, then why should there be any stricter standard for lesser crimes, such as rape, assault, theft, etc. ?

The standards are prescribed as they variously are
for the various offenses by various functionaries.
Lack of uniformity is endemic in our systems.

 

[Stevicus]

My concern is more apathy by voters than support for Trump. Trump only lost by 42,000 votes in four swing states in 2020, and that was with record voting, and after Trump's disasterous handling of the pandemic. I don't see the civic passion against Trump this cycle. There is passion against Trump for those who value the law, justice and emocracy, and for Trump by most conservatives who are buying into disinformation against the DOJ and the Biden adminstration, including false claims of criminality aginst Biden. I can see these swing states go for Trump. There is a chance for Biden to win Florida since there is an abortion access question on their ballot. A Trump conviction might be enough to sway public support for him. The man is disturbed and unfit.

I think what we'll see is a kind of procedural "civil war" of sorts. The parties will be flexing their muscle in the states where they're stronger, using that power to give advantage to their party. The trouble with our adversarial political and legal system is that both sides want to win, and that's often considered more important than who's actually right. More is the pity.

Now that I have thought about how this could affect the public my view is that Trump should be allowed to be on the ballots. It's good this case is being heard soon so whatever the outcome it will be many months before the election. As we see many republicans are reacting with baseless acts against Biden, like the impeachment inquiry and threats of kicking Biden off of ballots, for baseless reasons.

One funny report was how disturbed and angry Trump became when having to stand when judges entered court rooms. It's not a surprise, but it further illustrates how petty he is, and how priviledged he sees himself, and above the standards of the legal system. The man is disturbed and unfit.

I think if the Court rules in favor of states being able to remove Trump from the ballot, then they'll likely be inundated with multiple lawsuits from red states claiming that they should be able to remove Biden from the ballot. Even if they have no legal basis for doing so, that won't stop them from trying. If the Court rules that the states can't remove either Trump or Biden from the ballot, then that would settle that.

 

[F1fan]

I think what we'll see is a kind of procedural "civil war" of sorts. The parties will be flexing their muscle in the states where they're stronger, using that power to give advantage to their party. The trouble with our adversarial political and legal system is that both sides want to win, and that's often considered more important than who's actually right. More is the pity.



I think if the Court rules in favor of states being able to remove Trump from the ballot, then they'll likely be inundated with multiple lawsuits from red states claiming that they should be able to remove Biden from the ballot. Even if they have no legal basis for doing so, that won't stop them from trying. If the Court rules that the states can't remove either Trump or Biden from the ballot, then that would settle that.

I doubt the SC will confirm CO, only for the sake of avoiding more controversy. There is plenty from the CO dissent for them to side with. And if MO pulls Biden from the ballot that will have to go through due process and unlikely to stand. Trump actually did acts to justify removal. Biden? Nothing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I say you are not responsible for the violence because you never told them to commit violence.

Wow. That's it? The fact that I (in this hypothetical) repeatedly called you a paedophile, told this to my followers and encouraged my followers to march on your house is completely and totally consequentially disconnected from those people breaking in to your home and hurting you and your family? I bare NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER for that happening?

This is morally insane. If you genuinely believe this, then you literally cannot hold anybody accountable for practically anything.

Trump questioned an election results, that is his right or any politicians right to do so publicly.

No, he explicitly claimed the election was stolen. He didn't "question", it explicitly claimed - over and over again, to thousands of people he had significant influence over - that it WAS STOLEN.

If a politician say s to harm someone or commit violence then they are accountable. This is not what happened.

You have no idea how accountability works if that's seriously what you believe.

I mean, has nobody ever told you "Don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"? Or were you instead taught "It's perfectly fine to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre, as long as you don't explicitly tell people to panic and trample over each other"?

Saying to fight like hell does not mean violence. It is a term used by many politicians over the years. Even HIllary and Obama used similar language.

Did they use it while instructing their followers to march on a building containing people at that moment who were engaging in the very process they had told them was unjust and needed to stop?

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected?

No, because he clearly would. That's a justifiable position given the context. Trump's position was not, and the context in which he used those claims was obviously going to contribute to actual violence. I refer you back to the paedophile analogy. Do you not accept that there is a pretty obvious and clear difference between doing what I did and Biden calling someone WHO HAS PROVEN TO BE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY a threat to democracy? That's just normal political rhetoric. What Trump did was explicitly state, in contradiction of all available facts, that the ELECTION WAS STOLEN, to THOUSANDS OF HIS ADORING FOLLOWERS, at the VERY LOCATION THAT THE VOTE WAS TO RATIFIED AND ON THE DAY IT WAS TO BE RATIFIED, and instruct said followers to MARCH TO THE SPECIFIC PLACE WHERE THAT WAS HAPPENING. He then refused to act to calm down the crowd once violent broke out (until hours later).

Also, where did Biden explicitly call for violence?

These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

Ahh, interesting. So comments made by Biden THAT DO NOT MENTION OR CALL FOR VIOLENCE are inflammatory because they "COULD LEAD TO VIOLENCE if someone takes him seriously", but Trump's comments about the election being stolen (despite all evidence to the contrary) that LEAD TO ACTUAL VIOLENCE BECAUSE PEOPLE TOOK THEM SERIOUSLY were NOT inflammatory? That is extremely interesting. It's almost as if you understand perfectly well that just because someone doesn't call for explicit violence doesn't mean that their rhetoric couldn't be considered inflammatory or inciting TO VIOLENCE, but you're just applying this standard selectively because you want to defend Trump and attack the Democrats.

Thus, you expose your clear double-standard. You're ideologically inconsistent. You just want to defend Trump, because you don't mind when violence results from rhetoric if you agree with it. You only care about incitement to violence when it's done by people you disagree with.

There is absolutely zero other reasonable conclusion from your clearly and unambiguously stated double standard.

No, my argument is you want to punish Trump for your interpretation of what he meant not actually what he said.

No, I want to punish him for - at the very least - inciting an insurrection in which several people died. What people SAY is a secondary issue - the CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR SPEECH AND ACTIONS is what matters.

Punishing people for speech that you have to interpret a certain way to make it violent is tyrannical.

Says the person who doesn't care if rhetoric leads people to interrupt democracy, call for the death of politicians and enact violence.

You have to make people accountable for what they actually say and not interpret a different meaning. He never called for violence and tweeted several times to stop the violence and respect the police.

He refused to call for peace until forced, and the violence was an inevitable result of his explicit instructions and his unwillingness to accept reality.

I'm willing to guess you're the kind of person who blames BLM for those riots a few years ago, yeah? Well, how could you blame them if they never called for violence?

Should HIllary Clinton get punished for her comments about the 2016 election? She still cannot admit she lost even though there is not good evidence that she did win.

Hillary conceded the election. She did not tell her followers that the election was explicitly rigged. This kind of flagrant equivocation is absurd.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In what ways do you think that what's been presented in court would fail to meet that standard?

The three dissenting justices said because Trump has not been convicted to insurrection the case should have been thrown out. 2 of the justices said Trump was not afforded proper due process.

Committed insurrection. The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about the insurrection having to be a crime. If a president managed to find a legal way to commit insurrection, they'd still be ineligible for office.

An impossible distinction, considering Trump's argument that everything a sitting president does is legal. Even if he were right, it wouldn't matter, since someone who committed insurrection without breaking any laws has still committed insurrection.

What is the definition of insurrection as it pertains to the constitution?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The three dissenting justices said because Trump has not been convicted to insurrection the case should have been thrown out. 2 of the justices said Trump was not afforded proper due process.

In the American system of justice, in a state Supreme Court decision, do you think the dissenting opinion carries more weight than the majority opinion?

What is the definition of insurrection as it pertains to the constitution?

The Constitution doesn't define the term, so it's defined according to the principles of statutory interpretation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The 14th Amendment doesn't require that insurrection
be determined by a criminal court. Only that the Prez
engaged in it. This leaves open who gets to determine
it & how.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is what the US Supreme court needs to decide. I think Minnesota and Michigan courts concluded it is up to congress to decide. We will see.