Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[George Washington]

No, he didn't. That is what the Georgia case is about. He stole classified documents and refused to return them. He was behind getting the fake electors to Congress. It appears that you are extremely ignorant of the depth of trump's guilt. That is why he is facing three cases now on just how he broke the law at the end of his term.

And none of those things would bar him being allowed on a ballot. The only thing that matters in regards to this topic is what qualifies one as being guilty of "insurrection".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And none of those things would bar him being allowed on a ballot. The only thing that matters in regards to this topic is what qualifies one as being guilty of "insurrection".

His actions on January 6 would. And remember, you and I are both rather ignorant about legal matters but all of the Colorado judges agreed that what he did qualified as instigating an insurrection. They are experts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And none of those things would bar him being allowed on a ballot. The only thing that matters in regards to this topic is what qualifies one as being guilty of "insurrection".

And you think that a coup attempt by trying to rig an election doesn't count as insurrection?

Trump committed insurrection long before he even gave his speech.

Trump was also instrumental in inciting the mob that tried to kill Pence and members of Congress once it was clear that they weren't going to go along with the coup that Trump had planned, but this was just the icing on the traitorous cake.

 

[Sargonski]

I do.



It is both a criminal offense and grounds for ineligibility for public office. It's probably grounds for other things, too (e.g. civil liability).

Criminal penalties are addressed through criminal law. Electoral penalties are addressed through electoral law. Both work in parallel.

Indeed insurgency is a criminal offence and can be grounds for ineligibility for public office .. provided the person is convicted of the criminal offence via due process and observence of the proper rules of Justice.

 

[McBell]

Indeed insurgency is a criminal offence and can be grounds for ineligibility for public office .. provided the person is convicted of the criminal offence via due process and observence of the proper rules of Justice.

Again you make the claim that a conviction is required.

Please present the documentation to support your bold empty claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed insurgency is a criminal offence and can be grounds for ineligibility for public office .. provided the person is convicted of the criminal offence via due process and observence of the proper rules of Justice.

Do you need some actual case law that shows that you are wrong? I have the link to legal precedent that you keep ignoring handy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed insurgency is a criminal offence and can be grounds for ineligibility for public office .. provided the person is convicted of the criminal offence via due process and observence of the proper rules of Justice.

Please quote the law that says the part in bold.

 

[fantome profane]

I won’t vote for Trump but I do think he likes America.

Like the fox likes the chicken.

 

[Copernicus]

Indeed insurgency is a criminal offence and can be grounds for ineligibility for public office .. provided the person is convicted of the criminal offence via due process and observence of the proper rules of Justice.

Eight insurrectionists have been formally disqualified under the 14th Amendment in the past. None of the eight was disqualified on the basis of a criminal conviction, and the wording of the amendment clearly does not require that. Just giving aid to an insurrection triggers section 3. Also, after the Civil War, thousands of amnesty requests were sent to Congress to have the Section 3 disqualifications removed, and that showed that people understood at the time that they did not need an adjudication process to be disqualified from public office.

So your idea that a criminal conviction is needed for disqualification is simply wrong. That's why Trump's lawyers in Colorado did not try to use lack of criminal conviction as a defense. Instead, they went with the lame excuse that the person in charge of the Office of the Presidency was somehow not to be considered an officer of the United States. The lower court judge affirmed that defense, but it lost on appeal.

 

[George Washington]

And you think that a coup attempt by trying to rig an election doesn't count as insurrection?

Trump committed insurrection long before he even gave his speech.

Insurrection is defined as a "violent" uprising. Rigging an election is not an act of violence, as per the topic of this conversation (being kicked off a ballot).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Insurrection is defined as a "violent" uprising. Rigging an election is not an act of violence, as per the topic of this conversation.

Note the bold:

While the term "insurrection" is not explicitly defined by federal law, courts and legal scholars generally interpret it as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.

Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Review 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection law which makes it a crime to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion against United States authority.

www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com

 

[George Washington]

Note the bold:

Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Review 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection law which makes it a crime to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion against United States authority.

www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com

And we have evidence that Trump, himself, was directly involved in organized resistance to the government?

How can we prove he was involved anymore than Joe Biden or anyone we choose to say?

 

[fantome profane]

Insurrection is defined as a "violent" uprising. Rigging an election is not an act of violence, as per the topic of this conversation (being kicked off a ballot).

But it is not just insurrection, it is insurrection or rebellion, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[Copernicus]

Tell you what, if it can be proven that Donald Trump was "Q" the whole time? I'll join you.

But realistically, Donald Trump has had ZERO contact with any of the Jan, 6 "insurrectionists". He does not know them. He has never spoken to any of them, not even in secret.

You guys are just wishing on a star.

Inviting them to a campaign rally in social media, personally riling them up with anger at Congress and Mike Pence for not stopping the Constitutional process of counting elector ballots, and urging them to march on the Capitol in order to stop that process--that is far from ZERO contact. It took the Secret Service to restrain him from joining the march, and he did nothing to stop the violence when he watched it on television for several hours, although his oath of office obligated him to defend the Constitutional process, not the rioters. Trump was clearly happy that they were trying to stop the electoral count, because he really believed that that would wreck the process enough to throw it into the hands of Congress to decide who won the election. IOW, Donald Trump planned to overturn the legal process for choosing presidents as spelled out in the Constitution. That qualifies as an insurrection against the US government, and that is why some members of the effort--Proud Boys and Oathkeepers--have been criminally convicted of seditious conspiracy. All of those convicted cited Donald Trump as their reason for engaging in the conspiracy, and honorary Proud Boy, Roger Stone, Donald Trump's personal friend and confidant (who was pardoned by Trump), helped with communication between Trump and the conspirators.

 

[George Washington]

But it is not just insurrection, it is insurrection or rebellion, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But we can't go off belief, or faith. If that were the case, we could tie anyone we want to this rebellion that we please. Even Joe Biden, just by saying it.

Gotta have that conviction, or some equivalence first.

 

[fantome profane]

But we can't go off belief, or faith. If that were the case, we could tie anyone we want to this rebellion that we please. Even Joe Biden, just by saying it.

Gotta have that conviction, or some equivalence first.

Like maybe have an inquiry? Maybe collect evidence and testimony and present it to the public? Would that be good enough?

 

[Copernicus]

Insurrection is defined as a "violent" uprising. Rigging an election is not an act of violence, as per the topic of this conversation (being kicked off a ballot).

Actually, it is the act of revolting against a government, and that need not necessarily be by violence. There have been nonviolent coups in other countries in the past. Almost every modern dictatorship arose in representative democracies where the coup plotters simply seized control of the government in a way that exceeded their legal authority. Trump's insurrection did involve violence that included many injuries and some deaths. The Capitol Building was violently breached, and Congressional representatives were forced to flee for their lives and hide. Trump was aware of that and refused to lift a finger to stop it, despite being urged repeatedly to exercise his authority and influence to stop it. Ultimately, he did reluctantly put out a message telling them to go home, praising their efforts in the process. That counts as giving aid to a violent act of insurrection.

 

[George Washington]

Like maybe have an inquiry? Maybe collect evidence and testimony and present it to the public? Would that be good enough?

The USSC should decide what is good enough. They need to.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If it was just once you might have a point . But in context he was clearly urging on his minions to attack the capitol even if he did not come right out and say it.

Clearly you say. Clearly urging his minions to attack the capital even if he didn't come out and say it?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly you say. Clearly urging his minions to attack the capital even if he didn't come out and say it?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Oh my! Creationist reasoning. There is no help for it.