Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) called former President Trump a “liar,” after he suggested a recent push to use the 14th Amendment to keep him off the ballot in the state was “electio…
Historically speaking, there is precedent for preventing someone from running for office under the 14th amendment without ever having tried them formally for insurrection or rebellion. Former Confederates were never allowed to hold public office ever again after the Civil War was over. None of them were tried for acts of insurrection. Presumably because there was an abundance of evidence of their involvement in the Confederacy (army payroll ledgers, draft notices, eyewitnesses, etc.).
The constitution is quite clear on this. They would have specified that it required some kind of congressional vote or judicial ruling if that’s what they intended, but they didn’t.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn’t establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
There sure is plenty of evidence that Jan 6th was orchestrated by Trump and his allies. I don’t know how you can sit there and play did-he-didn’t-he in regards to Trump’s involvement when there’s videos of him egging on his followers during the rally and watching the chaos at the capitol unfold on live television, all while not lifting a finger to prevent it from happening.
We can be reasonably sure he had involvement, either directly or through one of his cabinet. He should be banned from having his name on ballots across the country. Won’t stop morons from writing his name in anyway, I’d wager.
That’s what I’m saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn’t? What was insurrection and what wasn’t?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden “stole” the election. We know that’s not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn’t true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It’s not about what is believed to be true, it’s about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
And, again, phrases like “aid and comfort” have precise legal definitions. It has to be proven that Trump did this. You can’t just go “Well, look at the Tweets!”
don’t forget that NOT doing something can also be aid and comfort, when you for example actively DO NOT send federal troops to put down an obviously active attack on the government (which included violence against federal police) or by NOT immediately calling for those actions to cease.
These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement.
Easily arguable that he provided “aid and comfort”. Also, you’re full of it as the term has not received a full judicial construction and is not precisely defined, likely on purpose.
Historically speaking, there is precedent for preventing someone from running for office under the 14th amendment without ever having tried them formally for insurrection or rebellion. Former Confederates were never allowed to hold public office ever again after the Civil War was over. None of them were tried for acts of insurrection. Presumably because there was an abundance of evidence of their involvement in the Confederacy (army payroll ledgers, draft notices, eyewitnesses, etc.).
The constitution is quite clear on this. They would have specified that it required some kind of congressional vote or judicial ruling if that’s what they intended, but they didn’t.
Being a Confederate was demonstrable.
How do you prove Trump engaged in insurrection? He never formally disavowed the Government, he didn’t establish a foreign standing army. Heck, he took the most egregious actions when he was, in fact, President.
This is why there needs to be a conviction first. There is no MAGA equivalent of the Articles of the Confederacy.
There sure is plenty of evidence that Jan 6th was orchestrated by Trump and his allies. I don’t know how you can sit there and play did-he-didn’t-he in regards to Trump’s involvement when there’s videos of him egging on his followers during the rally and watching the chaos at the capitol unfold on live television, all while not lifting a finger to prevent it from happening.
We can be reasonably sure he had involvement, either directly or through one of his cabinet. He should be banned from having his name on ballots across the country. Won’t stop morons from writing his name in anyway, I’d wager.
That’s what I’m saying though, who decides what is evidence and what isn’t? What was insurrection and what wasn’t?
There are plenty of (wrong) people who claim the evidence is that Biden “stole” the election. We know that’s not true, but to claim Trump is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that he believed it wasn’t true, that he was not acting, as he believied to be, the rightly elected President.
This is why we have a court system. It’s not about what is believed to be true, it’s about what can be proven to be true, in court, before a judge.
You seem to purposely leave out the “aid and comfort” clause exists in here.
Some of the underlyings were already convicted of insurrection related acts, and it can be easily proven that he provided aid and comfort to them.
And, again, phrases like “aid and comfort” have precise legal definitions. It has to be proven that Trump did this. You can’t just go “Well, look at the Tweets!”
don’t forget that NOT doing something can also be aid and comfort, when you for example actively DO NOT send federal troops to put down an obviously active attack on the government (which included violence against federal police) or by NOT immediately calling for those actions to cease.
https://www.law-dictionary.org/definitions-a/aid-and-comfort
Easily arguable that he provided “aid and comfort”. Also, you’re full of it as the term has not received a full judicial construction and is not precisely defined, likely on purpose.