Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[s_bushido]

Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.

I get the sentiment...but...like...at what point does the fucker saying that "the election was stolen!!!" literally every time he opens his mouth rise to the level of clear and demonstrable proof to anyone paying attention?

[Edge-]

To overturn it, they either need to demonstrate some flaw in reasoning that would invalidate the prior court's ruling

Don't worry, I'm sure Justice Alito is already looking up some obscure legal philosopher or something from 1700's France or something that'll fit this bill : P

[Endus]

Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.

Violating the 14th Amendment isn't actually a "crime". Some crimes obviously fit the bill, but it doesn't require it.

indent]Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.[/i][/indent]

It's particularly that last bit. "Given and or comfort to the enemies thereof", which would include defending insurrectionists.

Now, being convicted of insurrection makes that point a slam dunk, but the 14th isn't based on criminal standards and isn't derivative of conviction for said crimes. If the Supreme Court of the State determines that he's so engaged in insurrection or given aid and comfort to insurrectionists, I don't see where they're overstepping.

[Corvus]

Well, trumps response is to claim Biden is a 'threat to democracy.' And his spokesperson of course managed to bring Soros into it.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Oof, this just reeks of desperation. Everything the Dems have done to him has simply backfired. I think they woke up and saw the 34% approval rating for Biden and had a moment of panic.

This will get struck down quickly. And when Trump wins next year...I guess all bets are off?

This is the problem with weaponizing government - it quickly becomes a zero sum game to obtain total control. There are no winners in the end.

[Flarelaine]

I'm unsure if they would, or even if they'd have the authority to in this case. States largely have a lot of control and power over how they run elections and all.

Though I wouldn't be surprised to see it quickly appealed to federal courts with the goal of reaching the SCOTUS. I'm just unsure the exact process and details.

Honestly, the US supreme court would have no authority to overrule this only involves how states run their elections. They have the right to disqualify someone for whatever reason they seem fit outside of protected classes. Not saying they won't outright or attempt to overrule this, just that states largely can decide who can or cannot run on their ballots. It is even in the US Constitution to be done this way.

Judging by recent SCOTUS behaviour - they have claimed the right to meddle in states' decisions when those states invoked federal statutes and stayed away when states decided based on their own constitution. Even when said constitution-based ruling was against the GOP.

[s_bushido]

Oof, this just reeks of desperation. Everything the Dems have done to him has simply backfired. I think they woke up and saw the 34% approval rating for Biden and had a moment of panic.

This will get struck down quickly. And when Trump wins next year...I guess all bets are off?

This is the problem with weaponizing government - it quickly becomes a zero sum game to obtain total control. There are no winners in the end.

rofl

Trump lost CO in both 2016 and 2020. Trump lost how many of the pathetic election cases he brought trying to pretend he had evidence that he'd actually won? Did it get up to 50, or did it stay down in the 40s? Desperation, indeed.

edit: No, wait. It was even worse than I thought. He lost 62 cases. I had 42 in my head for some reason.

[ringpriest]

Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.

As Endus mentioned above, except for treason, the Constitution doesn't deal directly with crimes. Much like there is no criminal threshold for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress deems it to mean) there is no criminality element written in to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. That Amendment does explicitly have a re-qualification threshold: "But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

While I'm certainly not a lawyer, a court finding of "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" which Congress can remove is not an unreasonable set of standards (presuming you're dealing with a Congress acting in good faith... and if over a third of Congress are holding their own offices in bad faith, you've got bigger problems).

And on the gripping hand, Trump's own lawyers have been demanding he be treated like a January 6th attacker. I.e. in his motion to attempt to delay his trial in DC, his lawyers explicitly compare him to other January 6th attackers:

Likewise, this Court regularly allows far more time than the government proposes, even in cases involving protests at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. See, e.g., United States v. Foy, No. 21-cr-0108 (28 months from indictment to stipulated bench trial on 4-page indictment); United States v. Nordean, et al, No. 21-cr-0175 (TJK) (21 months); United States v. Crowl, et al, No. 21-cr-0028 (APM) (23 months); United States v. Kuehne, et al, Case No. 21-cr-160 (29 months); United States v. Hostetter, et al, Case No. 21-cr-0392 (RCL) (24 months).

Now, part of this is because Trump's broad legal strategy is "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" (and lie about the details). But the fact remains that Donald Trump's own attorneys have repeatedly demanded in court that he be treated the same as any other January 6th defendant; his participation in the events of January 6th (itself established by jury verdicts to be part of a seditious conspiracy) is acknowledged fact by Donald Trump's legal person in court - all he has been disputing is whether or not his own conduct was criminal. Which is, again, outside the scope of the 14th Amendment.

If SCOTUS wants to end his Presidential ambitious, they have ample ammunition with which to do so. (I doubt they will, but they certainly could.)

[Gabriel]

Trump is on tape saying take the guns and worry about due process later and they didn't care. The fact that gun nutters didn't care shows how shallow their shtick is.

Then the democrats failed to use that.

[zorkuus]

Then the democrats failed to use that.

Use on who? The cult? They've made their mind already, nothing's going to persuade them to ditch tRump.

[Gabriel]

Use on who? The cult? They've made their mind already, nothing's going to persuade them to ditch tRump.

They will absolutely ditch the Orange Retard if he seriously goes after their guns.

[zorkuus]

They will absolutely ditch the Orange Retard if he seriously goes after their guns.

Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.

[Gabriel]

Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.

Actually we do know. These people are single issue voters at heart. It might be impossible for people outside of their circles to understand, but hanging onto A2 is the only thing for them that matters, because it is the ultimate representation of power for them. You are not going to get them to relinquish it.

What they do hope Trump does is declare all but the most inbred whites non-citizens, so that 2A would stop applying to them, and they would get to engage in some recreational ethnic cleansing.

[Xyonai]

Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.

I'm actually in Gabriel's camp on this. The super die-hards don't give a shit, and the mouth pieces might suddenly pivot to some stupid talking points demonizing firearms but only in the hands of people they don't like, but the people who earnestly take their guns seriously (either as weird gun nuts or actual responsible gun owners) don't want any shit that will infringe on that right, even if it comes from their own side.

[zorkuus]

Actually we do know. These people are single issue voters at heart. It might be impossible for people outside of their circles to understand, but hanging onto A2 is the only thing for them that matters, because it is the ultimate representation of power for them. You are not going to get them to relinquish it.

What they do hope Trump does is declare all but the most inbred whites non-citizens, so that 2A would stop applying to them, and they would get to engage in some recreational ethnic cleansing.

You're not understanding this. They only care about the 2A when it comes to THEMSELVES. But their strict 2A cheerleading goes straight out of the window when other people are brought into the equation. tRump wouldn't need to take anyone's citizenship away, he could just go after their guns and wholly ignoring the 2A because they're the others, and you wouldn't hear a peep of protest from the 2A nutters.

[Gabriel]

You're not understanding this. They only care about the 2A when it comes to THEM. But their strict 2A cheerleading goes straight out of the window when other people are brought into the equation. tRump wouldn't need to take anyone's citizenship away, he could just go after their guns and wholly ignoring the 2A because they're the others.

So how is Trump going to go after their guns without getting rid of 2A?

[zorkuus]

So how is Trump going to go after their guns without getting rid of 2A?

He wants to be a dictator and they cheer him for it. Where's the confusion?

[Gabriel]

He wants to be a dictator and they cheer him for it. Where's the confusion?

They cheer him on because that's what sub-90 IQ dipshits that can't form abstract thoughts in their head do. They literally can't comprehend that Trump becoming a dictator would mean that he comes after the means of removing a dictator first. That thing being their guns.

The moment that they actually realize that Trump becoming an actual dictator doesn't mean that they get to shoot the homos and the immigrants, but that he will strip the population of means of getting rid of a dictator, is the moment that they will actually turn on him.

[Gorsameth]

That's what Denver said, and then like an idiot Trump decided to appeal that decision up the chain. I'm not sure how often it happens that someone appeals, gets a worse outcome than before, and then appeals again to go back to the original decision.

Trump appealed because they ruled he did commit insurrection, but that section 3 doesn't apply to the President. He got the end result he wanted but his ego was utterly unable to accept that they found he did commit insurrection. That is the part he wanted to try and overturn in the appeal, that backfired.

- - - Updated - - -

Question for the legal scholars of this forum - if Trump appeals this and it's overturned, is it acceptable for future cases to use Colorado's determination that Trump did engage in insurrection?

I also initially am a little concerned about him being off the ballot without a conviction of insurrection, but that's the solution Colorado determined. They still established guilt, which in my mind is pretty crucial.

If the SC overturns this they will do so on the basis of the President not being an officer of the United States, that allows them to completely circumvent the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection because its not relevant if section 3 never applies anyway. And they will make it very clear they are not judging the insurrection part in their verdict.

[Shadowferal]

It's a roll of the dice as to whether the SC will even decide to hear the case to begin with. Some options
do nothing and allow Colorado's ruling to lapse, refuse to add the case to the docket, or agree to hear arguments and issue a decision themselves.
SCOTUS could take up the case in its shadow docket or issue a stay of its own without making a formal ruling. Doing so would prevent the Colorado decision from going into effect while the appeals process plays out.

The big kick in the pants is if they take the case and agree with CO Supreme Court. Because then Trump would be banned on every state ballot.