Trespassers can't hold office

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Trespassers can't hold office:

long odds

No kidding. What crime has Trump been convicted of?

In fact, none of the persons indicted in Georgia have been even accused of insurrection or rebellion.

Wishful thinking.

[George K]

By the way, wasn't the show trial 2nd impeachment all about Jan 6th?

You know, the impeachment in which Trump was not convicted?

[Jolly]

@Jolly said in Trespassers can't hold office:

And...this case is not about the defendant. It's about Trump.

As I said.

There is no depth power hungry Demonrats will not sink to, including shredding the Constitution, to keep Trump from running for office.

[George K]

Followup on Griffin

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jan-6-rioter-barred-holding-office-insurrection-clause-appeal-dismissed-cowboys-for-trump

Griffin appealed the decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court on Sept. 20; the case was dismissed on Tuesday afternoon on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court ruled that Griffin failed to follow proper appeals procedures.

“This is an affirmation that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can and should be enforced against all the January 6th insurrectionists who took an oath to defend the Constitution, whether they are current or former officeholders,” CREW senior vice president Donald Sherman said in a statement, “Today is an important day for our democracy.”

Griffin had failed to file a statement of issues – a document that outlines the main issue being debated – within the proper timeframe.

He should have had a better lawyer - one that knew proper appeals procedures.

CREW apparently feels that dismissing this case for procedural errors is democratic.

[Jolly]

Wonder if he has an appeal in federal court?

[89th]

Here's my question. Does a person need to be "charged, tried, convicted" for something to be used as basis for ruling? For example, there's plenty of evidence (note all the videos referenced in the filing) he organized groups and participated in the event.

[89th]

I guess I found my own answer. This was addressed on Pages 42-43.

tl;dr is this is a civil, not criminal, trial and Section Three of the 14th amendment doesn't require criminal convictions as a prerequisite for election eligibility.

[89th]

I did chuckle at this paragraph near the opening:

[Jolly]

@89th said in Trespassers can't hold office:

Here's my question. Does a person need to be "charged, tried, convicted" for something to be used as basis for ruling? For example, there's plenty of evidence (note all the videos referenced in the filing) he organized groups and participated in the event.

I think you're guilty of insurrection.

Good. Now you don't have to worry about ever running for elected office.

[89th]

I mean, if you were a judge and saw a video of me doing it, then I guess you're right.

[Jolly]

You can't do that in my version of the United States. You cannot take away a person's rights without due process.

[89th]

It seems this is a civil matter so due process is being followed, no?

[George K]

@89th said in Trespassers can't hold office:

It seems this is a civil matter so due process is being followed, no?

If this is a civil and not a criminal matter, why is it being adjudicated in the context of federal elections.

[jon-nyc]

This is as ridiculous a notion as saying the VP can choose to reject electors from certain states.

It’s quite a Trumpian move. Like a many such moves, it would be disastrous if were allowed to proceed.