Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Allowing one crime to go unpunished because it previously may not have been prosecuted is a very weak argument.
Im sorry, but saying that President Trump or those who stormed the Capitol should go unpunished because others did nt get in trouble is.... (not sure of the English word, but not an excuse or defense).
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Allowing one crime to go unpunished because it previously may not have been prosecuted is a very weak argument.
Im sorry, but saying that President Trump or those who stormed the Capitol should go unpunished because others did nt get in trouble is.... (not sure of the English word, but not an excuse or defense).
So much wrong in what you said.
First of all. Trump is being accused by the press and legislators. They are not the holders of that authority. The Department of Justice is.
Secondly, the DoJ has accused him of many crimes, and indicted him on at least four. None of those are insurrection.
Thirdly, in this country, we have a presumption of innocence. It's the FOUNDATION of our justice system. He is innocent, until he is proven not to be.
Fourthly, the basis for COSC to say that he is guilty of insurrection flies in the face of my third comment, and also relies on "other people's statements." AFAIK (I may be wrong) there are people who claimed that he was "insurrection-ey." Perhaps the district court heard that evidence, so I may be wrong.
Fifth, people who did "get in trouble" were accused by the DoJ, tried and convicted.
Finally, if you feel that he's guilty of a crime, indict, try, convict and punish. Until those things happen, there's no there there.
-
Yet these puzzles are relatively mundane compared with the case’s most consequential conundrum: whether Mr. Trump really did engage in insurrection. The Colorado court, armed with dictionary definitions and the defense’s counsel’s own words (according to which Jan. 6 was “more than a riot but less than a rebellion”), lays out the evidence. The armed mob that forcibly entered the Capitol with the purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power, they say, was surely carrying out an insurrection. By fomenting myths of election fraud; by urging supporters at least 12 times to travel to D.C.; by exhorting them to “take back our country” when they arrived; by ignoring pleas to tell them to leave; Mr. Trump “engaged,” they say, in that insurrection, too.
As Justice Samour points out in his dissent, however, what’s missing from the majority’s analysis is due process of law. Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it. Tellingly, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has brought an aggressive case against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and more — but not for violating the federal law against insurrection. The penalties for that, by the way, include disqualification from “any office under the United States.”
Of course, in the United States, not just anyone can be president. Only aspirants over age 35 who are natural-born citizens may occupy the Oval Office. The difference is that these criteria are objective. Whether someone has engaged in insurrection is less so. Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation, albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous. What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection? To be clear, there is no moral equivalence between Black Lives Matter protesters and the Jan. 6 Capitol mob. But that is the point: the potential for abuse is ample.
-
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Trump has never been charged with insurrection.
That's my question. Does there need to be a charge? For example, if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements?
-
We supposedly have the presumption of innocence. To deny someone a right because "you've been told" (the words of the CO Supreme Court) that someone did something bad doesn't pass muster.
I may be wrong, but there was no evidence presented, no witnesses questioned, etc. It was done by fiat because Orange Man Bad.
-
-
@Copper said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I don't know who he is, but I want the Babylon Bee guy that writes this stuff to be the next president.
He doesn’t write all of them, but he runs the team that does…
-
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.
How else can one determine someone participated in an insurrection?
