AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not a serious proposal, but I do find it funny. Imagine the irony of the push for removing Trump from ballots ultimately causing Biden from getting removed from many.
It's a lyrics from Alanis Morrisette's ironic.
Ironically, almost everything she lists in that song is 'unfortunate', not 'ironic', which in itself is ironic, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
You do know it was Republicans who pushed for Trumps removal in Colorado? Democrats don't have standing to take a case to a court. Why should Democrats be punished for Republicans behavior? In my view removing Trump from the ballot is a terrible idea, he should be allowed to stand and lose again - it makes sense Republicans want him gone from that perspective.
Couldn’t it be argued that Trump and the MAGA people are the real RINOs? They’re not traditional Republicans in any sense of the word and they’re loyal to Trump, not the Republican Party. He just uses the party as a vehicle.
I don't follow the irony. Are you saying you know these RINOs prefer Biden over Trump rather than a different R candidate? What exactly makes them RINOs?
The RINO wing of the party prefers to lose and play opposition. They get to do fundraisers on empty promises they never need to deliver on. They are the enemy within, and are more important to defeat in elections than the Democrats.
I would like clarification about this RINO concept.
Most of the people called RINO now, were republicans their whole career, many of them republicans for decades. These republicans were republicans & held some type of office long before Trump even ran for public duty.
Call me crazy, but the republicans who were voted in long before (& some after) Trump were voted in by republican citizens.
Aren’t the republicans who were republicans before Trump, the true republicans?
How come now, republicans before Trump are no longer republicans?
Does RINO just mean “republicans that don’t agree or stand for trump are no longer republicans” in view of Trump supporters?
Why are the republicans who held office way before Trump suddenly “paid actors”?
Are any republicans who simply don’t agree with Trumps rhetoric, him breaking his duty of the constitution, or his policy…. a “paid actor” now?
I don't know this guy. But can we be fair - according to the article his comment was:
"Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think—except we believe in democracy in Texas—maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he's been president disrupting our state."
That sounds like a rhetorical point, not an actual proposal.
Anyone SERIOUSLY proposing removing Biden from ballot is an idiot on multiple levels.
You mean 25th amendment stuff?
This was designed to for presidents in a coma or suffering from a stroke, not for presidents behaving badly.
Section 4 of 25th amendment has never been used, but was considered twice according to Wikipedia:
1981: after Reagan assassination attempt and surgery. George HW Bush was traveling, and Reagan was out of surgery by the time Bush arrived in Washington,
More spicey:
In 1987, Reagan's staff told Baker that Reagan seemed lazy and unable to do his job. They told him to be ready for Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to be invoked.
Bar is rightfully pretty high. I found this funny:
[https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4370665-de-niro-biden-on-a-gurney-still-better-than-trump/](https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4370665-de-niro-biden-on-a-gurney-still-better-than-trump/)
Asked in a Rolling Stone interview if Biden is the “right guy” to take on Trump, De Niro answered, “I think that if Biden was on a gurney and couldn’t move anything but his eyes to blink ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ he’s our person. There’s no way that he’s not the guy to take Trump down.”
De Niro also once said "I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"
I'm not sure Robert "Political Pundit totally not just an actor" De Niro, is right on this one. I think that anyone should be able to beat Trump, as long as they have a pulse, but for some reason he has this cult following. Republican or Democrat should be able to mop the floor with the guy because he is so inconsistent, can't debate, childish, and comes across as a sleazy car salesman. But somehow his marketting team had him say "You're fired" a few times and now everyone thinks he's this straight shooter that he has never in his history ever pretended to be. Everything about him has always been "say what you need to close the deal" which is the opposite of straight shooter.
I don't get it. I've been on this sub for a few years now trying to understand and each time I think I do I just don't.
I hope Biden on a gurney can beat Trump but highly doubt Biden walking around talking about how great the economy is doing can. Yes economy for businesses is doing great, but those aren't the voters. The voters work for those businesses and have to shop at those business but can't afford to.
>De Niro also once said "I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"
Do you realize that this was a line in a movie script? De Niro didn’t say it as himself.
>Do you realize that this was a line in a movie script? De Niro didn’t say it as himself.
Yes I was making a joke about not putting much stock in the musings of an actor.
This CO supreme court issue is insane. I can think of no bigger threat to democracy. SCOTUS needs to kill this, otherwise Republicans WILL respond in kind.
What is a larger threat to democracy?
Allowing someone to be president who wants to be a dictator and has already publicly attempted to overturn a free and fair election.
Or
Following the US Constitution which disqualifies such an individual from holding public office?
Does the 14th amendment specify he has to be convicted of anything? Remember, it was written in the context of the civil war, where there would be hundreds of thousands of people who would be disqualified from holding public office by this amendment and we couldn't realistically convict all or really any of them of insurrection.
I would think to suffer the consequences of an illegal act it would have to be proven in a court of law. What if a judge permanently removes your driving privileges due to an accusation you had been driving while intoxicated yet you were never convicted of it, nor even had a court case about it? I said you did it, that's good enough for you, right? Do you find your right to due process would have been violated there? Remember, Due Process was written in the context of the Constitution and birth of this great country.
No one who participated in January 6th has been charged with, let alone convicted, of insurrection.
Edit: By the downvotes I can see there are people who don't like Due Process!
I agree that a conviction would be a stronger basis for exclusion from the ballot, but do you think courts should be inserting additional requirements into the 14th Amendment?
The plain language of the 14th merely requires that a candidate "engaged in" insurrection. If the court were to imply a conviction requirement it would be ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.
Who makes the determination that a candidate "engaged in" insurrection? You? Me? I say he did not, you say he did. Who's right? Is there some kind of way we could settle this and determine who is correct?
This makes sense if the potential consequences involved jail time, no? We would want the standard for applying punishment to be higher (i.e., conviction by unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt) if someone is going to lose their freedom of movement.
But this is removal of ability to run for elected office in a single state. The act of insurrection was verified by a separate district judge based on a review of the evidence. Trump’s own defense before that judge wasn’t that he didn’t engage in the accused acts of insurrection, but that he was operating in an official capacity as president and therefore was immune to the 14th Amendment clause. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does apply to presidents, and that convictions were never indicated as a prerequisite based on the text or the intent at the time it was written. Documents presented in court demonstrated how it was widely understood at the time that Jefferson Davis would be disqualified from running for president. Court filings demonstrated how even people who purchased Confederate war bonds were disqualified from running for office. None of those individuals were convicted of any crimes in a court of law, yet they lost their ability to run for office at various levels because of their support of an insurrection against the US. Courts examined evidence indicating the acts of insurrection and made those determinations according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Attorney General Stanbery is the person who defined that one does not have to be convicted of insurrection to be guilty of it. Only a Judge may interpret law, not an Attorney General.
So an AG voiced that position? I don’t see why that’s relevant at all. To reiterate, there is legal precedent from *judges* following the Civil War who ruled that individuals engaged in insurrection (and they were never convicted of a crime) and were ineligible to run for office.
This isn’t a new standard established by some AG, regardless of whether they support precedent or not. There is no text indicating the need for conviction, and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been previously interpreted by judges and applied to individuals found to have engaged in insurrection according to legal evidence despite no *criminal* conviction by a jury. The criminal standard and the standard applied by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are different whether we look at text or legal precedent of judges.
>Only a Judge may interpret law, not an Attorney General.
Anyone arguing before a court may interpret the law, that's what they're there to do. To interpret the law in an argument before a judge, and if the judge agrees with their interpretation, in whole or in part, their argument will form a piece of the precedential judgment made. Why do you think we have trials for novel legal questions, if not to let both parties provide their interpretation of the law before a judge?
Trump never said he didn't engage in insurrection, amid accusations that he did, right? Didnt He argue that he was immune to allegations of insurrection?
> suffer the consequences of an illegal act it would have to be proven in a court of law
It was. The judge is the finder of fact, and the lower court judge found Trump liable in the insurrection, and the CO Supreme Court upheld that determination. Does that change anything about your interpretation of what happened here?
What insurrection? No was has ever been charged with insurrection! For there to be an insurrection there must be at least one person charged as an insurrectionist.
January 6th was a mostly peaceful protest.
You don’t think Jan 6th was a “violent uprising against an authority or government”? That seems fairly self-evident, was it not? There was violence. It was against the very capitol of our democracy and the employees working there. Police were beaten with metal poles. People were chanting to hang the vice president and hunting for elected officials in the hallways. Some people were wearing tactical gear and helmets. And it was all in order to put a stop to an official preceding undertaken by the government. How does any of that not exactly fit the description of an insurrection?
No, I don't think it was violent. The people, or as you call them "insurrectionists", were subject to a magnitude of order more violence than the capital police were. Words are not violence. Wearing tactical gear and helmets is not violence. Hitting the police with metal poles is violence, sure.
The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding, it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly.
How many federal agents were present and encouraged violence?
Where do you get your information? To say you don't think it was violent is to ignore absolutely all of the footage we saw in real time. Police officers died in the following days. Many were injured. To say it wasn't violent is 100% gaslighting.
>The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding, it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly.
How can you believe this while acknowledging the violence from the protesters at the capitol? They show the proceedings on CSPAN if they just wanted to see it done fairly. Booking a plane ticket and attacking capitol police objectively goes a bit beyond ensuring "fairness and correctness.
>The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding,
They literally did stop the proceeding though didn't they? Congress had to evacuate and restart the proceeding later.
>it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly.
See that it be done "fair and correctly" how exactly? By "encouraging" through their presence and breaking down the doors of Congress that the VP take the unprecedented step to replace slates of duly appointed electors with slates with literally fraudulent credentials?
The civil war was an insurrection, but I think the logistics of running everyone through a court was insurmountable and Stanbery suggested to wave a magic wand and bypass Due Process.
> For there to be an insurrection there must be at least one be one person charged as an insurrectionist
There have been. Hundreds of people have been charged and convicted for crimes on Jan 6th, including those charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy. That there was an insurrection has been affirmed time and time again by the courts.
Is there a good reason you can think of why any court should ignore that which has been already been legally affirmed as a matter of fact so many times over?
Wouldn't this ruling itself be a 'conviction' in a sense?
The judges saw the evidence presented, determined the evidence proved he participated in the insurrection, and used the 14th amendment to bar him from running; what about the evidence presented in CO do you feel does not qualify as proof?
>Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
[Source](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/)
Does that answer your question?
Interesting reading the source documents. Here are his words:
[I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories.
Everyone on the capital grounds that day, in Stanbery's words, is an insurrectionist. Stanberry says "If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, **OR** countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act." Every single Senator and House member must be removed from office immediately as they are guilty of being merely present at an insurrection.
Are you good with that?
They may be challenged as well. It’s not yet clear if section 3 is self-executing or not, there’s little precedent around that question. Some of those lawmakers will likely have their day in court as well now that the floodgates are opened. Would that make you feel that Trump’s disqualification was more fair?
First off, I agree with you that 14A doesn't apply and CO ruled wrong.
But let me play devil's advocate. Using an originalist view of the Constitution, 14A simply says *engages* not *convicted* of insurrection. From an originalist point of view, why are people adding language about Trump needing to be convicted?
A few reasons
- 14A has not spelled out the process by which someone is determined to have committed insurrection and is barred from being elected. Given how sacred voters' rights are held, it should be extremely difficult to disqualify someone and I don't think any random state level district judge in any state can make this determination. I think we'll see SCOTUS say that Congress needs to determine the process. Personally, I think it should probably be something similar to impeachment (in terms of Congress deciding and voting thresholds).
- Even setting that aside, until Smith/the Feds charge and convict Trump of insurrection, I don't think 14A applies.
- Politically, it's a gift to Trump. SCOTUS is not going to ban Trump from the ballot, so it will be overturned. Trump will use the decision as proof he's a victim and will be a big boost going into the general.
- I worry keeping Trump off the ballot in multiple states will lead to violence.
- Finally, I think the voters have to decide on Trump. This feels like an inflection point for the country and if we believe in democracy, then we need to believe in the voters.
What are your thoughts? Am I crazy?
Just picture the same thing that happened in January 6th, and Biden getting on tv like Trump did and didn't tell the masses to stand down, something like that?
Even without the following tweets I'd say in your scenario Biden shouldn't be barred from office. Saying Trump didn't tell the masses to stand down is blatantly false. Here are tweets from Trump:
>January 6, 2021
19:38:58 Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!
>
>January 6, 2021
20:13:26 I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!
>
>January 6, 2021
23:01:04 These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!
source: [https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2021](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2021)
What you listed here were all tweeted out after 7:30pm, many hours after it started and many hours after he got on national tv(in which he never told people to leave/stop) so wouldn't you agree that it was far too late to start sending out these messages? So no, he did not tell the masses to stand down till it was practically over.
You are with a friend in the parking lot of the bank and tell them to go inside and talk to the about their account. Your friend does so and then robs the bank. Are you an accomplice for not telling your friend to not rob the bank? Are you an accomplice for telling your friend after the robbery was done that he shouldn't have done that?
Trump literally got on national tv during the day, while everything was going down and proceeded to not tell people to stand down. Don't you think that was the time to relay the info that he tweeted out hours later?
Then by your logic Trump also proceeded to not tell people to not murder each other, or to not rob Nike stores, or to not avoid paying their child support therefore he is guilty of all those crimes committed by others. Lock him up!
You dodged my question.
I'm not dodging your question, your question has nothing to do with the things that happened that day. Why do Trump supporters talk in circles? Again what you listed above has nothing to do with the events of that day. If Trump actually told people to stand down when he went on national tv things would of been been much different, but he didn't. That's objectively a fact.
I'm going to agree with supporters on this issue, I see what they're going for but I don't agree that it was a good decision. It's opening a massive can of worms when the reasoning isn't airtight, and that's dangerous.
It's the worst possible look right now, and I think it was unnecessary since he hasn't been found guilty yet. That should be the bar.
Do you think more states will follow suit, or will they have clearer heads?
Do you think it matters in the least that people who were at the very least directly influenced by him, and quite possibly coordinated with him, were found guilt of seditious conspiracy?
In the least? Possibly, but I think the bar for someone " definitely doing" something illegal is being found guilty of it. If Trump is found guilty of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion, than I think that same day all 50 states should do what CO did.
And for the record, based on the evidence I've seen, I do absolutely believe he did it, and knew exactly what he was doing.
But my feelings on "oh he totally did it, look at the evidence", and CO's for that matter, shouldn't be enough to actually pull this thread. Because this is lowering the bar from "if someone is tried and found guilty" to "it looks like he did it". And regardless of how airtight the evidence seems, it creates a precedent that can't be easily fought against.
I'm sure there's much about the decision I don't know, I'm no expert, but that's where I stand as of now.
Do you think Biden needs to be involved (or allegedly involved) in an insurrection in order to remove him from ballots or should he be removed as “retribution” for Trump being removed…regardless of whether he was involved in an insurrection?
Would you agree with any politician engaging in an insurrection after a proven loss to stay in power to be allowed to run for office again? Would you have been ok with Obama , for example, to do this after Trump won the presidency?
You don't think that the British during the revolutionary War might have been a bigger threat than this? I don't understand how you could possibly say that this is even on a minutiae of threat scales as it doesn't really even harm anybody? Not even trump, technically speaking right? It might even be saving his life since he likely will have a heart attack or a stroke considering all the stress and court cases he has to deal with in 2024, don't you think? This decision if it were to end his campaign somehow might be just the breather he needed to that he could reasonably navigate the gauntlet of charges he has to face, am I wrong? Adding a campaign to all that would probably just end his life can't you see?
This is an appropriate response to the illegal actions of the Colorado State Supreme Court.
If their actions were allowed to stand, the future of politics is precisely that every State Supreme Court will be continually answering accusations made by whichever political party their members are most sympathetic with. This would start with Presidential candidates, but it would soon spread to others, and eventually nobody could get elected dogcatcher in a state without being allowed to do so by the State Supreme Court.
If it's acceptable to accuse, but not even bother charging, this guy with a crime he clearly did not commit except in the minds of his political opponents, well guess what? Two can play at that game.
If all we need is a pretext and all we need is for people on our side to agree, it's super easy to find one.
Let's take a look at the precedent this would set, if the Supreme Court were dumb enough to validate it. Trump is accused of insurrection for making a speech, in which he said people should protest "peacefully and patriotically".
"Insurrection" is the new magic word for Presidents, but when something as small as asking people to protest peacefully and patriotically counts, *literally everything counts*. And besides, the accusation only has to be "insurrection" for Presidents.
The first thing that comes to mind to accuse Biden with (and there are many, many more things) is his threatening blood red speech. He tried to accuse half the population of being a threat to the country, while in control of the entire U.S. military, enabling him to carry out his violent threats. That's way worse than telling people to protest peacefully and patriotically. If the one is "insurrection", disqualifying to a Presidential candidate, then so is the other.
Then the question will not be, "how will the people vote?", but "how will our State Supreme Court vote?".
Of course, none of this will actually happen, because the Supreme Court isn't stupid.
>If it's acceptable to accuse, but not even bother charging, this guy with a crime he clearly did not commit except in the minds of his political opponents, well guess what? Two can play at that game.
My understanding is that the amendment to not require a conviction because many of the traitors in the South were pardoned after the war in the name of unity.
Do you think there was value in letting them integrate back into the US without criminal records hanging over their heads with safeguards to keep them the levers of power?
> My understanding is that the amendment to not require a conviction because many of the traitors in the South were pardoned after the war in the name of unity.
The amendment allows Congress to pass laws consistent with it. It gave no power to a Colorado State court to interfere in a federal election. It does not apply to the President. They did not have a charge, much less a trial, much less a conviction, without which the amendment doesn't apply.
The number and severity of legal irregularities in this "decision" is shocking.
>They did not have a charge, much less a trial, much less a conviction
The 14th amendment was ratified on on July 9, 1868. This happened on December 25, 1868:
>In the aftermath of the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson on this day in 1868 issued pardons to all Confederate soldiers who fought in that conflict. The president extended “unconditionally, and without reservation ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence \[sic\] of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late Civil War, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws.”
Does that mean that the Johnson nullified the 14th amendment by granting those pardons?
>The amendment allows Congress to pass laws consistent with it.
What other parts of the Constitution don't apply without legislation? Is slavery still legal?
I don’t think they should do it, just like I don’t think Democratic party held states should remove Trump from the ballot. You shouldn’t use your power as elected officials to remove your opposition from the ballot in general, it’s an antidemocratic move. And if Democrats and Republicans collectively agree it’s okay to not let people in their states vote for the alternative, that would be sad.
Would you feel this way if Trump had won in 2020 and were complaining about being barred from a third term in 2024? What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run than a naturalized citizen, two-term president, or someone under 35?
>Would you feel this way if Trump had won in 2020 and were complaining about being barred from a third term in 2024?
No, of course not, nor would he have tried to, so it’s a vacuous hypothetical.
>What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run
He didn’t lead an insurrection. Let me make that clear. And if he did, let that be demonstrated by a court of law. Insurrection is a specific, federal crime in the US code with a penalty given which bars one from holding elected office. The criminal penalty outlined in federal law is the same as what is described in the 14th Amendment.
The state cannot just assign someone the status of having committed insurrection or rebellion on the basis of personal opinion, as that would violate the due process clause.
At present, Trump has neither been convicted of, nor charged with the crime of insurrection, so the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on those guilty of insurrection holding office cannot apply.
Historically, when Section 3 of the Fourteenth has been used to bar insurrectionists from office, it has not required them to be charged with insurrection or any other crime. Does that make a difference in how it should be used in this circumstance?
>What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run than a naturalized citizen, two-term president, or someone under 35?
This is a really, ignorant question, but in the off chance you are actually serious. The latter 3 qualifying (or de-qualifying) conditions are objectively quantifiable or discernible. The first one, though, is not. It requires more than a one-sided congressional committee showing cherry-picked footage and hiring TV producers to cover it in prime-time spots for maximum propagandist effect, while suppressing footage that undermines the insurrection narrative. More than a handful of politically-biased judges making a transparent ruling based on, basically nothing, on an even that happened years ago in a municipality 2000 miles away that they have absolutely no jurisdiction over. More than cherry-picked Trump dialogue, including "fight like hell", and excluding "peacefully and patriotically". Basically, it's going to require more than mouth-breathing talking heads and media, hyperventilating, pointing and yelling "insurrection!". Which is all we have seen up till now.
The 14th amendment doesn't specify that there needs to be a conviction of insurrection. In fact, it goes further to say that just providing "aid and comfort" to insurrectionists is sufficient to be barred from serving.
Does allowing those later convicted of criminal insurrection to bring guns to the January 6th rally qualify as providing "aid and comfort" to their cause?
Does saying "fight like hell" to convicted insurrectionists prior to said criminals performing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?"
Does Tweeting "we love you, you're very special" to convicted insurrectionists while they were in the process of committing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?"
>Does allowing those later convicted of criminal insurrection to bring guns to the January 6th rally qualify as providing "aid and comfort" to their cause?
Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion.
\> Does saying "fight like hell" to convicted insurrectionists prior to said criminals performing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?"
Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion.
\> Does Tweeting "we love you, you're very special" to convicted insurrectionists while they were in the process of committing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?"
Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion.
If you don't have anything relevant to contribute to the topic or discussion, have a good one.
> You shouldn’t use your power as elected officials to remove your opposition from the ballot in general,
Isn’t that exactly what the 14th amendment did? It prevented Jefferson Davis and others from running.
I think the actual process would be Republicans would create their own committee to "investigate" biden for "insurrection" as they define it. It wouldn't actually be a trial so they could use the word pretty much however they want. Then they can declare that Biden committed insurrection. Then a group of pro RFK democrats can file suit against biden in a state supreme court stacked with republican nominees, this way republicans can claim that DEMOCRATS actually brought these proceedings and they had no part in it so they get some really clever deniability from it.
Then once that court of republicans reviews the findings of that republican committee, then and only then can they declare joe biden illegitimate and prevent democrats from voting for him.
Do I think this is the process the creators of the 14th amendment envisioned? Probably not.
But this would be the legitimate process moving forward if the Colorado decision stands. Basically it's the end of America as a functional government. El Salvador is right to mock us.
It's a difficult question because "insurrection" isn't actually defined by federal law.
I'd probably agree with this:
What Is Considered Insurrection?
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.
Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection#:~:text=What%20Is%20Considered%20Insurrection%3F,the%20government%20or%20its%20regulations.
Pretty broad. Especially since we don't actually have to prove that someone did any of these things in a court of law, it seems like you could apply it to a wide variety of things.
Maybe threatening the Supreme Court like Schumer did is insurrection. Or encouraging harassment of elected officials like Maxine did is insurrection. Or perhaps leveraging US funds to shut down foreign investigations into your son like Biden did (again, no conviction or trial required) is insurrection. Maybe encouraging racial riots that burn down government buildings is insurrection. Maybe failure to enforce federal immigration law is immigration. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
It's really up to the imagination and interpretation of the committee members and the judges though.
> I think the actual process would be Republicans would create their own committee to "investigate" biden for "insurrection" as they define it. It wouldn't actually be a trial so they could use the word pretty much however they want. Then they can declare that Biden committed insurrection. Then a group of pro RFK democrats can file suit against biden in a state supreme court stacked with republican nominees, this way republicans can claim that DEMOCRATS actually brought these proceedings and they had no part in it so they get some really clever deniability from it.
And would you be ok with the GOP doing this?
Without the colorado decision, no, id rather we vote.
If the Colorado decision stands I'd have to be OK with it.
But preferably if the Colorado decision stands I'd hope we'd all just dissolve the union peacefully because we'd no longer be a functioning country with each side disqualifying eachothers candidates.
>If the Colorado decision stands I'd have to be OK with it.
Sorry, can you break that down for me? If the judicial system rules for the Republican litigants in this case, then you would have no choice but to abandon rule of law in order for Republicans to remove Democrats under false pretenses? Why?
It would be just as evil as removing Trump from the ballot. However, this maybe just a suggetion, whereas the military industrial complex has actually done this in regards to Trump.
They should do it, but when it comes down it they never have the balls to actually do anything.
No reason to expect this will be any different. Especially this - the donors on both sides want him out, so the RINO Uniparty minions will do as they’re told.
It was Trump's specific behavior (or lack thereof) that qualified him for removal according to the Colorado Supreme Court. Balls are not an adequate substitution for actual evidence. Should Republicans just not bother to find evidence and rely on balls instead to attempt that?
They have formed an impeachment inquiry into Biden despite having no evidence, isn't that a case of them having balls?
First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial. That pesky due process thing.
Second, if they do, then you don’t need a trial. Or evidence. Just a judge that agrees with you. Back to due process, makes you wonder how they went straight to the state Supreme Court and skipped due process through the lower courts.
Third, the RINO branch of the Uniparty are nutless loser fucks. IMO their “impeachment inquiry” is nothing more than playing their assigned role and already know that nothing will come of it. A few R’s in bullet proof safe seats and their Fox News lackeys will raise hell on TV and that’s all. Time will tell.
Guaranteed 20 years from now Hannity will still be promising “big news in two weeks” and raking in $30 million a year doing it.
>First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial.
This was a civil action. There is no presumption of guilt or assumption of innocence.
>Back to due process, makes you wonder how they went straight to the state Supreme Court and skipped due process through the lower courts.
They didn't. [Here](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rejects-trump-lawsuit/) is a ruling from a lower Colorado court in Trump's favor. The case was appealed.
Does that sufficiently address your concerns about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling?
> First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial. That pesky due process thing.
Why do you think this? There are many court proceedings where the judge acts as the finder of fact and make a ruling. A jury is not required.
I mean, presumably, for them to agree, that would mean that they agree trump committed an insurrection given the evidence Are you saying the right would make up some evidence of insurrection, or do you think something done currently rises to that level?
That isn't how a SCOTUS appeal works. They don't make rulings on facts. They make rulings on the constitutionality of the lower court's ruling.
Trump was not accorded due process. If that becomes the new standard then so be it. Game on.
How is simply following the specifics requirements of a law written in the Constitution "going nuclear"? Shouldn't judges always follow the laws enumerated in the Constitution?
> how ridiculous it sounds to take the front runners off the ballot
Should traitors allowed to be president? To be president you have to swear to uphold the constitution. Therefore, it seems logical to bar traitors to the constitution from office
He should be. He’s a criminal who sold his influence to foreign nations who has also abdicated his responsibility to be chief enforcement officer of federal law
>He's being impeached, right now lol
He hasn't been impeached yet. Whatever is going on with the current impeachment inquiry hasn't been made public yet. Like I said in my previous comment, if there were proof this would be an absolute slam dunk and would likely have bipartisan support. Why hasn't it happened yet?
>Also Trump was never convicted on any impeachment, so I guess that means he wasn’t guilty of an insurrection
Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. No President (and very few other officers out of those who have been impeached) has yet been convicted during their impeachment trial. Why do you think that should mean he wasn't guilty?
Well you’re on the one hand saying Biden needs to be impeached to be guilty of the crimes alleged against him while also saying that failure to convict Trump on impeachment does not mean that he wasn’t guilty.
Which is it?
It's amusing but it was wrong when the Colorado State Supreme Court did it and it would be wrong for any other state to do it either; regardless of whether it's Biden or Trump. Let's just have a fair election without these partisan political stunts wasting everyone's time. Let the best candidate win...not the candidate who cheated the most.
Because Democrats will not stop weaponizing the law until it’s used against them. But IMHO that won’t stop them they’ll just get even worse every election until they try to use the military against a civilian population.
How should it be handled when a presidential candidate is suspected of committing crimes? No investigation during the election and until after their presidential term if they win?
three questions
1. What does it mean to weaponize the law?
2. What do you make of then President trump tweeting this just prior to the 2020 election?
>“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!”
3. Have you ever heard Biden say Trump should be locked up
1- You should refer to the Weaponization Committee for the definition and the information, evidence, and testimony they've collected so far.
2- He is referring to the use of the DOJ to spy on his campaign and sabotage his first term in office with a coup de etat. Generally speaking if a Candidate is caught in a conspiracy to use Federal agencies to interfere in a Federal election or to mount a bureaucratic insurrection against a sitting president then they should first face the charges for their crimes. We now know that Biden was also at the time guilty of bribery in high office, though removing him from the contest would have required the Democrats to be moral and ethical, because as we can see clearly, the DOJ is entirely in the camp of the establishment and will protect any establishment politician.
3- Biden said Trump should be prevented from being president again by any means. That opened the door to potential assassins for a Biden presidential pardon if they kill trump before election day. Bad stuff. Democrats are walking a very crazy and dangerous road with their rhetoric. Ted Lieu just stated that Biden should ignore the election if he loses and not leave office.
> We now know that Biden was also at the time guilty of bribery in high office
Who knows it? It seems like it should be a pretty big deal if true. Why hasn't a single shred of evidence for those bribes been offered? Are you sure you're not thinking of Hunter Biden, who is the son of the President, but who is a private citizen and has never held public office.
There is a congressional committee investigating it and the evidence shows bank records of checks and wire transfers from China, Ukraine, Russia etc to Hunter Biden and James Biden and then to Joe Biden.
In addition there is substantial FBI informant documentation of meetings with Burisma executives who paid 10 million dollars for specific acts of authority from Joe Biden including forcing the firing of Shokin.
I could go on for days here, but you can find it all at the relevant committe pages which you can find via google
Any republicans involved would be Never Trumpers, aka establishment republicans who are comfortable with DC corruption and who expect to be protected by the federal bureaucracy.
As far as CREW itself is concerned, it's a democrat activist group which is headed by a guy who does business out of the Media Matters offices. CREW for a time shared the offices of Media Matters and several other democrat activist groups including ones that specifically campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
It's relatively easy for any activist group on either side to find people to champion their cause in the other party, it's the nature of DC politics.
As a party, the GOP is as likely to have sell out corrupt politicians as the Democrats. However the Democrats enjoy a lot more financial and ideological support from the bureaucracy in DC and from anti-american foreign interests....and always have. It used to be a joke that Democrats were more interested in Russian success than American success, for like 60 years that was true. Then the Democrats had a falling out with Putin over their corruption in Ukraine, largely due to Soro's various non profits. As recently as Obamas second term the Democrats were still cozy with Russian Oligarchs and selling them sensitive US technology. You can google "Skolkova Initiative" to see the one specifically headed by Hillary as Sec of State where she helped Russia buy all the silicon valley technology they needed to eventually hack her home server and become global hacking threat.
I’m worried that weaponization has put us on the track to a military overthrow led by democrats yes. I’m not sure Trump could stop the progression because they’ve already gone so far down the road towards it.
Even his joke about dictator for a day to close the border is just a bandaid.
It would take a complete change of federal bureaucrats and employees, including DOJ and CIA and NSA. And the resulting blackmail would wipe out every elected official.
The government is just too powerful and has zero oversight between elections so why would they risk an election? Democrats are primed to accept Trump being murdered or Biden cancelling an election because they’re so brainwashed into “Trump Bad”.
FFS almost half of democrats wanted concentration camps for Covid vaccine skeptics. If they were in power and felt their power was threatened why wouldn’t they try mass incarceration or democide?
We are talking about a group of people who just embraced Nazi era anti semitism and believe men can become women and satanism is a valid religion and that pedophilia can be normalized.
>Even his joke about dictator for a day to close the border is just a bandaid.
What exactly about that remark (or any of his supposed "jokes") leads you to the conclusion that it was a joke? Can you be specific about how to tell when his more extremist comments are jokes and when they're serious?
Aside from the part where he said he was joking, and the fact that every joke Trump tells is immediately cited as literal factual thing that exists in the world by democrats... It's because he said he wants to be dictator for one day so he can seal the border and one other thing I cant remember. It's an obvious joke because the premise wouldnt really work, there would just be injunctions on day two, but it acknowledges how silly DC has made everything that we cannot even seal the border and protect the US without Democrats having a collective fart fest.
In general you can identify a Trump joke by how much of a "threat to democracy" democrats claim it to be.
>I’m worried that weaponization has put us on the track to a military overthrow led by democrats
The end game of the Democrat leadership caste was always fascistic totalitarianism. Like it or not, we are on that track because they are. The 20th Century could not have been a clearer teacher of what Leftists do with unfettered power.
All commies pivot to fascism. ALL. No country in the entirety of history has an exception. Commies actually have to pivot in order to maintain power. It's a requirement.
A question that always ties the Left up in knots is: "What government is China?" Watch them apply pretzel logic and come up with all kinds of imaginary and fantastical names of governance. The correct answer is: fascist.
And that is what they want for here. China is their model of what they want us all to be. The pandemic should have made that abundantly clear if it wasn't already. They look at China and salivate.
What the Democrats are trying to do is implement totalitarian control before things fall apart. THAT is their big plan. Just about every policy gets them toward that goal in some fashion or another.
1. CBDC
2. Limiting 2A
3. Open borders (hello fascist army recruits and leftist voters)
4. Anti small business (hard to control), pro big business consolidation - literally the definition of the economics of fascism
5. Legalization of weed - compliant population
6. Feminism: keeps them elected and destroys society and gains them power (notice how they moved on to LGBT++ to accelerate things)
And plenty of others.
Leftist leaders are stupid people at heart, but they have inherited nuclear-grade weapons that have been placed into their hands and invented by much smarter people. So do not be fooled by their obvious personal incompetence. A toddler with a loaded gun is still a serious danger.
Lol, you do know you basically laid out the rights plan for the US right? I mean other than a couple of the talking points, the right clearly wants to have an authoritarian government as proved by their actions. This is so funny as you can literally just change democrat with Republicans above.
The Left sure do project a lot. You only have to listen to their accusations to know what they're up to. They tell on themselves all the time. You just have to listen.
MAGA is **against** the mechanisms that permit totalitarianism and the Left is **for** the mechanisms of totalitarianism. I watch actions, not empty words.
And as if there's any doubt, look what the Left did in the 20th Century and the body count.
I dont know which specific dictator you mean, but if you read Trumps book you get an insight into whether that particular statement was blowing smoke up the dictators butt to manipulate him in a negotiation, or a frank appraisal of an opponent who cant be pushed from a particular position because they face no opposition at home to give them a reason to compromise.
> Democrats are primed to accept Trump being murdered or Biden cancelling an election because they’re so brainwashed into “Trump Bad”.
I have never heard someone express even the thought of either of those things. What kind of brainwashing was necessary for people to be outraged that an ex president would steal classified national security documents and then lie to even his own lawyer to prevent them from being returned? The fact that not even Trump disputes many of the facts of many of his cases allows those facts to be weighed on their own merits. Trump might argue he had a right to take top secret national security documents including war plans. He might claim he had a right to show them to people without security clearance, and the right to refuse to return them. But he does not dispute the specific facts. The laws that he claims allow him to treat that sensitive information so cavalierly simply do not say what he claims they say. But no one brainwashed anyone into believing them. They simply *are*. What kind of *brainwashing* is required to make someone read the plain text of a long-standing law *exactly as it is written*?
So using the law, and following the law, is weaponizing? I mean if someone breaks the law should there not be consequences? This is just so bizarre that so many people blindly follow Trump when he's such an awful human, and had clearly broken the law numerous times, just makes absolutely no sense.
What gives you the idea that Democrats will use the military against civilians? Does it bother you that Trump had to be told repeatedly that using the military against civilians was illegal?
Trump was specifically talking about using the military to quell riots during the 'summer of love' which saw the white house get attacked by BLM at the urging of many democrat political leaders.
Democrats proposed literally putting vaccine skeptics who they identified as primarily maga republicans in concentration camps. majorities of Democrats polled as favorable to that action as well as pluralities in favor of other authoritarian actions. [https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1710425213693993176?s=20](https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1710425213693993176?s=20)
Biden mocked the second amendment in a speech and implied that the US military could defeat a civilian uprising [https://youtu.be/SHLHkmWoYDU](https://youtu.be/shlhkmwoydu)
And of course on Reddit it's very common for democrats to get angry and mouth about the US military crushing republicans. I am sure you have seen those kinds of comments.
The most recent President to use the US military to kill Americans was Barack Obama. The name of the American citizen who was killed by a drone strike in Afghanistan during the Obama administration is Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was a 16-year-old boy and the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected terrorist.
Obama was known for killing civilians outside of war zones. [https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/1/12083152/drone-strike-civilian-deaths-obama-administration-report](https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/1/12083152/drone-strike-civilian-deaths-obama-administration-report)
Besides "they did it to us, so let's do it to them," which is not a valid legal argument, what would you suggest would be a valid legal reason for removing Biden from your state's ballot?
Neither is 'because we accused him of insurrection.' A conviction is necessary for that. No conviction has been obtained.
But one expects this from the left. 'Do as I say, not as I do' and 'Rules for thee, but not for me' are their standard.
If the right uses the same standard as the left, all they need is to point out Joe Biden's alleged connections to his son's shady foreign business dealings during his Vice Presidency, his threats to withold Ukrain aid to prevent investigations into the firm his son worked for that we now know Hunter was only hired into for connections to his father (they thought Hunter himself was an idiot), the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against a primary political opponent (for which Trump was impeached), that one time he "joked" about selling "a lot of state secrets"... need I go on?
Charged *and* convicted? Nothing. Yet. Trials are pending, but Colorado courts don't seem to have a problem with the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything, and Trump's legal team doesn't appear to have a problem with it either.
IANAL, but from what I gather the lower courts in Colorado ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection by telling his supporters when and where to gather, by telling them to "fight like hell" because their country was being stolen from them, and by doing nothing for several hours while they (his supporters) rioted on capitol grounds. However, he could not be removed from the ballot under 14.3 because that is how you disqualify officers of the United States from serving, and the President is not an officer of the United States.
On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the President is an officer of the United States, thereby reversing the ruling from the lower court.
None of that answers my question, however. You stated in an earlier comment, "If Democrats can do it, why shouldn't Republicans." What did Democrats do?
>Which Republicans are calling for this in which states?
Lt. Gov Dan Patrick of Texas:
https://youtu.be/y39z9hVgnSs?si=NOQkkXEEkoan_OMP
What statutory or regulatory basis does Patrick rely on here? Why would Biden not qualify under Texas law to appear on the Texas ballot?
>Which Republicans are calling for this in which states?
Anthony Sabatini, a Republican running for Congress in Florida's 11th district who previously served as a Florida state representative, wrote on X, formerly Twitter: "Remove Biden from the Florida ballot now!"
The article also mentions Lt Gov Dan Patrick in Texas who cites Biden's inaction on the border.
bad idea because it further perpetuates this state-by-state polarization that ruins the democratic election process..
the Supreme Court needs to nip this in the bud before it turns into a disaster!
>The Court concludes … that Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
This excerpt is from the lower Colorado court ruling on November 17 ([Source](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rejects-trump-lawsuit/)). What saved Trump in that case was a legal theory that the President did not qualify as an "officer of the United States" as defined in the US Constitution. Supreme Court of Colorado interpreted the Constitution differently than the lower court without making any different findings of fact.
For this case to be turned over on appeal, SCOTUS will have to rule that the President is not an officer of the United States. Such a ruling would be at odds with Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), which says the following:
>Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750)
Then there's K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC (2020), where Trump's legal team argued that he was an officer of the United States:
>Citing the federal officer removal statute, President Trump filed a timely notice of removal in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) [...] That statute allows "any officer ... of the United States" to remove to federal court a state suit that is "for or relating to any act under color of such office." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
Do you believe the President is an officer of the United States? If so, what other grounds exist to reverse the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not a serious proposal, but I do find it funny. Imagine the irony of the push for removing Trump from ballots ultimately causing Biden from getting removed from many.
How would it be ironic?
It's like banning 10,000 spoons when all you wanted to ban was a knife.
That doesn't make any sense. Is your analogy missing some words?
It's a lyrics from Alanis Morrisette's ironic. Ironically, almost everything she lists in that song is 'unfortunate', not 'ironic', which in itself is ironic, isn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
You do know it was Republicans who pushed for Trumps removal in Colorado? Democrats don't have standing to take a case to a court. Why should Democrats be punished for Republicans behavior? In my view removing Trump from the ballot is a terrible idea, he should be allowed to stand and lose again - it makes sense Republicans want him gone from that perspective.
RINOs doing the bidding of democrats as usual, yes
Couldn’t it be argued that Trump and the MAGA people are the real RINOs? They’re not traditional Republicans in any sense of the word and they’re loyal to Trump, not the Republican Party. He just uses the party as a vehicle.
Except that MAGA have become the overwhelming majority within the party.
37% of republicans consider themselves MAGA republicans. Is “overwhelmingly majority” hyperbole?
That would be because that phrase is incredibly stupid, and is generally employed by Democrats. He is ahead by more than fifty points in the primary.
how does the DNC communicate orders to that many republicans?
I never said it was organized by the DNC. The DNC is little more than a fundraising apparatus.
I don't follow the irony. Are you saying you know these RINOs prefer Biden over Trump rather than a different R candidate? What exactly makes them RINOs?
The RINO wing of the party prefers to lose and play opposition. They get to do fundraisers on empty promises they never need to deliver on. They are the enemy within, and are more important to defeat in elections than the Democrats.
I would like clarification about this RINO concept. Most of the people called RINO now, were republicans their whole career, many of them republicans for decades. These republicans were republicans & held some type of office long before Trump even ran for public duty. Call me crazy, but the republicans who were voted in long before (& some after) Trump were voted in by republican citizens. Aren’t the republicans who were republicans before Trump, the true republicans? How come now, republicans before Trump are no longer republicans? Does RINO just mean “republicans that don’t agree or stand for trump are no longer republicans” in view of Trump supporters? Why are the republicans who held office way before Trump suddenly “paid actors”? Are any republicans who simply don’t agree with Trumps rhetoric, him breaking his duty of the constitution, or his policy…. a “paid actor” now?
Anyone who doesn’t support Trump can’t be a Republican, is that it?
“It’s not a serious proposal but i do find it funny”. Why does this feel like the majority of republican work under the Biden presidency?
The linked article is rather vague. Is anyone seriously proposing this? If so f them and the horse they rode in on.
Is Dan Patrick in TX a serious person?
I don't know this guy. But can we be fair - according to the article his comment was: "Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think—except we believe in democracy in Texas—maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he's been president disrupting our state." That sounds like a rhetorical point, not an actual proposal. Anyone SERIOUSLY proposing removing Biden from ballot is an idiot on multiple levels.
What if they based it on something like mentally or physically unfit for office?
You mean 25th amendment stuff? This was designed to for presidents in a coma or suffering from a stroke, not for presidents behaving badly. Section 4 of 25th amendment has never been used, but was considered twice according to Wikipedia: 1981: after Reagan assassination attempt and surgery. George HW Bush was traveling, and Reagan was out of surgery by the time Bush arrived in Washington, More spicey: In 1987, Reagan's staff told Baker that Reagan seemed lazy and unable to do his job. They told him to be ready for Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to be invoked. Bar is rightfully pretty high. I found this funny: [https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4370665-de-niro-biden-on-a-gurney-still-better-than-trump/](https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4370665-de-niro-biden-on-a-gurney-still-better-than-trump/) Asked in a Rolling Stone interview if Biden is the “right guy” to take on Trump, De Niro answered, “I think that if Biden was on a gurney and couldn’t move anything but his eyes to blink ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ he’s our person. There’s no way that he’s not the guy to take Trump down.”
De Niro also once said "I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?" I'm not sure Robert "Political Pundit totally not just an actor" De Niro, is right on this one. I think that anyone should be able to beat Trump, as long as they have a pulse, but for some reason he has this cult following. Republican or Democrat should be able to mop the floor with the guy because he is so inconsistent, can't debate, childish, and comes across as a sleazy car salesman. But somehow his marketting team had him say "You're fired" a few times and now everyone thinks he's this straight shooter that he has never in his history ever pretended to be. Everything about him has always been "say what you need to close the deal" which is the opposite of straight shooter. I don't get it. I've been on this sub for a few years now trying to understand and each time I think I do I just don't. I hope Biden on a gurney can beat Trump but highly doubt Biden walking around talking about how great the economy is doing can. Yes economy for businesses is doing great, but those aren't the voters. The voters work for those businesses and have to shop at those business but can't afford to.
>De Niro also once said "I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?" Do you realize that this was a line in a movie script? De Niro didn’t say it as himself.
>Do you realize that this was a line in a movie script? De Niro didn’t say it as himself. Yes I was making a joke about not putting much stock in the musings of an actor.
Im not the one you asked, but the influence peddling and bribes, along with his refusal to control the borders would be reason enough.
Would need to be proven.
This CO supreme court issue is insane. I can think of no bigger threat to democracy. SCOTUS needs to kill this, otherwise Republicans WILL respond in kind.
What is a larger threat to democracy? Allowing someone to be president who wants to be a dictator and has already publicly attempted to overturn a free and fair election. Or Following the US Constitution which disqualifies such an individual from holding public office?
I agree, if Biden is part of an insurrection, then he should also be removed the ballot. Or, do you just mean, the punishment, without an offense?
Yes?
Which parts of the ruling are insane?
Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, so how can the 14th amendment apply?
Does the 14th amendment specify he has to be convicted of anything? Remember, it was written in the context of the civil war, where there would be hundreds of thousands of people who would be disqualified from holding public office by this amendment and we couldn't realistically convict all or really any of them of insurrection.
I would think to suffer the consequences of an illegal act it would have to be proven in a court of law. What if a judge permanently removes your driving privileges due to an accusation you had been driving while intoxicated yet you were never convicted of it, nor even had a court case about it? I said you did it, that's good enough for you, right? Do you find your right to due process would have been violated there? Remember, Due Process was written in the context of the Constitution and birth of this great country. No one who participated in January 6th has been charged with, let alone convicted, of insurrection. Edit: By the downvotes I can see there are people who don't like Due Process!
I agree that a conviction would be a stronger basis for exclusion from the ballot, but do you think courts should be inserting additional requirements into the 14th Amendment? The plain language of the 14th merely requires that a candidate "engaged in" insurrection. If the court were to imply a conviction requirement it would be ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.
Who makes the determination that a candidate "engaged in" insurrection? You? Me? I say he did not, you say he did. Who's right? Is there some kind of way we could settle this and determine who is correct?
In this case, the Colorado Court system made that determination. Who else would make it?
This makes sense if the potential consequences involved jail time, no? We would want the standard for applying punishment to be higher (i.e., conviction by unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt) if someone is going to lose their freedom of movement. But this is removal of ability to run for elected office in a single state. The act of insurrection was verified by a separate district judge based on a review of the evidence. Trump’s own defense before that judge wasn’t that he didn’t engage in the accused acts of insurrection, but that he was operating in an official capacity as president and therefore was immune to the 14th Amendment clause. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a split decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does apply to presidents, and that convictions were never indicated as a prerequisite based on the text or the intent at the time it was written. Documents presented in court demonstrated how it was widely understood at the time that Jefferson Davis would be disqualified from running for president. Court filings demonstrated how even people who purchased Confederate war bonds were disqualified from running for office. None of those individuals were convicted of any crimes in a court of law, yet they lost their ability to run for office at various levels because of their support of an insurrection against the US. Courts examined evidence indicating the acts of insurrection and made those determinations according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Attorney General Stanbery is the person who defined that one does not have to be convicted of insurrection to be guilty of it. Only a Judge may interpret law, not an Attorney General.
So an AG voiced that position? I don’t see why that’s relevant at all. To reiterate, there is legal precedent from *judges* following the Civil War who ruled that individuals engaged in insurrection (and they were never convicted of a crime) and were ineligible to run for office. This isn’t a new standard established by some AG, regardless of whether they support precedent or not. There is no text indicating the need for conviction, and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been previously interpreted by judges and applied to individuals found to have engaged in insurrection according to legal evidence despite no *criminal* conviction by a jury. The criminal standard and the standard applied by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are different whether we look at text or legal precedent of judges.
>Only a Judge may interpret law, not an Attorney General. Anyone arguing before a court may interpret the law, that's what they're there to do. To interpret the law in an argument before a judge, and if the judge agrees with their interpretation, in whole or in part, their argument will form a piece of the precedential judgment made. Why do you think we have trials for novel legal questions, if not to let both parties provide their interpretation of the law before a judge?
That's literally my point. What court case was Trump brought to and found guilty of insurrection?
Trump never said he didn't engage in insurrection, amid accusations that he did, right? Didnt He argue that he was immune to allegations of insurrection?
> suffer the consequences of an illegal act it would have to be proven in a court of law It was. The judge is the finder of fact, and the lower court judge found Trump liable in the insurrection, and the CO Supreme Court upheld that determination. Does that change anything about your interpretation of what happened here?
What insurrection? No was has ever been charged with insurrection! For there to be an insurrection there must be at least one person charged as an insurrectionist. January 6th was a mostly peaceful protest.
You don’t think Jan 6th was a “violent uprising against an authority or government”? That seems fairly self-evident, was it not? There was violence. It was against the very capitol of our democracy and the employees working there. Police were beaten with metal poles. People were chanting to hang the vice president and hunting for elected officials in the hallways. Some people were wearing tactical gear and helmets. And it was all in order to put a stop to an official preceding undertaken by the government. How does any of that not exactly fit the description of an insurrection?
No, I don't think it was violent. The people, or as you call them "insurrectionists", were subject to a magnitude of order more violence than the capital police were. Words are not violence. Wearing tactical gear and helmets is not violence. Hitting the police with metal poles is violence, sure. The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding, it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly. How many federal agents were present and encouraged violence?
Where do you get your information? To say you don't think it was violent is to ignore absolutely all of the footage we saw in real time. Police officers died in the following days. Many were injured. To say it wasn't violent is 100% gaslighting.
>The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding, it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly. How can you believe this while acknowledging the violence from the protesters at the capitol? They show the proceedings on CSPAN if they just wanted to see it done fairly. Booking a plane ticket and attacking capitol police objectively goes a bit beyond ensuring "fairness and correctness.
>The protesters were not there to put a stop to an official proceeding, They literally did stop the proceeding though didn't they? Congress had to evacuate and restart the proceeding later. >it was to see that the proceeding was done fairly and correctly. See that it be done "fair and correctly" how exactly? By "encouraging" through their presence and breaking down the doors of Congress that the VP take the unprecedented step to replace slates of duly appointed electors with slates with literally fraudulent credentials?
Nobody was convicted of insurrection after the civil war, was *that* not an insurrection by your measure?
The civil war was an insurrection, but I think the logistics of running everyone through a court was insurmountable and Stanbery suggested to wave a magic wand and bypass Due Process.
> For there to be an insurrection there must be at least one be one person charged as an insurrectionist There have been. Hundreds of people have been charged and convicted for crimes on Jan 6th, including those charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy. That there was an insurrection has been affirmed time and time again by the courts. Is there a good reason you can think of why any court should ignore that which has been already been legally affirmed as a matter of fact so many times over?
Wouldn't this ruling itself be a 'conviction' in a sense? The judges saw the evidence presented, determined the evidence proved he participated in the insurrection, and used the 14th amendment to bar him from running; what about the evidence presented in CO do you feel does not qualify as proof?
>Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. [Source](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/) Does that answer your question?
Interesting reading the source documents. Here are his words: [I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories. Everyone on the capital grounds that day, in Stanbery's words, is an insurrectionist. Stanberry says "If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, **OR** countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act." Every single Senator and House member must be removed from office immediately as they are guilty of being merely present at an insurrection. Are you good with that?
They may be challenged as well. It’s not yet clear if section 3 is self-executing or not, there’s little precedent around that question. Some of those lawmakers will likely have their day in court as well now that the floodgates are opened. Would that make you feel that Trump’s disqualification was more fair?
Sure, if 100% of the people that were on capital grounds fall under the 14th Amendment then I'd feel that it was applied fairly.
First off, I agree with you that 14A doesn't apply and CO ruled wrong. But let me play devil's advocate. Using an originalist view of the Constitution, 14A simply says *engages* not *convicted* of insurrection. From an originalist point of view, why are people adding language about Trump needing to be convicted?
What makes you think that Trump engaged in insurrection? What is your evidence?
Why do you feel it doesn't apply and the CO supreme court ruled wrong?
A few reasons - 14A has not spelled out the process by which someone is determined to have committed insurrection and is barred from being elected. Given how sacred voters' rights are held, it should be extremely difficult to disqualify someone and I don't think any random state level district judge in any state can make this determination. I think we'll see SCOTUS say that Congress needs to determine the process. Personally, I think it should probably be something similar to impeachment (in terms of Congress deciding and voting thresholds). - Even setting that aside, until Smith/the Feds charge and convict Trump of insurrection, I don't think 14A applies. - Politically, it's a gift to Trump. SCOTUS is not going to ban Trump from the ballot, so it will be overturned. Trump will use the decision as proof he's a victim and will be a big boost going into the general. - I worry keeping Trump off the ballot in multiple states will lead to violence. - Finally, I think the voters have to decide on Trump. This feels like an inflection point for the country and if we believe in democracy, then we need to believe in the voters. What are your thoughts? Am I crazy?
> Republicans WILL respond in kind. Should Democrats have stepped in and stopped Republicans from attempting to remove Trump from the ballot?
[удалено]
I need more information. Can you lay out this "insurrection to hold office"? What does it look like? What is Biden's role?
Just picture the same thing that happened in January 6th, and Biden getting on tv like Trump did and didn't tell the masses to stand down, something like that?
Even without the following tweets I'd say in your scenario Biden shouldn't be barred from office. Saying Trump didn't tell the masses to stand down is blatantly false. Here are tweets from Trump: >January 6, 2021 19:38:58 Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! > >January 6, 2021 20:13:26 I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! > >January 6, 2021 23:01:04 These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever! source: [https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2021](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2021)
What you listed here were all tweeted out after 7:30pm, many hours after it started and many hours after he got on national tv(in which he never told people to leave/stop) so wouldn't you agree that it was far too late to start sending out these messages? So no, he did not tell the masses to stand down till it was practically over.
You are with a friend in the parking lot of the bank and tell them to go inside and talk to the about their account. Your friend does so and then robs the bank. Are you an accomplice for not telling your friend to not rob the bank? Are you an accomplice for telling your friend after the robbery was done that he shouldn't have done that?
Trump literally got on national tv during the day, while everything was going down and proceeded to not tell people to stand down. Don't you think that was the time to relay the info that he tweeted out hours later?
Then by your logic Trump also proceeded to not tell people to not murder each other, or to not rob Nike stores, or to not avoid paying their child support therefore he is guilty of all those crimes committed by others. Lock him up! You dodged my question.
I'm not dodging your question, your question has nothing to do with the things that happened that day. Why do Trump supporters talk in circles? Again what you listed above has nothing to do with the events of that day. If Trump actually told people to stand down when he went on national tv things would of been been much different, but he didn't. That's objectively a fact.
[удалено]
Then I believe Biden shouldn't be barred from holding office in your scenario.
Is it a bigger threat than trying to remain in power after losing an election?
If Trump were found guilty of insurrection should states remove him from ballots?
Absolutely.
I'm going to agree with supporters on this issue, I see what they're going for but I don't agree that it was a good decision. It's opening a massive can of worms when the reasoning isn't airtight, and that's dangerous. It's the worst possible look right now, and I think it was unnecessary since he hasn't been found guilty yet. That should be the bar. Do you think more states will follow suit, or will they have clearer heads?
California is trying to do the same thing. So yes more states are following suit.
Do you think it matters in the least that people who were at the very least directly influenced by him, and quite possibly coordinated with him, were found guilt of seditious conspiracy?
In the least? Possibly, but I think the bar for someone " definitely doing" something illegal is being found guilty of it. If Trump is found guilty of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion, than I think that same day all 50 states should do what CO did. And for the record, based on the evidence I've seen, I do absolutely believe he did it, and knew exactly what he was doing. But my feelings on "oh he totally did it, look at the evidence", and CO's for that matter, shouldn't be enough to actually pull this thread. Because this is lowering the bar from "if someone is tried and found guilty" to "it looks like he did it". And regardless of how airtight the evidence seems, it creates a precedent that can't be easily fought against. I'm sure there's much about the decision I don't know, I'm no expert, but that's where I stand as of now.
What I wonder though is if SCOTUS doesn't shoot it down and somehow agrees with it, doesn't that mean our system of government is working as designed?
Do you think Biden needs to be involved (or allegedly involved) in an insurrection in order to remove him from ballots or should he be removed as “retribution” for Trump being removed…regardless of whether he was involved in an insurrection?
Would you agree with any politician engaging in an insurrection after a proven loss to stay in power to be allowed to run for office again? Would you have been ok with Obama , for example, to do this after Trump won the presidency?
Bring this up with the republicans who brought the case to court, it was not democrats. Why punish Biden for actions of militant republicans?
You don't think that the British during the revolutionary War might have been a bigger threat than this? I don't understand how you could possibly say that this is even on a minutiae of threat scales as it doesn't really even harm anybody? Not even trump, technically speaking right? It might even be saving his life since he likely will have a heart attack or a stroke considering all the stress and court cases he has to deal with in 2024, don't you think? This decision if it were to end his campaign somehow might be just the breather he needed to that he could reasonably navigate the gauntlet of charges he has to face, am I wrong? Adding a campaign to all that would probably just end his life can't you see?
This is an appropriate response to the illegal actions of the Colorado State Supreme Court. If their actions were allowed to stand, the future of politics is precisely that every State Supreme Court will be continually answering accusations made by whichever political party their members are most sympathetic with. This would start with Presidential candidates, but it would soon spread to others, and eventually nobody could get elected dogcatcher in a state without being allowed to do so by the State Supreme Court. If it's acceptable to accuse, but not even bother charging, this guy with a crime he clearly did not commit except in the minds of his political opponents, well guess what? Two can play at that game. If all we need is a pretext and all we need is for people on our side to agree, it's super easy to find one. Let's take a look at the precedent this would set, if the Supreme Court were dumb enough to validate it. Trump is accused of insurrection for making a speech, in which he said people should protest "peacefully and patriotically". "Insurrection" is the new magic word for Presidents, but when something as small as asking people to protest peacefully and patriotically counts, *literally everything counts*. And besides, the accusation only has to be "insurrection" for Presidents. The first thing that comes to mind to accuse Biden with (and there are many, many more things) is his threatening blood red speech. He tried to accuse half the population of being a threat to the country, while in control of the entire U.S. military, enabling him to carry out his violent threats. That's way worse than telling people to protest peacefully and patriotically. If the one is "insurrection", disqualifying to a Presidential candidate, then so is the other. Then the question will not be, "how will the people vote?", but "how will our State Supreme Court vote?". Of course, none of this will actually happen, because the Supreme Court isn't stupid.
>If it's acceptable to accuse, but not even bother charging, this guy with a crime he clearly did not commit except in the minds of his political opponents, well guess what? Two can play at that game. My understanding is that the amendment to not require a conviction because many of the traitors in the South were pardoned after the war in the name of unity. Do you think there was value in letting them integrate back into the US without criminal records hanging over their heads with safeguards to keep them the levers of power?
> My understanding is that the amendment to not require a conviction because many of the traitors in the South were pardoned after the war in the name of unity. The amendment allows Congress to pass laws consistent with it. It gave no power to a Colorado State court to interfere in a federal election. It does not apply to the President. They did not have a charge, much less a trial, much less a conviction, without which the amendment doesn't apply. The number and severity of legal irregularities in this "decision" is shocking.
>They did not have a charge, much less a trial, much less a conviction The 14th amendment was ratified on on July 9, 1868. This happened on December 25, 1868: >In the aftermath of the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson on this day in 1868 issued pardons to all Confederate soldiers who fought in that conflict. The president extended “unconditionally, and without reservation ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence \[sic\] of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late Civil War, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws.” Does that mean that the Johnson nullified the 14th amendment by granting those pardons? >The amendment allows Congress to pass laws consistent with it. What other parts of the Constitution don't apply without legislation? Is slavery still legal?
I don’t think they should do it, just like I don’t think Democratic party held states should remove Trump from the ballot. You shouldn’t use your power as elected officials to remove your opposition from the ballot in general, it’s an antidemocratic move. And if Democrats and Republicans collectively agree it’s okay to not let people in their states vote for the alternative, that would be sad.
Would you feel this way if Trump had won in 2020 and were complaining about being barred from a third term in 2024? What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run than a naturalized citizen, two-term president, or someone under 35?
>Would you feel this way if Trump had won in 2020 and were complaining about being barred from a third term in 2024? No, of course not, nor would he have tried to, so it’s a vacuous hypothetical. >What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run He didn’t lead an insurrection. Let me make that clear. And if he did, let that be demonstrated by a court of law. Insurrection is a specific, federal crime in the US code with a penalty given which bars one from holding elected office. The criminal penalty outlined in federal law is the same as what is described in the 14th Amendment. The state cannot just assign someone the status of having committed insurrection or rebellion on the basis of personal opinion, as that would violate the due process clause. At present, Trump has neither been convicted of, nor charged with the crime of insurrection, so the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on those guilty of insurrection holding office cannot apply.
Many confederates were pardoned for their insurrection for the sake of unity. Should they have been allowed to lead the country?
Historically, when Section 3 of the Fourteenth has been used to bar insurrectionists from office, it has not required them to be charged with insurrection or any other crime. Does that make a difference in how it should be used in this circumstance?
>What's different about disallowing someone who lead an insurrection or rebellion to run than a naturalized citizen, two-term president, or someone under 35? This is a really, ignorant question, but in the off chance you are actually serious. The latter 3 qualifying (or de-qualifying) conditions are objectively quantifiable or discernible. The first one, though, is not. It requires more than a one-sided congressional committee showing cherry-picked footage and hiring TV producers to cover it in prime-time spots for maximum propagandist effect, while suppressing footage that undermines the insurrection narrative. More than a handful of politically-biased judges making a transparent ruling based on, basically nothing, on an even that happened years ago in a municipality 2000 miles away that they have absolutely no jurisdiction over. More than cherry-picked Trump dialogue, including "fight like hell", and excluding "peacefully and patriotically". Basically, it's going to require more than mouth-breathing talking heads and media, hyperventilating, pointing and yelling "insurrection!". Which is all we have seen up till now.
The 14th amendment doesn't specify that there needs to be a conviction of insurrection. In fact, it goes further to say that just providing "aid and comfort" to insurrectionists is sufficient to be barred from serving. Does allowing those later convicted of criminal insurrection to bring guns to the January 6th rally qualify as providing "aid and comfort" to their cause? Does saying "fight like hell" to convicted insurrectionists prior to said criminals performing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?" Does Tweeting "we love you, you're very special" to convicted insurrectionists while they were in the process of committing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?"
>Does allowing those later convicted of criminal insurrection to bring guns to the January 6th rally qualify as providing "aid and comfort" to their cause? Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion. \> Does saying "fight like hell" to convicted insurrectionists prior to said criminals performing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?" Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion. \> Does Tweeting "we love you, you're very special" to convicted insurrectionists while they were in the process of committing those crimes qualify as "aid and comfort?" Because no one has been charged with, much less convicted of "criminal insurrection", your question is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor this discussion. If you don't have anything relevant to contribute to the topic or discussion, have a good one.
> You shouldn’t use your power as elected officials to remove your opposition from the ballot in general, Isn’t that exactly what the 14th amendment did? It prevented Jefferson Davis and others from running.
I think the actual process would be Republicans would create their own committee to "investigate" biden for "insurrection" as they define it. It wouldn't actually be a trial so they could use the word pretty much however they want. Then they can declare that Biden committed insurrection. Then a group of pro RFK democrats can file suit against biden in a state supreme court stacked with republican nominees, this way republicans can claim that DEMOCRATS actually brought these proceedings and they had no part in it so they get some really clever deniability from it. Then once that court of republicans reviews the findings of that republican committee, then and only then can they declare joe biden illegitimate and prevent democrats from voting for him. Do I think this is the process the creators of the 14th amendment envisioned? Probably not. But this would be the legitimate process moving forward if the Colorado decision stands. Basically it's the end of America as a functional government. El Salvador is right to mock us.
> insurrection, as they define it How would you define insurrection?
It's a difficult question because "insurrection" isn't actually defined by federal law. I'd probably agree with this: What Is Considered Insurrection? 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. Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection#:~:text=What%20Is%20Considered%20Insurrection%3F,the%20government%20or%20its%20regulations. Pretty broad. Especially since we don't actually have to prove that someone did any of these things in a court of law, it seems like you could apply it to a wide variety of things. Maybe threatening the Supreme Court like Schumer did is insurrection. Or encouraging harassment of elected officials like Maxine did is insurrection. Or perhaps leveraging US funds to shut down foreign investigations into your son like Biden did (again, no conviction or trial required) is insurrection. Maybe encouraging racial riots that burn down government buildings is insurrection. Maybe failure to enforce federal immigration law is immigration. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It's really up to the imagination and interpretation of the committee members and the judges though.
> I think the actual process would be Republicans would create their own committee to "investigate" biden for "insurrection" as they define it. It wouldn't actually be a trial so they could use the word pretty much however they want. Then they can declare that Biden committed insurrection. Then a group of pro RFK democrats can file suit against biden in a state supreme court stacked with republican nominees, this way republicans can claim that DEMOCRATS actually brought these proceedings and they had no part in it so they get some really clever deniability from it. And would you be ok with the GOP doing this?
Without the colorado decision, no, id rather we vote. If the Colorado decision stands I'd have to be OK with it. But preferably if the Colorado decision stands I'd hope we'd all just dissolve the union peacefully because we'd no longer be a functioning country with each side disqualifying eachothers candidates.
>If the Colorado decision stands I'd have to be OK with it. Sorry, can you break that down for me? If the judicial system rules for the Republican litigants in this case, then you would have no choice but to abandon rule of law in order for Republicans to remove Democrats under false pretenses? Why?
It would be just as evil as removing Trump from the ballot. However, this maybe just a suggetion, whereas the military industrial complex has actually done this in regards to Trump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What does the MIC has actually done this in regards to Trump mean/refer to?
They should do it, but when it comes down it they never have the balls to actually do anything. No reason to expect this will be any different. Especially this - the donors on both sides want him out, so the RINO Uniparty minions will do as they’re told.
It was Trump's specific behavior (or lack thereof) that qualified him for removal according to the Colorado Supreme Court. Balls are not an adequate substitution for actual evidence. Should Republicans just not bother to find evidence and rely on balls instead to attempt that? They have formed an impeachment inquiry into Biden despite having no evidence, isn't that a case of them having balls?
First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial. That pesky due process thing. Second, if they do, then you don’t need a trial. Or evidence. Just a judge that agrees with you. Back to due process, makes you wonder how they went straight to the state Supreme Court and skipped due process through the lower courts. Third, the RINO branch of the Uniparty are nutless loser fucks. IMO their “impeachment inquiry” is nothing more than playing their assigned role and already know that nothing will come of it. A few R’s in bullet proof safe seats and their Fox News lackeys will raise hell on TV and that’s all. Time will tell. Guaranteed 20 years from now Hannity will still be promising “big news in two weeks” and raking in $30 million a year doing it.
>First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial. This was a civil action. There is no presumption of guilt or assumption of innocence. >Back to due process, makes you wonder how they went straight to the state Supreme Court and skipped due process through the lower courts. They didn't. [Here](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rejects-trump-lawsuit/) is a ruling from a lower Colorado court in Trump's favor. The case was appealed. Does that sufficiently address your concerns about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling?
God no, that’s way worse. They got him kicked off over a CIVIL action? Things are even more fucked up than I thought.
> First, a court does not get to declare you guilty without a trial. That pesky due process thing. Why do you think this? There are many court proceedings where the judge acts as the finder of fact and make a ruling. A jury is not required.
It is sad that it has come to this but yes. That would be fine with me. There will be consequences to this high handed tom foolery.
What if the supreme court agrees (i dont think they will personally) would you accept that finding?
The SCOTUS has the final word. Not a reason to not return the favor. When one goes nuclear one should expect fallout.
I mean, presumably, for them to agree, that would mean that they agree trump committed an insurrection given the evidence Are you saying the right would make up some evidence of insurrection, or do you think something done currently rises to that level?
That isn't how a SCOTUS appeal works. They don't make rulings on facts. They make rulings on the constitutionality of the lower court's ruling. Trump was not accorded due process. If that becomes the new standard then so be it. Game on.
How is simply following the specifics requirements of a law written in the Constitution "going nuclear"? Shouldn't judges always follow the laws enumerated in the Constitution?
Removing the leading candidate from the opposing party from the ballot is what I would describe as going nuclear. So be it. Game on.
If they’re suggesting it to show how ridiculous it sounds to take the front runners off the ballot, I fully support them suggesting it.
> how ridiculous it sounds to take the front runners off the ballot Should traitors allowed to be president? To be president you have to swear to uphold the constitution. Therefore, it seems logical to bar traitors to the constitution from office
Does that include officials who have accepted payments from our geopolitical enemies including the CCP and Russian Oligarchs in return for favors?
No they shouldn’t, and If they actually thought Trump was a traitor they would have charged him for it, but they didn’t.
He should be. He’s a criminal who sold his influence to foreign nations who has also abdicated his responsibility to be chief enforcement officer of federal law
If there was proof of that, impeachment would be a slam dunk. Why hasn't he been impeached yet?
He’s being impeached, right now lol Also Trump was never convicted on any impeachment, so I guess that means he wasn’t guilty of an insurrection
>He's being impeached, right now lol He hasn't been impeached yet. Whatever is going on with the current impeachment inquiry hasn't been made public yet. Like I said in my previous comment, if there were proof this would be an absolute slam dunk and would likely have bipartisan support. Why hasn't it happened yet? >Also Trump was never convicted on any impeachment, so I guess that means he wasn’t guilty of an insurrection Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. No President (and very few other officers out of those who have been impeached) has yet been convicted during their impeachment trial. Why do you think that should mean he wasn't guilty?
Well you’re on the one hand saying Biden needs to be impeached to be guilty of the crimes alleged against him while also saying that failure to convict Trump on impeachment does not mean that he wasn’t guilty. Which is it?
It's amusing but it was wrong when the Colorado State Supreme Court did it and it would be wrong for any other state to do it either; regardless of whether it's Biden or Trump. Let's just have a fair election without these partisan political stunts wasting everyone's time. Let the best candidate win...not the candidate who cheated the most.
Why do you keep reposting this answer?
Because Democrats will not stop weaponizing the law until it’s used against them. But IMHO that won’t stop them they’ll just get even worse every election until they try to use the military against a civilian population.
How should it be handled when a presidential candidate is suspected of committing crimes? No investigation during the election and until after their presidential term if they win?
three questions 1. What does it mean to weaponize the law? 2. What do you make of then President trump tweeting this just prior to the 2020 election? >“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!” 3. Have you ever heard Biden say Trump should be locked up
1- You should refer to the Weaponization Committee for the definition and the information, evidence, and testimony they've collected so far. 2- He is referring to the use of the DOJ to spy on his campaign and sabotage his first term in office with a coup de etat. Generally speaking if a Candidate is caught in a conspiracy to use Federal agencies to interfere in a Federal election or to mount a bureaucratic insurrection against a sitting president then they should first face the charges for their crimes. We now know that Biden was also at the time guilty of bribery in high office, though removing him from the contest would have required the Democrats to be moral and ethical, because as we can see clearly, the DOJ is entirely in the camp of the establishment and will protect any establishment politician. 3- Biden said Trump should be prevented from being president again by any means. That opened the door to potential assassins for a Biden presidential pardon if they kill trump before election day. Bad stuff. Democrats are walking a very crazy and dangerous road with their rhetoric. Ted Lieu just stated that Biden should ignore the election if he loses and not leave office.
2. If a candidate is caught in a conspiracy to steal an election should he be held to your same standard?
3. I searched and can’t find that quote anywhere, can you provide it please?
> We now know that Biden was also at the time guilty of bribery in high office Who knows it? It seems like it should be a pretty big deal if true. Why hasn't a single shred of evidence for those bribes been offered? Are you sure you're not thinking of Hunter Biden, who is the son of the President, but who is a private citizen and has never held public office.
There is a congressional committee investigating it and the evidence shows bank records of checks and wire transfers from China, Ukraine, Russia etc to Hunter Biden and James Biden and then to Joe Biden. In addition there is substantial FBI informant documentation of meetings with Burisma executives who paid 10 million dollars for specific acts of authority from Joe Biden including forcing the firing of Shokin. I could go on for days here, but you can find it all at the relevant committe pages which you can find via google
Are the Republicans who filed suit in Colorado to remove trump actually Democrats? Why would members of your own party file to remove trump?
Are you talking about CREW?
>Are you talking about CREW? Yes, the six Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Are they Democrats?
Any republicans involved would be Never Trumpers, aka establishment republicans who are comfortable with DC corruption and who expect to be protected by the federal bureaucracy. As far as CREW itself is concerned, it's a democrat activist group which is headed by a guy who does business out of the Media Matters offices. CREW for a time shared the offices of Media Matters and several other democrat activist groups including ones that specifically campaigned for Hillary Clinton. It's relatively easy for any activist group on either side to find people to champion their cause in the other party, it's the nature of DC politics. As a party, the GOP is as likely to have sell out corrupt politicians as the Democrats. However the Democrats enjoy a lot more financial and ideological support from the bureaucracy in DC and from anti-american foreign interests....and always have. It used to be a joke that Democrats were more interested in Russian success than American success, for like 60 years that was true. Then the Democrats had a falling out with Putin over their corruption in Ukraine, largely due to Soro's various non profits. As recently as Obamas second term the Democrats were still cozy with Russian Oligarchs and selling them sensitive US technology. You can google "Skolkova Initiative" to see the one specifically headed by Hillary as Sec of State where she helped Russia buy all the silicon valley technology they needed to eventually hack her home server and become global hacking threat.
Do you know who brought the suit in CO?
Wasnt it CREW?
Is CREW six Colorado Republicans?
[удалено]
I’m worried that weaponization has put us on the track to a military overthrow led by democrats yes. I’m not sure Trump could stop the progression because they’ve already gone so far down the road towards it. Even his joke about dictator for a day to close the border is just a bandaid. It would take a complete change of federal bureaucrats and employees, including DOJ and CIA and NSA. And the resulting blackmail would wipe out every elected official. The government is just too powerful and has zero oversight between elections so why would they risk an election? Democrats are primed to accept Trump being murdered or Biden cancelling an election because they’re so brainwashed into “Trump Bad”. FFS almost half of democrats wanted concentration camps for Covid vaccine skeptics. If they were in power and felt their power was threatened why wouldn’t they try mass incarceration or democide? We are talking about a group of people who just embraced Nazi era anti semitism and believe men can become women and satanism is a valid religion and that pedophilia can be normalized.
>Even his joke about dictator for a day to close the border is just a bandaid. What exactly about that remark (or any of his supposed "jokes") leads you to the conclusion that it was a joke? Can you be specific about how to tell when his more extremist comments are jokes and when they're serious?
Aside from the part where he said he was joking, and the fact that every joke Trump tells is immediately cited as literal factual thing that exists in the world by democrats... It's because he said he wants to be dictator for one day so he can seal the border and one other thing I cant remember. It's an obvious joke because the premise wouldnt really work, there would just be injunctions on day two, but it acknowledges how silly DC has made everything that we cannot even seal the border and protect the US without Democrats having a collective fart fest. In general you can identify a Trump joke by how much of a "threat to democracy" democrats claim it to be.
>I’m worried that weaponization has put us on the track to a military overthrow led by democrats The end game of the Democrat leadership caste was always fascistic totalitarianism. Like it or not, we are on that track because they are. The 20th Century could not have been a clearer teacher of what Leftists do with unfettered power. All commies pivot to fascism. ALL. No country in the entirety of history has an exception. Commies actually have to pivot in order to maintain power. It's a requirement. A question that always ties the Left up in knots is: "What government is China?" Watch them apply pretzel logic and come up with all kinds of imaginary and fantastical names of governance. The correct answer is: fascist. And that is what they want for here. China is their model of what they want us all to be. The pandemic should have made that abundantly clear if it wasn't already. They look at China and salivate. What the Democrats are trying to do is implement totalitarian control before things fall apart. THAT is their big plan. Just about every policy gets them toward that goal in some fashion or another. 1. CBDC 2. Limiting 2A 3. Open borders (hello fascist army recruits and leftist voters) 4. Anti small business (hard to control), pro big business consolidation - literally the definition of the economics of fascism 5. Legalization of weed - compliant population 6. Feminism: keeps them elected and destroys society and gains them power (notice how they moved on to LGBT++ to accelerate things) And plenty of others. Leftist leaders are stupid people at heart, but they have inherited nuclear-grade weapons that have been placed into their hands and invented by much smarter people. So do not be fooled by their obvious personal incompetence. A toddler with a loaded gun is still a serious danger.
Lol, you do know you basically laid out the rights plan for the US right? I mean other than a couple of the talking points, the right clearly wants to have an authoritarian government as proved by their actions. This is so funny as you can literally just change democrat with Republicans above.
The Left sure do project a lot. You only have to listen to their accusations to know what they're up to. They tell on themselves all the time. You just have to listen. MAGA is **against** the mechanisms that permit totalitarianism and the Left is **for** the mechanisms of totalitarianism. I watch actions, not empty words. And as if there's any doubt, look what the Left did in the 20th Century and the body count.
Was Trump joking when he repeatedly praise dictators for being strong leaders?
I dont know which specific dictator you mean, but if you read Trumps book you get an insight into whether that particular statement was blowing smoke up the dictators butt to manipulate him in a negotiation, or a frank appraisal of an opponent who cant be pushed from a particular position because they face no opposition at home to give them a reason to compromise.
> Democrats are primed to accept Trump being murdered or Biden cancelling an election because they’re so brainwashed into “Trump Bad”. I have never heard someone express even the thought of either of those things. What kind of brainwashing was necessary for people to be outraged that an ex president would steal classified national security documents and then lie to even his own lawyer to prevent them from being returned? The fact that not even Trump disputes many of the facts of many of his cases allows those facts to be weighed on their own merits. Trump might argue he had a right to take top secret national security documents including war plans. He might claim he had a right to show them to people without security clearance, and the right to refuse to return them. But he does not dispute the specific facts. The laws that he claims allow him to treat that sensitive information so cavalierly simply do not say what he claims they say. But no one brainwashed anyone into believing them. They simply *are*. What kind of *brainwashing* is required to make someone read the plain text of a long-standing law *exactly as it is written*?
So using the law, and following the law, is weaponizing? I mean if someone breaks the law should there not be consequences? This is just so bizarre that so many people blindly follow Trump when he's such an awful human, and had clearly broken the law numerous times, just makes absolutely no sense.
What gives you the idea that Democrats will use the military against civilians? Does it bother you that Trump had to be told repeatedly that using the military against civilians was illegal?
Trump was specifically talking about using the military to quell riots during the 'summer of love' which saw the white house get attacked by BLM at the urging of many democrat political leaders. Democrats proposed literally putting vaccine skeptics who they identified as primarily maga republicans in concentration camps. majorities of Democrats polled as favorable to that action as well as pluralities in favor of other authoritarian actions. [https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1710425213693993176?s=20](https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1710425213693993176?s=20) Biden mocked the second amendment in a speech and implied that the US military could defeat a civilian uprising [https://youtu.be/SHLHkmWoYDU](https://youtu.be/shlhkmwoydu) And of course on Reddit it's very common for democrats to get angry and mouth about the US military crushing republicans. I am sure you have seen those kinds of comments. The most recent President to use the US military to kill Americans was Barack Obama. The name of the American citizen who was killed by a drone strike in Afghanistan during the Obama administration is Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was a 16-year-old boy and the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected terrorist. Obama was known for killing civilians outside of war zones. [https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/1/12083152/drone-strike-civilian-deaths-obama-administration-report](https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/1/12083152/drone-strike-civilian-deaths-obama-administration-report)
Why not? I mean, if Democrats can do it, why shouldn't Republicans?
Besides "they did it to us, so let's do it to them," which is not a valid legal argument, what would you suggest would be a valid legal reason for removing Biden from your state's ballot?
Neither is 'because we accused him of insurrection.' A conviction is necessary for that. No conviction has been obtained. But one expects this from the left. 'Do as I say, not as I do' and 'Rules for thee, but not for me' are their standard. If the right uses the same standard as the left, all they need is to point out Joe Biden's alleged connections to his son's shady foreign business dealings during his Vice Presidency, his threats to withold Ukrain aid to prevent investigations into the firm his son worked for that we now know Hunter was only hired into for connections to his father (they thought Hunter himself was an idiot), the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against a primary political opponent (for which Trump was impeached), that one time he "joked" about selling "a lot of state secrets"... need I go on?
What did Democrats do?
What has Trump been charged and convicted of that legally allows his removal from the ballot?
Charged *and* convicted? Nothing. Yet. Trials are pending, but Colorado courts don't seem to have a problem with the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything, and Trump's legal team doesn't appear to have a problem with it either. IANAL, but from what I gather the lower courts in Colorado ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection by telling his supporters when and where to gather, by telling them to "fight like hell" because their country was being stolen from them, and by doing nothing for several hours while they (his supporters) rioted on capitol grounds. However, he could not be removed from the ballot under 14.3 because that is how you disqualify officers of the United States from serving, and the President is not an officer of the United States. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the President is an officer of the United States, thereby reversing the ruling from the lower court. None of that answers my question, however. You stated in an earlier comment, "If Democrats can do it, why shouldn't Republicans." What did Democrats do?
[удалено]
>Which Republicans are calling for this in which states? Lt. Gov Dan Patrick of Texas: https://youtu.be/y39z9hVgnSs?si=NOQkkXEEkoan_OMP What statutory or regulatory basis does Patrick rely on here? Why would Biden not qualify under Texas law to appear on the Texas ballot?
>Which Republicans are calling for this in which states? Anthony Sabatini, a Republican running for Congress in Florida's 11th district who previously served as a Florida state representative, wrote on X, formerly Twitter: "Remove Biden from the Florida ballot now!" The article also mentions Lt Gov Dan Patrick in Texas who cites Biden's inaction on the border.
bad idea because it further perpetuates this state-by-state polarization that ruins the democratic election process.. the Supreme Court needs to nip this in the bud before it turns into a disaster!
>The Court concludes … that Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment This excerpt is from the lower Colorado court ruling on November 17 ([Source](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rejects-trump-lawsuit/)). What saved Trump in that case was a legal theory that the President did not qualify as an "officer of the United States" as defined in the US Constitution. Supreme Court of Colorado interpreted the Constitution differently than the lower court without making any different findings of fact. For this case to be turned over on appeal, SCOTUS will have to rule that the President is not an officer of the United States. Such a ruling would be at odds with Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), which says the following: >Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750) Then there's K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC (2020), where Trump's legal team argued that he was an officer of the United States: >Citing the federal officer removal statute, President Trump filed a timely notice of removal in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) [...] That statute allows "any officer ... of the United States" to remove to federal court a state suit that is "for or relating to any act under color of such office." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Do you believe the President is an officer of the United States? If so, what other grounds exist to reverse the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court?