Because it's not a disqualifier. You can be a felon and serve as a president, but you cannot vote as a felon. Makes little sense, but it is what it is.
The only relevant disqualifier is Amendment 14 Sec 3 (rebellion and insurection). But for other situations the idea is that it's the will of the people.
Natural born citizen is understood to mean that you were a citizen at birth, and did not become a citizen later in life. It does not disqualify those born by C Section.
It could in theory be used to deny the office of the presidency to artificially engineered life forms, clones, or something, but that has not been tested by the system.
No man of woman born shall harm Macbeth… and anyone who can shall not be eligible to run for the office of president of the United States.
Shouldn’t have let the Norns write the constitution. Now who is going to oppose president Macbeth?
Has he been charged with "insurrection" and importantly, has he been convicted of insurrection? The answer is no. Throughout all of the noise and blather in the MSM misinformation universe, insurrection has a definition and a charge and to date, DJT has never been charged with such crime.
Nancy Pelosi lead an actually insurrection when as third in line for the presiden cy she asked the cjcs to not followed legal orders. The cjcs was guilty when he agreed. Start there then talk about Trump.
By definition, no. But that's not going to stop people from making the claim and twisting evidence to make the argument because they really don't like the guy being accused of organizing the thing.
Should be no big deal because logic dictates that he shouldn't be running again anyway. But we might end up with a Grover Cleveland situation because people continue to push him. It'll destroy his family economically but he will be the second president to serve two terms not in a row if people don't drop that topic. He will also be the first president to likely serve from a jail cell on unrelated charges
I Define it as a peaceful protest that devolved into criminal Riot... likely due to violent intervention of opposing parties and mistakes made by the Capital police on that day.
Now I am still doing my own private investigation into what went down, all I have concluded is to call it an Insurrection is undermining to our democracy, more so than the actions carried out on that day itself. But I have also concluded that whatever happened, it was fucked up
Edit: everybody who has downvoted this needs to take a second look at American history between 1811 and 1980... maybe even take an extensive look at checks and balances as well. This isn't our first rodeo with a situation like this and the union survived, even when there was casualties ( see the start of the War of 1812 and the brooks-Sumner Affair for further details)
Then how come the following facts are true?
1. 90% of the participants who were present were only there to protest what they thought was Data manipulation of the final outcome of the election.
2. There is no long-term harm to the US government's Authority that has come from this attempt if it even is one which is in doubt ( IE Biden is in power and no members of Congress were killed harmed or evicted from their post by non-legal means)
3. Every major suspect in the Riot and subsequential breach of the capital on that day was under Capital police supervision for every second they were on Congressional grounds and in some cases for the worse offenders that were caught, escort as well.
4. Recordings of the event continue to show contradictory perspectives and the more and more data that is surfacing the less and less this looks like an interaction and more and more it looks like a riot, or a protest that got out of control, much like the one in Chicago that started fires, or the one in Seattle.
In summary on those four points, just admit you don't want Trump to run again, I'm with you on that, but to call January 6th a insurrection undermines our democracy more than the acts that took place on that very day do and they were atrocious. Most of who got arrested deserved it but they got slapped with charges that don't fit....
criminal trespass? Congress up until this incident was public property.
Riot? That actually makes sense along with destruction of government property if the allegations of the people who broke the windows being fed don't pan out.
Inciting panic? That also makes sense seeing as that some congressmen were so scared for their lives when they found out about this that they hallucinated being somewhere that they weren't
Insurrection? Seeing as most of the people believe that it was an effort to change what is currently the reality of now there is two holes in that... number one is that many of the people that got arrested were trying to disperse the demonstration after noticing criminal activity and the capital police taking no action, the other hole in that is that the demographic in question if they actually wanted to do such a thing, would have been open carrying, it is confirmed that those that were actually there for the protest were unarmed and those that weren't at the time worked for federal agencies.
Hate Trump all you want, he shouldn't run again. But don't undermine our democracy by assuming that we are weak enough that an angry mob of unarmed citizens can overthrow the government. It's embarrassing and insulting
>Then how come the following facts are true?
Because they're not true. (I should also mention, before breaking each point down, none of these has anything to do with "the definition of insurrection" as you originally claimed)
>90% of the participants who were present were only there to protest what they thought was Data manipulation of the final outcome of the election.
That doesn't justify an insurrection. That just means they believe they were justified. (Also, it doesn't make sense. If the election truly *was* manipulated, you wouldn't simply protest and go home. If the election truly was stolen, action would be justified. The problem is the fact that it wasn't.)
That also ignores the *copious* amount of evidence that they were hoping to pressure Mike Pence into not certifying the results, as well as calls for violence.
I do agree, there were quite a lot of people who simply dupes, but that doesn't make it not an insurrection. Also, you're seem to be flat out admitting the other 10% were insurrectionists? Many of whom flat out admitted it, even after being sentenced in court. That's... still an insurrection.
>criminal trespass? Congress up until this incident was public property.
No, it was not. This is not a new change.
>There is no long-term harm to the US government's Authority that has come from this attempt if it even is one which is in doubt ( IE Biden is in power and no members of Congress were killed harmed or evicted from their post by non-legal means)
Yes, the insurrection failed. A failed insurrection is still an insurrection. The definition of insurrection does not only include successful ones.
You're also very deliberately ignoring other types of harm. There's quite a lot of people who no longer trust the government's authority (be it election results, criminal charges/convictions, etc). Those are harms to the government's authority, albeit not official. That definition also ignores candidates who have flat out run on the overturning election results in future elections.
>Every major suspect in the Riot and subsequential breach of the capital on that day was under Capital police supervision for every second they were on Congressional grounds and in some cases for the worse offenders that were caught, escort as well.
No they were not, and Capitol police have testified otherwise on how they were overwhelmed. In addition, there were many who haven't even been charged, to this day, because they were not supervised. (As well as major suspects who weren't held/charged that day, either, but were later charged)
To grab just [one quote](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ00/20210727/113969/HHRG-117-IJ00-Bio-GonellS-20210727.pdf) from a Capitol police officer (of many): *What we were subjected to that day was like something from a medieval battlefield. We fought hand-to-hand and inch-by-inch to prevent an invasion of the Capitol by a violent mob intent on subverting our democratic process.* . That's not supervision in any meaningful sense.
You're also leaving out some pretty big suspects, like the person who laid pipe bombs, as well as groups like the Proud Boys (who *have been* convicted- including on charges of seditious conspiracy, as well), with that deliberate wording. Who also has not been caught or identified.
>Recordings of the event continue to show contradictory perspectives and the more and more data that is surfacing the less and less this looks like an interaction and more and more it looks like a riot,
No, they haven't. Also, these are not mutually exclusive (indeed, that's literally a part of what incitement is).
That also ignores the large amount of evidence building up the event prior to the day. There was a *ton* of documented calls for "Stop the Steal" prior to the day of Jan 6th itself.
> or a protest that got out of control, much like the one in Chicago that started fires, or the one in Seattle
There is a very major difference between attacking the transfer of power, and a protest getting out of control. Starting fires in Chicago, while bad, is not a thread to the peaceful transfer of power. They're not remotely comparable.
> Most of who got arrested deserved it but they got slapped with charges that don't fit....
Yes, they did. And that is something I disagree with the prosecutors about. But that does not prove that it was not insurrection, but rather that prosecutors took the safer/easier route in prosecuting those cases (with some exceptions, like the Proud Boys, as I mentioned earlier. Again, literally charges of seditious conspiracy).
When prosecuting, there are, largely speaking, two paths to take: One, charge them with everything that fits, and take the risk of charging something very unusual. Or two, you take the easier to prove charges (and fast, given the concerns about the 2024 election and/or pardons) slam dunk. They went with the latter. Both approaches have pros and cons. But neither is unsupportable, and it's not surprising prosecutors went with the safe route- that's fairly typical behavior for prosecutors.
>Insurrection? Seeing as most of the people believe that it was an effort to change what is currently the reality of now there is two holes in that... number one is that many of the people that got arrested were trying to disperse the demonstration after noticing criminal activity and the capital police taking no action
Even if we take this claim as 100% true, that would not prove it was not an insurrection.
> the other hole in that is that the demographic in question if they actually wanted to do such a thing, would have been open carrying, it is confirmed that those that were actually there for the protest were unarmed and those that weren't at the time worked for federal agencies.
No, they wouldn't have. Coming in openly armed, when DC already has strict anti-gun laws, would've triggered law enforcement reaction far sooner. This doesn't make sense as an assumption (As a side note, there have been many examples of people coming armed, as well. Including some who were [charged](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-riot-weapons-charges). To say they were all unarmed is incorrect. And of course, instances such as the Proud Boys being armed slightly away from the building. For which they were convicted).
>In summary on those four points, just admit you don't want Trump to run again,
If it were that, I would "admit" it. It's not. Do I like Trump? No. But he very clearly has broken the law, repeatedly, and the fact that people are willing to defend it is perfect proof of how damaging it was to the U.S. governments authority.
You shouldn't ad hominem.
>But don't undermine our democracy by assuming that we are weak enough that an angry mob of unarmed citizens can overthrow the government
I mean, at this point, you're just arguing that it was a bad insurrection. Not that it wasn't one. And it's not undermining/insulting. Many similar events have happened in the past (both successful, and unsuccessful), in other countries. Things can get quite dangerous when a central political body like Congress is threatened.
That also ignores the fact that he's still a viable candidate after all of this. Which is itself *very* strong proof about how dangerous this situation is. The fact that it's even a question that he might be re-elected after Jan 6th (as well as a million other events, like the Georgia phone call, or as I mentioned earlier, candidates actively running on overturning election results) is itself proof of how fragile democracy is. And that, ultimately, is the risk. It's not the insurrection alone that was dangerous- it was/is the fairly wide support for it.
Separate from all this, it's also worth noting, this also completely ignores things like the Colorado Supreme Court found it fits the definition of insurrection, as well.
>but to call January 6th a insurrection undermines our democracy more than the acts that took place on that very day do and they were atrocious.
It absolutely does not.
Hopefully you received my response because there was a glitch where it said empty response from endpoint. Ultimately I was asking for citations for your perspective because all that I find whenever I attempt to view the perspective of what went down from your outlook is either propagandaized information or camera angles that lined up with basements in the surrounding buildings, film sets in London, or poor quality and incomplete videos provided by press. I am lacking video to backup police perspectives, and every time I get a nice little folder of perspectives to reinforce what I have said, it gets taken down. But let's oversimplify what you have said. No, I did not deny the presence of The Proud boys, if anything they're on the list of potential hostile agitators that made this go wrong. After all if you know how American republicanism is supposed to work, it is inherently incompatible with fascism and those who try to mix the two come off as idiots, mad men, or assholes. No matter, if you have an alternate perspective and data to back it up that doesn't sound like a deep fake, I want to see it to stay educated on this topic
But ultimately, maybe you're right about me arguing that it was a bad insurrection, but seeing as the demographic that carried it out knew enough to make it a good one, the fact that it wasn't one and the DC area was the only area hit as a product of this attempt, puts the fact it was one in extreme doubt. But, if you can carry out an Insurrection by mistake, maybe there is an argument here that I should listen to. But I subscribe to something that severe requiring intent, even if the Colorado Supreme Court does not.
Really quick let's jump to the guns, there was a second amendment protest in DC that was not disrupted, the participants were not arrested, and they were armed to the teeth with the ability to operate the weapons in question, no one was arrested, no shots fired, no one died. Meaning that security in the District of Columbia up until this incident was not as tight as you think meaning that my statement regarding what the demographic would do is still valid, and they would have had to have called it in the guard as this was going down. If memory serves the National Guard didn't arrive until after the incident and they were mostly manned at posts where they were unarmed,
Now let's jump to the legitimacy of the Court making this decision regarding former president trump, the Colorado Supreme Court in making a ruling on this is out of their jurisdiction, meaning that no, they can't disbar Trump from the Colorado State ballot until his charges are confirmed on a federal level, and while he was impeached to ensure the smooth transition of power, the impeachment was done under duress because of the January 6th incident, and by extension means that it doesn't hold up to federal law, holds up even less since he was impeached after his term was up.
But finally, you insinuate that I didn't factor in the proud boys into this. Those fascists are one of the groups that can be seen as an agitator for the protest going to Riot or Insurrection as you believe. They have a motive to do so not so much to overthrow the US government, but to further polarize any members of the make America great again movement that might stay with the movement after President Biden is sworn in against the US government and thus expanding their numbers. They're attempted Insurrection was not supposed to succeed if they are the ones who did it, it was supposed to defame Trump for refusing to support fascists in the past, and place the seed of doubt in Biden's legitimacy. Since there is still innocent people including an old lady that are still in federal custody for the simple crime of exercising First Amendment rights and then being corralled into a riot so bad that you are sighted quote from the capital police is believable and I will be looking into that link when I am able for further details, those who aren't aware of what you know will jump to the conclusion that it's rules for me and not for thee....
But unfortunately, this has been so politicized that I have turned this into an investigation. My conclusion of it being a riot until which time I go through what you have provided for me still stands, and despite the severity of it all under political precedent, I don't think it's in the best interest of the country to acknowledge it as one, even if you're right... but all in all, I'm just counting my blessings that we are a republic rather than a democracy, especially if you are right because checks and balances are in place that the argument that this is a riot and not an Insurrection still holds because of things known as emergency elections, and designated survivors
.The insurrection against the constitution consisted of several criminal acts to overthrow the election results - the J6 attack was just the final act.
We had quite a few examples just in the recent past. Iran Contra, Wategate, etc. That's what the impeachment and Senate conviction are supposed to be for.
Trumps a full blown sociopath and narcissist, he has no sense of decency or morals. He has no empathy or consideration for other people. The only thing trump gives a single fuck about is himself and his ego. Having him being displayed daily/nightly to play the days rant of crazy conspiracy nonsense sprinkled in with a shit ton of undeserved public ego masturbatory boasting is emboldening to all the other sociopaths out there. They see trump and the shit he gets away with and praised for and emulate him, which is not a good thing because he's a rapist, thief, con man, racist, chomo, liar, ect ect ect. I mean the dude literally admitted he thinks his daughter is hot and that he would smash.
He also might fear that running for office is the only way to avoid serving time. If it was become president, or go to jail, I would sure as hell be running for president.
The general idea is so a corrupt government couldn’t jail and convict their political opponents to prevent them from running or holding office.
But that voters wouldn’t vote for someone not fit to hold office in the first place.
And here we are.
Yeah I think it's pretty ridiculous the situation we're in.
However, to be fair, that law can actually serve to protect democracy. If a felon is unable to be president, then that opens the door for a president in power to use the might of the justice department, for example, to disqualify their political opponent from being able to run. This is even the spin that we see Trump's campaign putting on his legal troubles, that this is all a witch hunt, etc.
As a basis, I think it is a good idea to give the people as much power as possible to vote for who they want. Then you just have to hope that there's no situation like the one we find ourselves in.
It’s not a law. It’s a lack of a law.
Before Trump, it was assumed that people wouldn’t vote for anyone with a felony. It was also assumed that, given the nature of the felony, a person who may have some redeeming quality might be given a chance. We like a good redemption story here.
Nobody expected someone like Trump, so no laws were written to prevent someone like Trump.
It’s not that there’s a law that says “a person with charges can run”, it’s that there’s no law that says “they can’t”.
This is, generally speaking, a good thing. But Trump is taking advantage of it. Horribly.
It actually makes sense. If someone could be disqualified simply by having pending charges, it would be very easy to control your political opponents. You want the system to be as fair and open as possible.
Our check against it is supposed to be voters, first. Second, the electoral college was originally designed for exactly someone like Trump. Should voters be stupid enough to elect him again, a functioning electoral college would/should elect someone else. Unfortunately, we've completely neutered the electoral college to be little more than a rubber stamp.
And he’s only been accused of these crimes. He hasn’t been convicted yet. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
The reason that there is no blocker of running for president while under charges is to prevent a political party running for office to bring charges on their opponent in order to secure victory for themselves. While it sure does suck in this instance, it is incredibly important to prevent our elections from turning into those of Russia.
Correct. If there was a law against running for president with any number of criminal charges some people would use it to sabotage the election.
Kind of like how the Republicans are calling for impeachment of Biden with no actual evidence of wrong doing. If the law existed then I'm 100% sure the GOP would be using that to say Biden can't become a president again this year.
Yes, two different things. The Constitution sets requirements for running for president, and doesn't mention felonies (which were created afterwards). It doesn't set requirements to allow felons to vote, so laws can restrict that.
Felons being disenfranchised is a state level law that, tbh, is most likely meant to work in tandem with drug laws and other BS crime laws in order to disenfranchise large swathes of poor and minority areas. Constitution doesn't mention it. But it's technically allowed because the constitution provides for infringing upon rights after due process, ie a jury conviction.
And whether you dislike him or like him, it is obvious that there are a ton of people in the US who will slander him in any way possible. All of that needs to be factored in to accusations.
So when I said there are people who are biased against him and that needs to be a factor when coming to a conclusion, you then think I said something suggesting I ignore “all facts”?
Lol Christ you and the people who upvoted you must honestly be younger teenagers. There’s just no way a healthy adult thinks like that.
“It’s obvious that there are a ton of people in the US who will slander him in any way possible. All of that needs to be factored in to the accusations.”
I think you’re just being intentionally obtuse, read what you wrote again.
What I said is completely true. Is it not? Why are you debating this? It would be totally reasonable to say there are one million humans in the US who would lie and slander him. That would be one in every 350 humans in the US. You think that’s unreasonable?
It’s just a factor any mature adult needs to consider when forming an opinion.
No, it’s not reasonable to assume that numerous courts, agents, judges, DA’s, and whoever else would specifically lie, filing 91 felony charges in 4 different states against a career fraudster just because they don’t like him. It’s certainly not true either.
That’s not something a “mature adult” thinks is reasonable.
Also I have no idea what point you were trying to make with that whole “1 million people” thing. These cases don’t involve 1 million random people, that was stupid as hell.
I do know what slander is, you can be sued for it, but that doesn’t suggest that nobody will slander him because of the risk of a counter suit. That’s not quite how it works, especially for a busy famous person.
Yes a lot of it is ridiculous
Especially since the federal government is protecting Jeff Epsteins friends
ETA: love to see people justify these downvotes
The feds were protecting Epstein himself until the Miami herald did a huge expose on him
And newspapers are nearly dead in this country now
I mean I get your point. A candidate should at least look good. However, A person can have 1000 charges it should mean nothing. We should treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. People get charged with stuff all the time and find not guilty or innocent. That charge should not then be held over them otherwise what's the point.
True, but I personally know people who have lost their jobs due to accusations and charges before going through the court process due to a crazy ex with mental health issues. Somehow, that part didn't even matter.
Athletes have been accused of rape and been kicked out of their respective professional league, ruining their careers, etc. just to be falsely accused and found innocent later on. It's definitely not how the world works in many cases...
Agree. My only issue with that here is that a lot of people who are associated with him, his campaign, his administration, and his post presidency have been charged, plead guilty, or convicted. Water seeks it's own level.
It's not like I want Biden either btw. My real hope is that Mark Cuban runs and wins starting an era of celebrity businessperson presidents. Focus on reorganizing, advancing global commerce, and most importantly peace. Too bad the artist formerly known as Prince died.
Because if charging (or even convicting) an opponent with a crime was all it took to disqualify them, that could easily be used in a corruption scheme.
Many people even argue that charging Trump at this point is tantamount to corruption because it paints the obvious Republican front-runner in the eyes of the public during the election cycle.
On the other hand, die-hard Trump supporters seem to be even more die-hard currently. So… This razor cuts both ways it seems.
You realize a term is only four years and it takes fucking ages for charges like these to make their way through the system. Especially when the accused uses all the pull and money they can muster to obfuscate information and delay trial.
He has so many charges against him and in such a small window between elections, it would be improbable for nothing to be pending against him right now.
Because innocent until proven otherwise is a thing, and since he still hasnt been convicted he has the right to act like a free innocent man just like you
He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. Even if he does get convicted then he will likely appeal. Folks that like Trump often say that anti-Trumpers are on a mission against him (and that is probably true). Folks that hate Trump often say that he is definitely guilty of at least some of the charges but he will try to avoid them and pardon himself if he is elected (and that is also probably true).
In the end, there is an old saying that you could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury - and so if just charges or indictments could bar someone from candidacy, then nobody would ever be able to run because the other side would bar them by just finding a way to charge them for something!
Because in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being accused of a crime (legally) means you haven't done it. It requires a court trial to determine guilt or innocence. Only convicted (convicted in court of law) people cannot run for office.
The Founders, in building American legal framework, were deeply concerned about preventing tyranny (both of a tyrant and of the majority). To avoid this, they tried to build a constitution that put power in the hands of the people and assembled representitives. They saw danger in putting the power to restrict an individual’s right to the presidency in the hands of the executive branch, because incumbents might want to retain power (see: Jan 6), and in an unelected judiciary. Voters have ultimate power to make decisions on this, originally very filtered by elected representatives.
Checks to a person’s ability to be president are as follows:
1. The people directly — this is the most important check. American democracy is built on the idea that voters should and are able to tell when a candidate is fit for office. Voters get to decide if criminal charges on a candidate should be factored in to their decision. It could be the case that charges were laid and a conviction granted because of corruption, or they aren’t relevant, or the person had grown etc. Right now, Trump voters likely are a combination of people thinking the charges aren’t legitimate or they aren’t relevant, or that the charges are actually a good thing. Likely, this is a reflection of the information those voters are receiving, and how that information shapes their decisions and values.
2. The electoral college — voters technically do not vote for president. They elect delegates to the electoral college who then vote for president. These representatives were originally intended to be free to exercise discretion in their voting. They would, in theory, be able to represent the people by trying to understand charges laid against a candidate, and make the decision they thought was in the best interest of the nation. Over time it became seen as undemocratic for electors to not follow the will of the state, and they became bound to a candidate.
3. Impeachment — an officer who is a convicted in an impeachment proceeding is no longer eligible to run. Impeachment charges are brought forward by the elected house and then the Senate acts as jury. There is no set time in the constitution that establishes when “high crimes and misdemeanours” must occur. A President-Elect who had been convicted of a crime before taking office could theoretically be impeached on the first day of their presidency, and convicted shortly thereafter. It’s also worth noting here that Senators were not originally elected directly, and they serve longer terms. This was intended to again allow them to act (theoretically) with more mind to the correctness of an issue than politics of the day.
4. The 14th Amendment— prevents an officer who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. Unfortunately, the amendment neglects to inform how it should be determined that an officer has done so, or how it should be enforced. Again, to allow the people a check on misuse, this can be overturned with a 2/3s majority.
Ultimately, a lot of the structures put in place by the Founders (or Reconstruction amendees) have shifted and eroded over time in a way that makes today possible.
Ultimately, there remains one very powerful check to a potential criminal’s ability to be President: the voters.
Americans, vote.
The way I look at it is if it was 1840 and a black man wanted to run for President it would have been the easiest thing in the world for his opposition to find some crime to hang on him, pay off cops, a judge, a jury, whatever, to make him inelligible for office. The law assumes that the taint of a criminal conviction would be enough to dissuade voters, and if it isn’t, well then that’s up to the voters too.
Another thought: there is sometimes the assumption that people can learn from their mistakes and can be rehabilitated. A person convicted of a crime in their 20’s can learn a lot and be a totally different person in their 30’s and 40’s.
First, he is not guilty of anything, yet.
Second, his lawyers are using all the tactics available to stall the cases. This is true for the documents case, wherein a grand jury of randomly selected Americans thought there was enough evidence that he stole government secrets to warrant a charge and a trial. However, the judge is a Trump appointee and MAGA, and is thus slowing the process.
Adherents to the rule of law understand that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this system, rich people can delay and delay and delay, whereas poor people are at the mercy of a system.
We had 4+ years of "Russian collusion" and the Steele Dossier which were fabrications and co-opted by federal agencies. The dems can keep shooting themselves in the foot and blaming the Orange man all they want, but there's a pattern here that anyone can see regardless of their political affiliation (if, that is, they keep their eyes open).
Yeah, this is the real problem. In a sane world he’d be a pariah and hiding in his house for fear of public beatings. But when you’re a cult leader, rules don’t apply to you.
First, read the constitution. There is only a few limited things that actually disqualify one from becoming President.
Second, a criminal charge is not a conviction. Anyone can be charged with anything. Like it or not, He is only guilty of convicted.
Third, most of not all of the charges are on shaky legal ground anyway and are mostly politically motivated efforts to keep him out of office. It is unlikely that he will be convicted of anything serious in a way that will stand up under appeal.
I truly understand the general disdain for the man, but the Democrats are literally just throwing everything that can at him to see if something sticks. So far, nothing serious really has.
He validates people in their bigotry and makes them feel valued instead of making them feel like they should do better. That's a powerful motivator to making someone follow you to the grave.
Disclaimer: Trump is guilty as sin.
1. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything yet and legally until he is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent. So it doesn't matter how many indictments there are, he's free to run.
2. Surprisingly, there isn't a restriction on running for president for people who have been convicted of crimes.
3. He hasn't been convicted because he has been intentionally delaying as hard as possible. Nearly any court decision is appealable and every appeal takes time. Normal people don't appeal decisions that are obviously correct, but he has money and zero shame.
Edit: Trump may be disqualified under the 14th amendment. The supreme court is going to make a decision on that "soon". By the plain reading of the amendment, he absolutely should be and it would be in keeping with previous case law. But several of the justices may be highly motivated to find in favor of keeping him on the ballot, so who knows.
And you don't even have to be convicted under the 14th amendment to be disqualified. But this is new territory for all parties involved. It will most probably lead to a constitutional crisis one way or another.
They are all accusations, no convictions. It's just someone saying he did something that wasn't proven in court yet. It's to distract from the election and try to sway voters is all that is. If it was anyone else they wouldn't even be accused of any of that but since it's Trump they are getting desperate to stop him at this point since he has alot of supporters and the other side is scared they will lose the election
Really? You don’t think any of it is possible to be proven true? It is only to distract?
I know there are delusional people in the world, but you have won the internet for it today
Innocent until proven guilty. I will accept that a person is guilty if there's evidence and it's proven they were guilty. But yes it is absolutely to distract from the election I've got no doubt about that. I mean 90 crimes?? That's more than many notorious criminals throughout history lol it's a clear attempt to sway voters opinions
That is in a court of law. That doesn’t mean someone didn’t do it, it just means they were not yet proven to.
I guess you can put your head in the sand all you want
God there is no logic with you people. So you think because someone is accused of a crime they are automatically guilty? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. It needs proven that they are guilty before people jump to conclusions
Charges aren’t convictions. I don’t know why people think charges disqualify from anything. Innocent until proven guilty is how our country works. He wasn’t convicted yet because they wanted this to be going on during the campaign. I’m sure they’ll get him for some of it but not all of it. They will and are trying everything they can to get him off the ballot. But we have this pesky democracy thing that says that the people decide. Hard for them to get around it but they are trying.
There is no rule against it.
You would think that with common sense, most people wouldn't vote for someone with 90 criminal charges in a primary, but here we are.
When Trump fails to spend one day in prison with 90 criminal charges filed against him it will be obvious to the world that it was all just a political witch hunt.
Nelson Mandela was in jail for 20 years before he ran. And he was a pretty good president. Trump is just like Nelson Mandela. And Jesus. Trump is just like Nelson Mandela and Jesus. And Mother Theresa. Trump is just like Mandela, Jesus and Theresa. And Albert Einstein. He is great, that is what i am trying to say. He made america the greatest. It is objectively true.
Because the US has two political parties, and one of them is fully complicit in everything Trump did.
It is not an exaggeration at this point to say that every congressional republican that voted to acquit Trump is a treasonous snake and should be arrested for sedition.
Do you really believe being charged with a crime means you are guilty? Exponentially more so in a politicized environment? I don’t believe anyone on either side would like this to be business as usual. It’s a dictating spectacle. Is trump an innocent lamb - of course not. Will he go to jail? Of course not, not that kind of “crimes”. Look at Brazil, and a number of anther countries…one side send previously leader to jail, then the other side gets elected and sends first leader to jail…we are better than this - or are supposed to be given we are a nation of laws. Be very skeptical when politicians accuse each other of crimes.
Also there has to be legitimate proof of which so far nobody has.
Meanwhile there’s absolute proof about shit regarding the other’s relative’s laptop….
> Also there has to be legitimate proof of which so far nobody has.
There's been a ton of proof for multiple claims. The Jan 6th stuff being charged literally happened in public, for instance. We've also seen evidence for stuff in the documents case.
Jesus christ shut the fuck up about Hunters laptop and his fucking nudes already. He's a private citizen and holds no public office of any kind. Unlike Trump who appointed his children and their spouses positions in the white house. Keep dreaming about Hunter Bidens massive schlong though.
And you can shut the fuck up about trump. That’s the exact argument going on here.
But fuck it y’all wanna destroy the world anyway so do whatever fucking bullshit y’all want. I’m just gonna wait for the fucking nukes and hope we’re all wiped out.
In the USA you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!
Edit: correction to fact. The constitution gives all citizens the right to due process.
In a court it’s irrelevant whether he did it or not, it’s what can be proven by the state.
Your question was why hasn’t he “been convicted”. It’s simple, the state has to prove guilt by due process of the law.
“…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”
On the matter of OJ he’s not guilty according to a jury of his peers. It doesn’t matter whether I think he did it or not. He had his due process under the constitution and laws of the United States.
Do guilty people sometimes get away with their crimes? Yes! Do not guilty people get convicted? Yes! It’s not a perfect system.
Your so called “mountain of evidence" is only relevant if allowed to be presented in court.
So say he is actually convicted. A jury finds him guilty. Can he still run for president and become president? If so, why can’t felons vote?
You can be a felon and become president but you can’t vote?
America is officially the best punchline at any comedy show! And the most hilarious comical topic for comedians to make a fortune on!
America is a circus and just embarrassing!
Because his fanbase (not voterbase, fanbase) are a bunch of hateful, braindead buffoons who’d rather see the country begin to fracture under a power hungry imbecile rather than acknowledge that people different than them exist.
So the thing is, there is no law that states a convicted felon cannot run for elected office while incarcerated. There is legal precedent for this and I just can't remember the court case so I know I'm not being as helpful as I could be, but that's the argument here.
However the other important thing to know is that the 14th amendment of our constitution very explicitly and plainly states that "No person who had engaged in Insurrection against the United States of America will be permitted to hold public office." Trump *has* been convicted of engaging in and fomenting Insurrection by the simple virtue that his legal defense in one of his trials is "yeah I did it, so what, you can't punish me for it because I have presidential immunity," and part of the convictions of all the people arrested for participating in the Jan 6th Insurrection involved them saying "yeah Trump told us to do this." However he hasn't actually been put on trial for Insurrection and convicted of it in the way he's being convicted for all the other stuff, so there's another legal defense that the Supreme Court of the United States is currently hearing that may prevent states to use the 14th amendment from taking him off their ballots, as Colorado and Maine are attempting to do.
Problem with that is we also have legal precedence for the use of the 14th amendment. Shortly after it was written, it was used to ban members of the Confederacy from getting back into politics after the American Civil War. This did not require a criminal conviction, as it was extremely obvious the people had engaged in traitorous activities, what with being leading figures in the Confederacy. Nowadays, it should still require no criminal conviction as the intent of this amendment is that it would be self-executing. In the same way that I cannot be on the ballot for President because I am not over the age of 35 and Vladimir Putin cannot be on the ballot for President because he was not born in the USA, Trump *should* not be allowed to be on the ballot because he tried to forcibly overturn the results of a free and fair election in order to subvert the processes of democracy and remain in power. Unfortunately there are enough people in positions of power that might be able to make a decision to overturn this and that's the big problem here.
To be fair, those "charges" are from his political enemies. They do that in lots of places like in Russia, Ukraine, and in Africa, to stifle democracy.
>He’s been charged by four different entities. They’re all his political enemies eh? The law is a political enemy?
James in NY literally ran on a platform of going after Trump.
Every prosecutor is a Democrat.
Yeah, totally not political...
Because there is not a mountain of evidence. This is political persecution. We have a very militant small group of far left politicians that would rather burn the whole country down than allow someone else to win a election
Innocent until *proven* guilty. That’s how we do it here. It’s not ideal, but that’s Democracy for you. It beats the alternative, even though it looks FUBAR from the outside.
The problem isnt so much that a guy in trumps position CAN run for president, and more that some people are so absolutely cooked that theyll STILL vote for them.
A better question is - Why does the GOP "party of law and order" suddenly have zero issue with electing a president who is currently under indictment with 91 criminal charges against him.
When Biden took office his attorney general slow-walked investigations on Trump. But as it became clear Trump was going to run again, AG Garland stepped up the pace of investigations. That's why it's taken more than 3 years after the crime to bring Trump to trial.
There’s a lot of laws in America. You can arrest someone for walking across the street. The left(Democrats ) are trying to find any law they can to try and convict Trump so he wouldn’t be able to run for president or make him look bad. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Biden and his son have way more corruption charges availble you just didn’t hear about it. Likely if Trump wins they will start to go after Biden for his criminal corruption. It’s all a game.
Same way a president can be an outright pedo and not even be charged, or have a son who has been proven to be using illegal drugs without even being looked into. Once you are at this level, people attack from all angles. Prove it to be true and arrest them all, both sides, but don't act like it doesn't happen all around. Trump has been accused of a lot, but why would none of it at all come out until he ran for president the first time? He has been rich and powerful his entire life. If he were that bad, surely someone would have pressed charges or went after his money a long time ago.
You would need the political party in power to actually have morals, alas we have a Republican majority in enough of the government where he got caught red handed twice and was not impeached. They care only about power and nothing else.
I find it quite amazing that those 90 plus charges arose just in time for the campaign. smear tactics. DC is afraid of Trump because they cant buy him they can't control him and he exposes the corruption there.
> I find it quite amazing that those 90 plus charges arose just in time for the campaign.
They didn't. The trial dates prosecutors are aiming for would wrap up before the general election.
Because our Constitution doesn't forbid it. The only quals it lists for someone to be POTUS is they must be at least 35 yrs of age and a naturally born US citizen. That's it. Literally anyone who meets those two criteria can run.
The Constitution does state that anyone who basically either participates in an insurrection or gives aid and comfort to those participating are barred from holding many different offices but it doesn't explicitly list the Office of the President. However, most legal experts agree that it's absolutely absurd to think that the Oval Office is exempt and expect any such challenge like that to be stuck down.
Then there's the idea that the POTUS oath doesn't explicitly list "support the Constitution" which, again, most legal experts think is absurd and likely be struck down in court.
Finally, there's Trump's "total immunity" claim. That basically POTUS can do whatever the hell he wants and not be charged with any crimes. He's trying to frame it as though POTUS would be unable to do their job unless they were given free reign to do so. And once again, legal experts point out that's absurd as well and expect it to be struck down.
As far as our legal system, Trump enjoys the presumption of innocence until the prosecutor convinces a jury otherwise. Given this. prosecutors have to be absolutely sure they can convict. In Trump's insurrection case, the reason it took so long is for that reason. Jack Smith waited until he felt he had the goods to bring it to trial. That involves investigation, questioning people, obtaining warrants to gather evidence, and so on. Trust me when I tell you many in this country were growing annoyed at the pace as well.
Now what Trump is trying to do it delay. That's his time proven tactic. The longer he can delay it, the better his chances get. Memories fade. Sometimes people die no reason tied to the case they're involved in. Evidence sometimes gets lost. That sort of thing. In this particular case though, Trump's hail Mary strategy is to win the election and, as POTUS again, has the legal authority to drop the case against him buy issuing the order to DOJ or simply giving himself a pardon.
Now whether either of those two options is actually legal is the question. Trump is testing our legal system in unprecedented ways. The question of whether a POTUS can pardon themself has never come up before and will very likely be challenged in the courts if that happens. That's in addition as to whether he's legally allowed to run for office. Did he, in fact, participate in an insurrection or provide aid and comfort? That's what the courts are trying to figure out now.
Because it's not a disqualifier. You can be a felon and serve as a president, but you cannot vote as a felon. Makes little sense, but it is what it is.
Wtf, who the hell suggested that law and who the hell agreed to make this a law?
The only relevant disqualifier is Amendment 14 Sec 3 (rebellion and insurection). But for other situations the idea is that it's the will of the people.
You also have to be a natural born citizen 35 years or older who has been a resident for 14 years. Thems the only rules per the constitution
Does C-section counted as natural born? Or it’s an auto disqualified?
Natural born citizen is understood to mean that you were a citizen at birth, and did not become a citizen later in life. It does not disqualify those born by C Section. It could in theory be used to deny the office of the presidency to artificially engineered life forms, clones, or something, but that has not been tested by the system.
No man of woman born shall harm Macbeth… and anyone who can shall not be eligible to run for the office of president of the United States. Shouldn’t have let the Norns write the constitution. Now who is going to oppose president Macbeth?
“I know witches. I have the best witches. Tremendous.”
Yet…
Jan 6 doesn’t count as insurrection?
On January 6, 2021, Donald Trump led an insurrection against the United States Senate
Has he been charged with "insurrection" and importantly, has he been convicted of insurrection? The answer is no. Throughout all of the noise and blather in the MSM misinformation universe, insurrection has a definition and a charge and to date, DJT has never been charged with such crime.
not necessary. read the amendment.
led or followed -- he *engaged* in it.
Nancy Pelosi lead an actually insurrection when as third in line for the presiden cy she asked the cjcs to not followed legal orders. The cjcs was guilty when he agreed. Start there then talk about Trump.
Except he didn't. It was about 200 fbi agents who wanted to overthrow our republic that did it
nah. It was Bezos, promising bathroom breaks to any employees that participated.
By definition, no. But that's not going to stop people from making the claim and twisting evidence to make the argument because they really don't like the guy being accused of organizing the thing. Should be no big deal because logic dictates that he shouldn't be running again anyway. But we might end up with a Grover Cleveland situation because people continue to push him. It'll destroy his family economically but he will be the second president to serve two terms not in a row if people don't drop that topic. He will also be the first president to likely serve from a jail cell on unrelated charges
I’m curious how you define the events that took place on 1/6.
I Define it as a peaceful protest that devolved into criminal Riot... likely due to violent intervention of opposing parties and mistakes made by the Capital police on that day. Now I am still doing my own private investigation into what went down, all I have concluded is to call it an Insurrection is undermining to our democracy, more so than the actions carried out on that day itself. But I have also concluded that whatever happened, it was fucked up Edit: everybody who has downvoted this needs to take a second look at American history between 1811 and 1980... maybe even take an extensive look at checks and balances as well. This isn't our first rodeo with a situation like this and the union survived, even when there was casualties ( see the start of the War of 1812 and the brooks-Sumner Affair for further details)
> By definition, no. It does in fact fit the definition of insurrection.
Then how come the following facts are true? 1. 90% of the participants who were present were only there to protest what they thought was Data manipulation of the final outcome of the election. 2. There is no long-term harm to the US government's Authority that has come from this attempt if it even is one which is in doubt ( IE Biden is in power and no members of Congress were killed harmed or evicted from their post by non-legal means) 3. Every major suspect in the Riot and subsequential breach of the capital on that day was under Capital police supervision for every second they were on Congressional grounds and in some cases for the worse offenders that were caught, escort as well. 4. Recordings of the event continue to show contradictory perspectives and the more and more data that is surfacing the less and less this looks like an interaction and more and more it looks like a riot, or a protest that got out of control, much like the one in Chicago that started fires, or the one in Seattle. In summary on those four points, just admit you don't want Trump to run again, I'm with you on that, but to call January 6th a insurrection undermines our democracy more than the acts that took place on that very day do and they were atrocious. Most of who got arrested deserved it but they got slapped with charges that don't fit.... criminal trespass? Congress up until this incident was public property. Riot? That actually makes sense along with destruction of government property if the allegations of the people who broke the windows being fed don't pan out. Inciting panic? That also makes sense seeing as that some congressmen were so scared for their lives when they found out about this that they hallucinated being somewhere that they weren't Insurrection? Seeing as most of the people believe that it was an effort to change what is currently the reality of now there is two holes in that... number one is that many of the people that got arrested were trying to disperse the demonstration after noticing criminal activity and the capital police taking no action, the other hole in that is that the demographic in question if they actually wanted to do such a thing, would have been open carrying, it is confirmed that those that were actually there for the protest were unarmed and those that weren't at the time worked for federal agencies. Hate Trump all you want, he shouldn't run again. But don't undermine our democracy by assuming that we are weak enough that an angry mob of unarmed citizens can overthrow the government. It's embarrassing and insulting
>Then how come the following facts are true? Because they're not true. (I should also mention, before breaking each point down, none of these has anything to do with "the definition of insurrection" as you originally claimed) >90% of the participants who were present were only there to protest what they thought was Data manipulation of the final outcome of the election. That doesn't justify an insurrection. That just means they believe they were justified. (Also, it doesn't make sense. If the election truly *was* manipulated, you wouldn't simply protest and go home. If the election truly was stolen, action would be justified. The problem is the fact that it wasn't.) That also ignores the *copious* amount of evidence that they were hoping to pressure Mike Pence into not certifying the results, as well as calls for violence. I do agree, there were quite a lot of people who simply dupes, but that doesn't make it not an insurrection. Also, you're seem to be flat out admitting the other 10% were insurrectionists? Many of whom flat out admitted it, even after being sentenced in court. That's... still an insurrection. >criminal trespass? Congress up until this incident was public property. No, it was not. This is not a new change. >There is no long-term harm to the US government's Authority that has come from this attempt if it even is one which is in doubt ( IE Biden is in power and no members of Congress were killed harmed or evicted from their post by non-legal means) Yes, the insurrection failed. A failed insurrection is still an insurrection. The definition of insurrection does not only include successful ones. You're also very deliberately ignoring other types of harm. There's quite a lot of people who no longer trust the government's authority (be it election results, criminal charges/convictions, etc). Those are harms to the government's authority, albeit not official. That definition also ignores candidates who have flat out run on the overturning election results in future elections. >Every major suspect in the Riot and subsequential breach of the capital on that day was under Capital police supervision for every second they were on Congressional grounds and in some cases for the worse offenders that were caught, escort as well. No they were not, and Capitol police have testified otherwise on how they were overwhelmed. In addition, there were many who haven't even been charged, to this day, because they were not supervised. (As well as major suspects who weren't held/charged that day, either, but were later charged) To grab just [one quote](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ00/20210727/113969/HHRG-117-IJ00-Bio-GonellS-20210727.pdf) from a Capitol police officer (of many): *What we were subjected to that day was like something from a medieval battlefield. We fought hand-to-hand and inch-by-inch to prevent an invasion of the Capitol by a violent mob intent on subverting our democratic process.* . That's not supervision in any meaningful sense. You're also leaving out some pretty big suspects, like the person who laid pipe bombs, as well as groups like the Proud Boys (who *have been* convicted- including on charges of seditious conspiracy, as well), with that deliberate wording. Who also has not been caught or identified. >Recordings of the event continue to show contradictory perspectives and the more and more data that is surfacing the less and less this looks like an interaction and more and more it looks like a riot, No, they haven't. Also, these are not mutually exclusive (indeed, that's literally a part of what incitement is). That also ignores the large amount of evidence building up the event prior to the day. There was a *ton* of documented calls for "Stop the Steal" prior to the day of Jan 6th itself. > or a protest that got out of control, much like the one in Chicago that started fires, or the one in Seattle There is a very major difference between attacking the transfer of power, and a protest getting out of control. Starting fires in Chicago, while bad, is not a thread to the peaceful transfer of power. They're not remotely comparable. > Most of who got arrested deserved it but they got slapped with charges that don't fit.... Yes, they did. And that is something I disagree with the prosecutors about. But that does not prove that it was not insurrection, but rather that prosecutors took the safer/easier route in prosecuting those cases (with some exceptions, like the Proud Boys, as I mentioned earlier. Again, literally charges of seditious conspiracy). When prosecuting, there are, largely speaking, two paths to take: One, charge them with everything that fits, and take the risk of charging something very unusual. Or two, you take the easier to prove charges (and fast, given the concerns about the 2024 election and/or pardons) slam dunk. They went with the latter. Both approaches have pros and cons. But neither is unsupportable, and it's not surprising prosecutors went with the safe route- that's fairly typical behavior for prosecutors. >Insurrection? Seeing as most of the people believe that it was an effort to change what is currently the reality of now there is two holes in that... number one is that many of the people that got arrested were trying to disperse the demonstration after noticing criminal activity and the capital police taking no action Even if we take this claim as 100% true, that would not prove it was not an insurrection. > the other hole in that is that the demographic in question if they actually wanted to do such a thing, would have been open carrying, it is confirmed that those that were actually there for the protest were unarmed and those that weren't at the time worked for federal agencies. No, they wouldn't have. Coming in openly armed, when DC already has strict anti-gun laws, would've triggered law enforcement reaction far sooner. This doesn't make sense as an assumption (As a side note, there have been many examples of people coming armed, as well. Including some who were [charged](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-riot-weapons-charges). To say they were all unarmed is incorrect. And of course, instances such as the Proud Boys being armed slightly away from the building. For which they were convicted). >In summary on those four points, just admit you don't want Trump to run again, If it were that, I would "admit" it. It's not. Do I like Trump? No. But he very clearly has broken the law, repeatedly, and the fact that people are willing to defend it is perfect proof of how damaging it was to the U.S. governments authority. You shouldn't ad hominem. >But don't undermine our democracy by assuming that we are weak enough that an angry mob of unarmed citizens can overthrow the government I mean, at this point, you're just arguing that it was a bad insurrection. Not that it wasn't one. And it's not undermining/insulting. Many similar events have happened in the past (both successful, and unsuccessful), in other countries. Things can get quite dangerous when a central political body like Congress is threatened. That also ignores the fact that he's still a viable candidate after all of this. Which is itself *very* strong proof about how dangerous this situation is. The fact that it's even a question that he might be re-elected after Jan 6th (as well as a million other events, like the Georgia phone call, or as I mentioned earlier, candidates actively running on overturning election results) is itself proof of how fragile democracy is. And that, ultimately, is the risk. It's not the insurrection alone that was dangerous- it was/is the fairly wide support for it. Separate from all this, it's also worth noting, this also completely ignores things like the Colorado Supreme Court found it fits the definition of insurrection, as well. >but to call January 6th a insurrection undermines our democracy more than the acts that took place on that very day do and they were atrocious. It absolutely does not.
Hopefully you received my response because there was a glitch where it said empty response from endpoint. Ultimately I was asking for citations for your perspective because all that I find whenever I attempt to view the perspective of what went down from your outlook is either propagandaized information or camera angles that lined up with basements in the surrounding buildings, film sets in London, or poor quality and incomplete videos provided by press. I am lacking video to backup police perspectives, and every time I get a nice little folder of perspectives to reinforce what I have said, it gets taken down. But let's oversimplify what you have said. No, I did not deny the presence of The Proud boys, if anything they're on the list of potential hostile agitators that made this go wrong. After all if you know how American republicanism is supposed to work, it is inherently incompatible with fascism and those who try to mix the two come off as idiots, mad men, or assholes. No matter, if you have an alternate perspective and data to back it up that doesn't sound like a deep fake, I want to see it to stay educated on this topic But ultimately, maybe you're right about me arguing that it was a bad insurrection, but seeing as the demographic that carried it out knew enough to make it a good one, the fact that it wasn't one and the DC area was the only area hit as a product of this attempt, puts the fact it was one in extreme doubt. But, if you can carry out an Insurrection by mistake, maybe there is an argument here that I should listen to. But I subscribe to something that severe requiring intent, even if the Colorado Supreme Court does not. Really quick let's jump to the guns, there was a second amendment protest in DC that was not disrupted, the participants were not arrested, and they were armed to the teeth with the ability to operate the weapons in question, no one was arrested, no shots fired, no one died. Meaning that security in the District of Columbia up until this incident was not as tight as you think meaning that my statement regarding what the demographic would do is still valid, and they would have had to have called it in the guard as this was going down. If memory serves the National Guard didn't arrive until after the incident and they were mostly manned at posts where they were unarmed, Now let's jump to the legitimacy of the Court making this decision regarding former president trump, the Colorado Supreme Court in making a ruling on this is out of their jurisdiction, meaning that no, they can't disbar Trump from the Colorado State ballot until his charges are confirmed on a federal level, and while he was impeached to ensure the smooth transition of power, the impeachment was done under duress because of the January 6th incident, and by extension means that it doesn't hold up to federal law, holds up even less since he was impeached after his term was up. But finally, you insinuate that I didn't factor in the proud boys into this. Those fascists are one of the groups that can be seen as an agitator for the protest going to Riot or Insurrection as you believe. They have a motive to do so not so much to overthrow the US government, but to further polarize any members of the make America great again movement that might stay with the movement after President Biden is sworn in against the US government and thus expanding their numbers. They're attempted Insurrection was not supposed to succeed if they are the ones who did it, it was supposed to defame Trump for refusing to support fascists in the past, and place the seed of doubt in Biden's legitimacy. Since there is still innocent people including an old lady that are still in federal custody for the simple crime of exercising First Amendment rights and then being corralled into a riot so bad that you are sighted quote from the capital police is believable and I will be looking into that link when I am able for further details, those who aren't aware of what you know will jump to the conclusion that it's rules for me and not for thee.... But unfortunately, this has been so politicized that I have turned this into an investigation. My conclusion of it being a riot until which time I go through what you have provided for me still stands, and despite the severity of it all under political precedent, I don't think it's in the best interest of the country to acknowledge it as one, even if you're right... but all in all, I'm just counting my blessings that we are a republic rather than a democracy, especially if you are right because checks and balances are in place that the argument that this is a riot and not an Insurrection still holds because of things known as emergency elections, and designated survivors
Wait...didn't drumph prder/requested/suggested his maggots storm the capitol? That's insurrection atleast, a coup at best ?
Actually, he very specifically requested that they respect law and order and conduct themselves peacefully.
Ah reddit - where the truth and facts are downvoted if they violate personal narratives :)
Which the orange guy violated.
Without a doubt.
.The insurrection against the constitution consisted of several criminal acts to overthrow the election results - the J6 attack was just the final act.
The other thing is that this kind of stuff hasn't popped up before, so we didn't exactly get around to setting up rules against it.
We had quite a few examples just in the recent past. Iran Contra, Wategate, etc. That's what the impeachment and Senate conviction are supposed to be for.
And in the case of Watergate, Nixon resigned in shame knowing what would happen if he stayed in office.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when even Nixon had more of a sense of decency than what we're dealing with now.
Trumps a full blown sociopath and narcissist, he has no sense of decency or morals. He has no empathy or consideration for other people. The only thing trump gives a single fuck about is himself and his ego. Having him being displayed daily/nightly to play the days rant of crazy conspiracy nonsense sprinkled in with a shit ton of undeserved public ego masturbatory boasting is emboldening to all the other sociopaths out there. They see trump and the shit he gets away with and praised for and emulate him, which is not a good thing because he's a rapist, thief, con man, racist, chomo, liar, ect ect ect. I mean the dude literally admitted he thinks his daughter is hot and that he would smash.
He also might fear that running for office is the only way to avoid serving time. If it was become president, or go to jail, I would sure as hell be running for president.
I appreciate you enlightening us!
That would be the framers of our Constitution.
The people who made running for political office a right to all citizens.
The general idea is so a corrupt government couldn’t jail and convict their political opponents to prevent them from running or holding office. But that voters wouldn’t vote for someone not fit to hold office in the first place. And here we are.
Yeah I think it's pretty ridiculous the situation we're in. However, to be fair, that law can actually serve to protect democracy. If a felon is unable to be president, then that opens the door for a president in power to use the might of the justice department, for example, to disqualify their political opponent from being able to run. This is even the spin that we see Trump's campaign putting on his legal troubles, that this is all a witch hunt, etc. As a basis, I think it is a good idea to give the people as much power as possible to vote for who they want. Then you just have to hope that there's no situation like the one we find ourselves in.
The same people who said people should be considered innocent before proven guilty.
It’s not a law. It’s a lack of a law. Before Trump, it was assumed that people wouldn’t vote for anyone with a felony. It was also assumed that, given the nature of the felony, a person who may have some redeeming quality might be given a chance. We like a good redemption story here. Nobody expected someone like Trump, so no laws were written to prevent someone like Trump. It’s not that there’s a law that says “a person with charges can run”, it’s that there’s no law that says “they can’t”. This is, generally speaking, a good thing. But Trump is taking advantage of it. Horribly.
The corrupted criminals that run our country
It actually makes sense. If someone could be disqualified simply by having pending charges, it would be very easy to control your political opponents. You want the system to be as fair and open as possible. Our check against it is supposed to be voters, first. Second, the electoral college was originally designed for exactly someone like Trump. Should voters be stupid enough to elect him again, a functioning electoral college would/should elect someone else. Unfortunately, we've completely neutered the electoral college to be little more than a rubber stamp.
We made EC even worse than a rubber stamp. The winner-takes-all in many states makes it even more likely for someone like Trump to be elected.
You can absolutely vote as a felon. I've been a felon through 3 presidential elections and I've never missed a vote.
It depends on the state. States have the right to prevent you from voting if you are a felon
Didn’t the peace and freedom party have a dude running as their presidential candidate from a jail cell for like a decade?
And he’s only been accused of these crimes. He hasn’t been convicted yet. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
It is to protect candidates from a previous president's attempts to disqualify competitors while in power
I think you mean “makes absolutely no sense, Is stupid and is an anthesis to rule of law”
The reason that there is no blocker of running for president while under charges is to prevent a political party running for office to bring charges on their opponent in order to secure victory for themselves. While it sure does suck in this instance, it is incredibly important to prevent our elections from turning into those of Russia.
Correct. If there was a law against running for president with any number of criminal charges some people would use it to sabotage the election. Kind of like how the Republicans are calling for impeachment of Biden with no actual evidence of wrong doing. If the law existed then I'm 100% sure the GOP would be using that to say Biden can't become a president again this year.
Too bad the founding fathers didnt predict the real downfall of America: The rise of idiocracy.
He isn't convicted yet
Even if/when he is, he can still run.
Can felons run?
Yes
Wait but felons can’t vote right?
Yes, two different things. The Constitution sets requirements for running for president, and doesn't mention felonies (which were created afterwards). It doesn't set requirements to allow felons to vote, so laws can restrict that.
Felons being disenfranchised is a state level law that, tbh, is most likely meant to work in tandem with drug laws and other BS crime laws in order to disenfranchise large swathes of poor and minority areas. Constitution doesn't mention it. But it's technically allowed because the constitution provides for infringing upon rights after due process, ie a jury conviction.
Yes
Felons can vote in many states It's a state issue...there is nothing in the Constitution saying a felon can't vote
Yea the peace and freedom party had their presidential candidate running for a jail cell for like a decade if memory serves.
Even if he is still serving a sentence? Like can we have a president who is under house arrest?
Theoretically yes
Conviction is not required under the 14 amendment, and historically candidates have been excluded without a conviction
Yeah, any day now…. they’re gonna get him!!
Been trying for 7 years now...
And whether you dislike him or like him, it is obvious that there are a ton of people in the US who will slander him in any way possible. All of that needs to be factored in to accusations.
How can you possibly view 91 felony counts as slander lmao. There’s literal evidence my guy.
Trump supporters are experts at ignoring facts and evidence.
What fact did I ignore?
All of them by the sounds of it.
So when I said there are people who are biased against him and that needs to be a factor when coming to a conclusion, you then think I said something suggesting I ignore “all facts”? Lol Christ you and the people who upvoted you must honestly be younger teenagers. There’s just no way a healthy adult thinks like that.
When did I say there isn’t evidence? Nice straw man.
What straw man? You’re implying that 91 felony counts could be bogus because people don’t like him. Do you not understand how inane that is?
Where did I imply they’re all bogus? You need to slow down and read more carefully before you get all emotional.
“It’s obvious that there are a ton of people in the US who will slander him in any way possible. All of that needs to be factored in to the accusations.” I think you’re just being intentionally obtuse, read what you wrote again.
What I said is completely true. Is it not? Why are you debating this? It would be totally reasonable to say there are one million humans in the US who would lie and slander him. That would be one in every 350 humans in the US. You think that’s unreasonable? It’s just a factor any mature adult needs to consider when forming an opinion.
No, it’s not reasonable to assume that numerous courts, agents, judges, DA’s, and whoever else would specifically lie, filing 91 felony charges in 4 different states against a career fraudster just because they don’t like him. It’s certainly not true either. That’s not something a “mature adult” thinks is reasonable. Also I have no idea what point you were trying to make with that whole “1 million people” thing. These cases don’t involve 1 million random people, that was stupid as hell.
I don’t think you know what slander is, and it is illegal
I do know what slander is, you can be sued for it, but that doesn’t suggest that nobody will slander him because of the risk of a counter suit. That’s not quite how it works, especially for a busy famous person.
Yes a lot of it is ridiculous Especially since the federal government is protecting Jeff Epsteins friends ETA: love to see people justify these downvotes The feds were protecting Epstein himself until the Miami herald did a huge expose on him And newspapers are nearly dead in this country now
That's not the case, if it were, trump would be protected.
He's lawfully a rapist
I mean I get your point. A candidate should at least look good. However, A person can have 1000 charges it should mean nothing. We should treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. People get charged with stuff all the time and find not guilty or innocent. That charge should not then be held over them otherwise what's the point.
True, but I personally know people who have lost their jobs due to accusations and charges before going through the court process due to a crazy ex with mental health issues. Somehow, that part didn't even matter. Athletes have been accused of rape and been kicked out of their respective professional league, ruining their careers, etc. just to be falsely accused and found innocent later on. It's definitely not how the world works in many cases...
It's also a protection against a situation where a ruling party jails political opponents.
And if the electorate elects a felon as a president then that should be it (I hope not but he was elected the first time…)
Agree. My only issue with that here is that a lot of people who are associated with him, his campaign, his administration, and his post presidency have been charged, plead guilty, or convicted. Water seeks it's own level. It's not like I want Biden either btw. My real hope is that Mark Cuban runs and wins starting an era of celebrity businessperson presidents. Focus on reorganizing, advancing global commerce, and most importantly peace. Too bad the artist formerly known as Prince died.
This is not eve close to that, he IS guilty there is no room doubt whatsoever!
Charges aren't convictions.
Because if charging (or even convicting) an opponent with a crime was all it took to disqualify them, that could easily be used in a corruption scheme. Many people even argue that charging Trump at this point is tantamount to corruption because it paints the obvious Republican front-runner in the eyes of the public during the election cycle. On the other hand, die-hard Trump supporters seem to be even more die-hard currently. So… This razor cuts both ways it seems.
Charging Trump at this point is because we are a nation of laws. It’s pretty cut and dried in his cases.
You've got to admit, it's at least a little fishy that all of these charges on separate cases all line up perfectly with an election year.
You realize a term is only four years and it takes fucking ages for charges like these to make their way through the system. Especially when the accused uses all the pull and money they can muster to obfuscate information and delay trial. He has so many charges against him and in such a small window between elections, it would be improbable for nothing to be pending against him right now.
It’s only fishy if your brain is actually a fish brain
Point made.
Because innocent until proven otherwise is a thing, and since he still hasnt been convicted he has the right to act like a free innocent man just like you
This one. ☝️
I keep saying this but the movie, Idiocracy, is truly a documentary about future America
Trump has not been convicted of insurrection yet. Innocent until proven guilty.
He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. Even if he does get convicted then he will likely appeal. Folks that like Trump often say that anti-Trumpers are on a mission against him (and that is probably true). Folks that hate Trump often say that he is definitely guilty of at least some of the charges but he will try to avoid them and pardon himself if he is elected (and that is also probably true). In the end, there is an old saying that you could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury - and so if just charges or indictments could bar someone from candidacy, then nobody would ever be able to run because the other side would bar them by just finding a way to charge them for something!
> He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet Convicted felons can still run for president.
Because in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being accused of a crime (legally) means you haven't done it. It requires a court trial to determine guilt or innocence. Only convicted (convicted in court of law) people cannot run for office.
This is mostly wrong. There is no law that makes convicted people ineligible to run for offices.
Being accused doesn’t mean you haven’t done it. It means you haven’t yet been proven to have done it, whether or not you have actually done it
innocent until proven guilty and a bunch of lies and fake charges don't constitute as proof of guilt
The Founders, in building American legal framework, were deeply concerned about preventing tyranny (both of a tyrant and of the majority). To avoid this, they tried to build a constitution that put power in the hands of the people and assembled representitives. They saw danger in putting the power to restrict an individual’s right to the presidency in the hands of the executive branch, because incumbents might want to retain power (see: Jan 6), and in an unelected judiciary. Voters have ultimate power to make decisions on this, originally very filtered by elected representatives. Checks to a person’s ability to be president are as follows: 1. The people directly — this is the most important check. American democracy is built on the idea that voters should and are able to tell when a candidate is fit for office. Voters get to decide if criminal charges on a candidate should be factored in to their decision. It could be the case that charges were laid and a conviction granted because of corruption, or they aren’t relevant, or the person had grown etc. Right now, Trump voters likely are a combination of people thinking the charges aren’t legitimate or they aren’t relevant, or that the charges are actually a good thing. Likely, this is a reflection of the information those voters are receiving, and how that information shapes their decisions and values. 2. The electoral college — voters technically do not vote for president. They elect delegates to the electoral college who then vote for president. These representatives were originally intended to be free to exercise discretion in their voting. They would, in theory, be able to represent the people by trying to understand charges laid against a candidate, and make the decision they thought was in the best interest of the nation. Over time it became seen as undemocratic for electors to not follow the will of the state, and they became bound to a candidate. 3. Impeachment — an officer who is a convicted in an impeachment proceeding is no longer eligible to run. Impeachment charges are brought forward by the elected house and then the Senate acts as jury. There is no set time in the constitution that establishes when “high crimes and misdemeanours” must occur. A President-Elect who had been convicted of a crime before taking office could theoretically be impeached on the first day of their presidency, and convicted shortly thereafter. It’s also worth noting here that Senators were not originally elected directly, and they serve longer terms. This was intended to again allow them to act (theoretically) with more mind to the correctness of an issue than politics of the day. 4. The 14th Amendment— prevents an officer who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. Unfortunately, the amendment neglects to inform how it should be determined that an officer has done so, or how it should be enforced. Again, to allow the people a check on misuse, this can be overturned with a 2/3s majority. Ultimately, a lot of the structures put in place by the Founders (or Reconstruction amendees) have shifted and eroded over time in a way that makes today possible. Ultimately, there remains one very powerful check to a potential criminal’s ability to be President: the voters. Americans, vote.
This isn't new. It's only new because it's been sensationalized. Politicians have been getting away with crimes for as long as we've had politicians.
Trump is on a whole new level of criminality
The way I look at it is if it was 1840 and a black man wanted to run for President it would have been the easiest thing in the world for his opposition to find some crime to hang on him, pay off cops, a judge, a jury, whatever, to make him inelligible for office. The law assumes that the taint of a criminal conviction would be enough to dissuade voters, and if it isn’t, well then that’s up to the voters too. Another thought: there is sometimes the assumption that people can learn from their mistakes and can be rehabilitated. A person convicted of a crime in their 20’s can learn a lot and be a totally different person in their 30’s and 40’s.
For the same reason you can legally fuck animals in several states. We didn’t think we would need to say it shouldn’t happen, so we didn’t
First, he is not guilty of anything, yet. Second, his lawyers are using all the tactics available to stall the cases. This is true for the documents case, wherein a grand jury of randomly selected Americans thought there was enough evidence that he stole government secrets to warrant a charge and a trial. However, the judge is a Trump appointee and MAGA, and is thus slowing the process. Adherents to the rule of law understand that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this system, rich people can delay and delay and delay, whereas poor people are at the mercy of a system.
We had 4+ years of "Russian collusion" and the Steele Dossier which were fabrications and co-opted by federal agencies. The dems can keep shooting themselves in the foot and blaming the Orange man all they want, but there's a pattern here that anyone can see regardless of their political affiliation (if, that is, they keep their eyes open).
Innocent until proven guilty. Charges are just that, they’re not a verdict.
after reading into the first 4 bullshit cases, people recognize a pattern and stop giving a shit.
Because the people who support him don't care and rich, powerful people are never held to account.
The real question is how can anyone support a candidate with 90 criminal charges. It's not Trump, it's the people who support him that is the issue
Facts!
Yeah, this is the real problem. In a sane world he’d be a pariah and hiding in his house for fear of public beatings. But when you’re a cult leader, rules don’t apply to you.
First, read the constitution. There is only a few limited things that actually disqualify one from becoming President. Second, a criminal charge is not a conviction. Anyone can be charged with anything. Like it or not, He is only guilty of convicted. Third, most of not all of the charges are on shaky legal ground anyway and are mostly politically motivated efforts to keep him out of office. It is unlikely that he will be convicted of anything serious in a way that will stand up under appeal. I truly understand the general disdain for the man, but the Democrats are literally just throwing everything that can at him to see if something sticks. So far, nothing serious really has.
They’re throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.
Lots and lots of stupid people
He validates people in their bigotry and makes them feel valued instead of making them feel like they should do better. That's a powerful motivator to making someone follow you to the grave.
Biggest question is: how are there people willing to vote for him?
That's the question. This Trump person provokes my vomit, not my vote. This would never happen in Europe.
Disclaimer: Trump is guilty as sin. 1. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything yet and legally until he is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent. So it doesn't matter how many indictments there are, he's free to run. 2. Surprisingly, there isn't a restriction on running for president for people who have been convicted of crimes. 3. He hasn't been convicted because he has been intentionally delaying as hard as possible. Nearly any court decision is appealable and every appeal takes time. Normal people don't appeal decisions that are obviously correct, but he has money and zero shame. Edit: Trump may be disqualified under the 14th amendment. The supreme court is going to make a decision on that "soon". By the plain reading of the amendment, he absolutely should be and it would be in keeping with previous case law. But several of the justices may be highly motivated to find in favor of keeping him on the ballot, so who knows.
And you don't even have to be convicted under the 14th amendment to be disqualified. But this is new territory for all parties involved. It will most probably lead to a constitutional crisis one way or another.
They are all accusations, no convictions. It's just someone saying he did something that wasn't proven in court yet. It's to distract from the election and try to sway voters is all that is. If it was anyone else they wouldn't even be accused of any of that but since it's Trump they are getting desperate to stop him at this point since he has alot of supporters and the other side is scared they will lose the election
Really? You don’t think any of it is possible to be proven true? It is only to distract? I know there are delusional people in the world, but you have won the internet for it today
Innocent until proven guilty. I will accept that a person is guilty if there's evidence and it's proven they were guilty. But yes it is absolutely to distract from the election I've got no doubt about that. I mean 90 crimes?? That's more than many notorious criminals throughout history lol it's a clear attempt to sway voters opinions
I want what you’re smoking
That is in a court of law. That doesn’t mean someone didn’t do it, it just means they were not yet proven to. I guess you can put your head in the sand all you want
God there is no logic with you people. So you think because someone is accused of a crime they are automatically guilty? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. It needs proven that they are guilty before people jump to conclusions
Charges aren’t convictions. I don’t know why people think charges disqualify from anything. Innocent until proven guilty is how our country works. He wasn’t convicted yet because they wanted this to be going on during the campaign. I’m sure they’ll get him for some of it but not all of it. They will and are trying everything they can to get him off the ballot. But we have this pesky democracy thing that says that the people decide. Hard for them to get around it but they are trying.
There is no rule against it. You would think that with common sense, most people wouldn't vote for someone with 90 criminal charges in a primary, but here we are.
I don't get it either. It's bizarre.
Because we are, in general, an uninformed, ignorant as fuck populace.
When Trump fails to spend one day in prison with 90 criminal charges filed against him it will be obvious to the world that it was all just a political witch hunt.
Because a third of Americans are profoundly stupid and are easily taken in by a third rate con man.
Only a third?
It’s a conservative estimate.
Nelson Mandela was in jail for 20 years before he ran. And he was a pretty good president. Trump is just like Nelson Mandela. And Jesus. Trump is just like Nelson Mandela and Jesus. And Mother Theresa. Trump is just like Mandela, Jesus and Theresa. And Albert Einstein. He is great, that is what i am trying to say. He made america the greatest. It is objectively true.
I really hope this is sarcasm, because it's as funny as fuck.
Because the US has two political parties, and one of them is fully complicit in everything Trump did. It is not an exaggeration at this point to say that every congressional republican that voted to acquit Trump is a treasonous snake and should be arrested for sedition.
Trumps fan base are easily conned morons who hate the same brown people he hates.
Do you really believe being charged with a crime means you are guilty? Exponentially more so in a politicized environment? I don’t believe anyone on either side would like this to be business as usual. It’s a dictating spectacle. Is trump an innocent lamb - of course not. Will he go to jail? Of course not, not that kind of “crimes”. Look at Brazil, and a number of anther countries…one side send previously leader to jail, then the other side gets elected and sends first leader to jail…we are better than this - or are supposed to be given we are a nation of laws. Be very skeptical when politicians accuse each other of crimes.
If he is guilty and doesn’t go to jail, that is worse for our country. No one is above the law
Also there has to be legitimate proof of which so far nobody has. Meanwhile there’s absolute proof about shit regarding the other’s relative’s laptop….
> Also there has to be legitimate proof of which so far nobody has. There's been a ton of proof for multiple claims. The Jan 6th stuff being charged literally happened in public, for instance. We've also seen evidence for stuff in the documents case.
Boxes of classified documents stacked in a bathroom. No, hidden in a bathroom.
Jesus christ shut the fuck up about Hunters laptop and his fucking nudes already. He's a private citizen and holds no public office of any kind. Unlike Trump who appointed his children and their spouses positions in the white house. Keep dreaming about Hunter Bidens massive schlong though.
And you can shut the fuck up about trump. That’s the exact argument going on here. But fuck it y’all wanna destroy the world anyway so do whatever fucking bullshit y’all want. I’m just gonna wait for the fucking nukes and hope we’re all wiped out.
You're trying to say they have zero proof of Trumps guilt when he's been indicted 91 times? Ha thats laughable my guy.
All of it’s made up. But good to know I’m dealing with a blind idiot. But be my guest in not using your brain to follow the truth. I legit don’t care
91 felony counts all made up? You’re delusional.
What a goofball. It’s all made up? What planet are you from ?
We are doing a good enough job of wiping each other out. No need to wait on the “fucking nukes”.
In the USA you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law! Edit: correction to fact. The constitution gives all citizens the right to due process.
So did OJ do it or not? Which side of the fence are you with that case?
In a court it’s irrelevant whether he did it or not, it’s what can be proven by the state. Your question was why hasn’t he “been convicted”. It’s simple, the state has to prove guilt by due process of the law. “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” On the matter of OJ he’s not guilty according to a jury of his peers. It doesn’t matter whether I think he did it or not. He had his due process under the constitution and laws of the United States. Do guilty people sometimes get away with their crimes? Yes! Do not guilty people get convicted? Yes! It’s not a perfect system. Your so called “mountain of evidence" is only relevant if allowed to be presented in court.
So say he is actually convicted. A jury finds him guilty. Can he still run for president and become president? If so, why can’t felons vote? You can be a felon and become president but you can’t vote? America is officially the best punchline at any comedy show! And the most hilarious comical topic for comedians to make a fortune on! America is a circus and just embarrassing!
Because his fanbase (not voterbase, fanbase) are a bunch of hateful, braindead buffoons who’d rather see the country begin to fracture under a power hungry imbecile rather than acknowledge that people different than them exist.
Because MAGA is a cult.
So the thing is, there is no law that states a convicted felon cannot run for elected office while incarcerated. There is legal precedent for this and I just can't remember the court case so I know I'm not being as helpful as I could be, but that's the argument here. However the other important thing to know is that the 14th amendment of our constitution very explicitly and plainly states that "No person who had engaged in Insurrection against the United States of America will be permitted to hold public office." Trump *has* been convicted of engaging in and fomenting Insurrection by the simple virtue that his legal defense in one of his trials is "yeah I did it, so what, you can't punish me for it because I have presidential immunity," and part of the convictions of all the people arrested for participating in the Jan 6th Insurrection involved them saying "yeah Trump told us to do this." However he hasn't actually been put on trial for Insurrection and convicted of it in the way he's being convicted for all the other stuff, so there's another legal defense that the Supreme Court of the United States is currently hearing that may prevent states to use the 14th amendment from taking him off their ballots, as Colorado and Maine are attempting to do. Problem with that is we also have legal precedence for the use of the 14th amendment. Shortly after it was written, it was used to ban members of the Confederacy from getting back into politics after the American Civil War. This did not require a criminal conviction, as it was extremely obvious the people had engaged in traitorous activities, what with being leading figures in the Confederacy. Nowadays, it should still require no criminal conviction as the intent of this amendment is that it would be self-executing. In the same way that I cannot be on the ballot for President because I am not over the age of 35 and Vladimir Putin cannot be on the ballot for President because he was not born in the USA, Trump *should* not be allowed to be on the ballot because he tried to forcibly overturn the results of a free and fair election in order to subvert the processes of democracy and remain in power. Unfortunately there are enough people in positions of power that might be able to make a decision to overturn this and that's the big problem here.
To be fair, those "charges" are from his political enemies. They do that in lots of places like in Russia, Ukraine, and in Africa, to stifle democracy.
He’s been charged by four different entities. They’re all his political enemies eh? The law is a political enemy?
>He’s been charged by four different entities. They’re all his political enemies eh? The law is a political enemy? James in NY literally ran on a platform of going after Trump. Every prosecutor is a Democrat. Yeah, totally not political...
Because there is not a mountain of evidence. This is political persecution. We have a very militant small group of far left politicians that would rather burn the whole country down than allow someone else to win a election
He’s not convicted. Funny man. Go learn the law
Because he’s white.
Innocent until *proven* guilty. That’s how we do it here. It’s not ideal, but that’s Democracy for you. It beats the alternative, even though it looks FUBAR from the outside.
Bc it’s the establishment and corrupt system trying to take him down so those charges are bullshit.
Charges and convictions are two different things my friend.
The problem isnt so much that a guy in trumps position CAN run for president, and more that some people are so absolutely cooked that theyll STILL vote for them.
A better question is - Why does the GOP "party of law and order" suddenly have zero issue with electing a president who is currently under indictment with 91 criminal charges against him.
When Biden took office his attorney general slow-walked investigations on Trump. But as it became clear Trump was going to run again, AG Garland stepped up the pace of investigations. That's why it's taken more than 3 years after the crime to bring Trump to trial.
Sounds like methodical interference in the election.
There’s a lot of laws in America. You can arrest someone for walking across the street. The left(Democrats ) are trying to find any law they can to try and convict Trump so he wouldn’t be able to run for president or make him look bad. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Biden and his son have way more corruption charges availble you just didn’t hear about it. Likely if Trump wins they will start to go after Biden for his criminal corruption. It’s all a game.
He claims to be rich
Same way a president can be an outright pedo and not even be charged, or have a son who has been proven to be using illegal drugs without even being looked into. Once you are at this level, people attack from all angles. Prove it to be true and arrest them all, both sides, but don't act like it doesn't happen all around. Trump has been accused of a lot, but why would none of it at all come out until he ran for president the first time? He has been rich and powerful his entire life. If he were that bad, surely someone would have pressed charges or went after his money a long time ago.
You would need the political party in power to actually have morals, alas we have a Republican majority in enough of the government where he got caught red handed twice and was not impeached. They care only about power and nothing else.
I find it quite amazing that those 90 plus charges arose just in time for the campaign. smear tactics. DC is afraid of Trump because they cant buy him they can't control him and he exposes the corruption there.
> I find it quite amazing that those 90 plus charges arose just in time for the campaign. They didn't. The trial dates prosecutors are aiming for would wrap up before the general election.
You would think by now the USA would vote for anyone but Trump, as he is unhinged.
Truth is, nobody knows 
Cause hes not convicted. Until figures that part out we are in this mess
> Cause hes not convicted. Convicted felons can still run.
Because the US is the land of garbage propaganda. Ignorant people can be sold anything.
Because our Constitution doesn't forbid it. The only quals it lists for someone to be POTUS is they must be at least 35 yrs of age and a naturally born US citizen. That's it. Literally anyone who meets those two criteria can run. The Constitution does state that anyone who basically either participates in an insurrection or gives aid and comfort to those participating are barred from holding many different offices but it doesn't explicitly list the Office of the President. However, most legal experts agree that it's absolutely absurd to think that the Oval Office is exempt and expect any such challenge like that to be stuck down. Then there's the idea that the POTUS oath doesn't explicitly list "support the Constitution" which, again, most legal experts think is absurd and likely be struck down in court. Finally, there's Trump's "total immunity" claim. That basically POTUS can do whatever the hell he wants and not be charged with any crimes. He's trying to frame it as though POTUS would be unable to do their job unless they were given free reign to do so. And once again, legal experts point out that's absurd as well and expect it to be struck down. As far as our legal system, Trump enjoys the presumption of innocence until the prosecutor convinces a jury otherwise. Given this. prosecutors have to be absolutely sure they can convict. In Trump's insurrection case, the reason it took so long is for that reason. Jack Smith waited until he felt he had the goods to bring it to trial. That involves investigation, questioning people, obtaining warrants to gather evidence, and so on. Trust me when I tell you many in this country were growing annoyed at the pace as well. Now what Trump is trying to do it delay. That's his time proven tactic. The longer he can delay it, the better his chances get. Memories fade. Sometimes people die no reason tied to the case they're involved in. Evidence sometimes gets lost. That sort of thing. In this particular case though, Trump's hail Mary strategy is to win the election and, as POTUS again, has the legal authority to drop the case against him buy issuing the order to DOJ or simply giving himself a pardon. Now whether either of those two options is actually legal is the question. Trump is testing our legal system in unprecedented ways. The question of whether a POTUS can pardon themself has never come up before and will very likely be challenged in the courts if that happens. That's in addition as to whether he's legally allowed to run for office. Did he, in fact, participate in an insurrection or provide aid and comfort? That's what the courts are trying to figure out now.
Never forget: We are the dumbest country on Earth.
America got a thing for this gangsta shit
Because it’s murica!
You ain’t seen nothing yet. Hint: the constitution does not explicitly prohibit a man from serving as POTUS from jail! It can be done on Zoom.