He already did lose the old-fashioned way, doesn't appear to have deflated anything. What makes you believe it will be different this time around? I don't disagree with thinking it's better he loses via election, just think the extremists will still be making all the same noise they are right now.
I agree that these various data are quite incriminating.
Imo his losing another time the same way will have a big damping effect on the maga movement/idea.
Are those examples you gave proof of insurrection?
Legal scholars have made the determination, though there are dissenters, and it is believed that those who follow a federalist society legal philosophy will agree with disqualification. As I said there needs to be process and that has already begun in Colorado with plaintiffs and the Secretary of State appears to be amenable to disqualifying Trump and mounts compelling arguments for timely intervention by the SCOTUS. The courts should expedite the matter and the appeals process in Colorado can be compressed considerably, if circumstances warrant. They just need a venue to mount their case and a state judge to set the standards of evidence, just because the constitution doesn't mention evidence or the process, doesn't mean, there doesn't need to be some proof and a process to determine if it is applicable.
One way of looking at it, is it just more people suing Trump for being an asshole, only in this case the settlement is not money, but disqualification.
One other thing, if the SCOTUS doesn't disqualify him for the GOP primary, they will face 2 back-to-back convictions for J6 and election interference, before the election, all directly related to J6 and will have to disqualify him for the general election. If they wait for him to file the papers to run in the fall of 24, assuming he wins the nomination it will case an epic shit storm, if they disqualify him then. Pull the Band-Aid off fast, not slow.
There are two ways to apply the disqualification clause of the 14th. Am expansive application or a narrow application. An expansive application would disqualify anybody who used or plotted to use force on Jan 6 to overthrow the 2020 election. But it could also be used against anybody who used force to resist a governmental authority. How far does a person have to go down the path of resisting authority before they can be barred from ever holding a public office? Unless there are new charges, Trump will not be convicted of insurrection or seditious conspiracy. He will quite possibly be convicted of a conspiracy to violate civil rights, a conspiracy to defraud the government, the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and a conspiracy to carry out such obstruction, "unlawfully conspired" to change the election outcome, false claims of election fraud and solicitation of violation of oath. Are these crimes sedition? They don't seem to fit the definition in common English:
krdo.com
How can you consider trumps role in J6 not to fit that definition? He most definitely incited people to rebell. That was the whole point. His campaign set up the demonstrations, Marched the crowds to the capital, falsely claimed fraud, and call for the use of force against the congressional procedure, and knowingly had safety mags removed to allow access to those who were heavily armed that he know had hostile intentions. " Thier not here to hurt me. Let my people in"There are two ways to apply the disqualification clause of the 14th. Am expansive application or a narrow application. An expansive application would disqualify anybody who used or plotted to use force on Jan 6 to overthrow the 2020 election. But it could also be used against anybody who used force to resist a governmental authority. How far does a person have to go down the path of resisting authority before they can be barred from ever holding a public office? Unless there are new charges, Trump will not be convicted of insurrection or seditious conspiracy. He will quite possibly be convicted of a conspiracy to violate civil rights, a conspiracy to defraud the government, the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and a conspiracy to carry out such obstruction, "unlawfully conspired" to change the election outcome, false claims of election fraud and solicitation of violation of oath. Are these crimes sedition? They don't seem to fit the definition in common English:
Sedition
If those action are sedition, would they then be applied to anybody convicted of them? What else should also apply?
Do you see where I'm going with this? There is opportunity for abuse in the broad application of sec 3 of the 14th.
In a narrow application, the disqualification clause of the 14th was written to bar men who served in the Confederacy and violated earlier oaths to serve as officers in an army in a war against the Constitution and the Union of the United States. The Civil War had ended but those who had served in the Confederate Army were not to be trusted with the levers of power in the post war government. Preventing that was clearly the intent behind the disqualification clause when it was written. What we are now contemplating is extending this clause into a broader application.
Opinion: Why the 14th Amendment shouldn’t disqualify Trump | KRDO
A live TV news station covering breaking news and traffic for Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Southern Colorado with a strong investigative team
These are issues that need to be weighed and thought through. I don't think you are wrong in what you say, just saying that we need to take this step carefully and with good reason. It might be better that we don't take this step. Unintended consequences and all that.
I'll be pretty surprised if either DC or Georgia actually goes to trial before the election. Both cases have tons of evidence. It's going to take a long time for the lawyers to go through them. Judges don't want to get overturned on appeal. The defense gets as much time as it reasonably needs, and a year of delays isn't overly long compared to many trials. In this case the defendants strategy certainly includes attempting to delay the trial so it ain't happening quickly.
The expert pundits all say the DC trial will be done by June at the latest. I thought Georgia would be slow too, but the bunch going for early trial and others who will plead for a deal should make that trial early too. However, no conviction is required for the 14th and it would be tried under lower standard civil rules of evidence.
Two thoughts.There are two ways to apply the disqualification clause of the 14th. Am expansive application or a narrow application. An expansive application would disqualify anybody who used or plotted to use force on Jan 6 to overthrow the 2020 election. But it could also be used against anybody who used force to resist a governmental authority. How far does a person have to go down the path of resisting authority before they can be barred from ever holding a public office? Unless there are new charges, Trump will not be convicted of insurrection or seditious conspiracy. He will quite possibly be convicted of a conspiracy to violate civil rights, a conspiracy to defraud the government, the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and a conspiracy to carry out such obstruction, "unlawfully conspired" to change the election outcome, false claims of election fraud and solicitation of violation of oath. Are these crimes sedition? They don't seem to fit the definition in common English:
Sedition
If those action are sedition, would they then be applied to anybody convicted of them? What else should also apply?
Do you see where I'm going with this? There is opportunity for abuse in the broad application of sec 3 of the 14th.
In a narrow application, the disqualification clause of the 14th was written to bar men who served in the Confederacy and violated earlier oaths to serve as officers in an army in a war against the Constitution and the Union of the United States. The Civil War had ended but those who had served in the Confederate Army were not to be trusted with the levers of power in the post war government. Preventing that was clearly the intent behind the disqualification clause when it was written. What we are now contemplating is extending this clause into a broader application.
Opinion: Why the 14th Amendment shouldn’t disqualify Trump | KRDO
A live TV news station covering breaking news and traffic for Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Southern Colorado with a strong investigative team
These are issues that need to be weighed and thought through. I don't think you are wrong in what you say, just saying that we need to take this step carefully and with good reason. It might be better that we don't take this step. Unintended consequences and all that.
One point though and a critical one, one can protest the government, but not try to overthrow or betray the US constitution as Trump did and the rules of evidence are different here. The point is not a crime, it is that he attempted to overthrow the constitutional order and is thus disqualified from holding office, but perhaps not running? That would be splitting legal hairs a bit too fine and if he runs in the general election after getting a pass on the primaries, he will cause a constitutional crisis unless disqualified. Because of the constitutional 2/3 majority restoration rule, they cannot restore him once a secretary of state disqualifies him in good faith and with a compelling case that meets civil standards of evidence. Really the SCOTUS can only disqualify him if there is a case against him, they cannot restore him without running into constitutional difficulties. As for innocents that might be caught up in this shit, the courts make the call, and it is hard to get into court over someone like Trump who is publicly guilty as Hell with mountains of evidence and even video against him.There are two ways to apply the disqualification clause of the 14th. Am expansive application or a narrow application. An expansive application would disqualify anybody who used or plotted to use force on Jan 6 to overthrow the 2020 election. But it could also be used against anybody who used force to resist a governmental authority. How far does a person have to go down the path of resisting authority before they can be barred from ever holding a public office? Unless there are new charges, Trump will not be convicted of insurrection or seditious conspiracy. He will quite possibly be convicted of a conspiracy to violate civil rights, a conspiracy to defraud the government, the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and a conspiracy to carry out such obstruction, "unlawfully conspired" to change the election outcome, false claims of election fraud and solicitation of violation of oath. Are these crimes sedition? They don't seem to fit the definition in common English:
Sedition
If those action are sedition, would they then be applied to anybody convicted of them? What else should also apply?
Do you see where I'm going with this? There is opportunity for abuse in the broad application of sec 3 of the 14th.
In a narrow application, the disqualification clause of the 14th was written to bar men who served in the Confederacy and violated earlier oaths to serve as officers in an army in a war against the Constitution and the Union of the United States. The Civil War had ended but those who had served in the Confederate Army were not to be trusted with the levers of power in the post war government. Preventing that was clearly the intent behind the disqualification clause when it was written. What we are now contemplating is extending this clause into a broader application.
Opinion: Why the 14th Amendment shouldn’t disqualify Trump | KRDO
A live TV news station covering breaking news and traffic for Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Southern Colorado with a strong investigative team
These are issues that need to be weighed and thought through. I don't think you are wrong in what you say, just saying that we need to take this step carefully and with good reason. It might be better that we don't take this step. Unintended consequences and all that.
I'm completely convinced that Trump incited a rebellion. Also that his plot was an attack on the Constitution that he pledged to defend. That's different from the legal standard required to find him guilty in a court of law. Trump has 91 criminal charges levied against him and not one of them are for sedition. If not Jack Smith, then who should be able to get Trump disbarred and what standard should be used to make it so?
I don't believe a conviction is required. A review of publicly available documentation should be perfectly sufficient. Yes there should be process but a criminal conviction is not necessary. We did not have sweeping legal conviction for Confederate officers, it was actually intentional that we didn't.
So, if a Black Lives Matters protestor is photographed in front of a building that an arsonist put on fire, should they be disqualified? What about people who help organize a BLM protest? Going farther back in time, when segregation was still legal and there were protests that sometimes got violent, should leaders of that movement be disqualified? What about when people in Portland protested against police brutality after George Floyd was murdered and Trump sent DOJ goons. People directly confronted federal officers in the streets. Couldn't they also be subjected to disbarment?
I very much enjoy your posts. You make a good point. Completely true that Trump's legal strategy has always been to delay legal action against him whenever and however he can. He doesn't even care if his filings to delay make legal sense. That said, Smith seems to have limited the scope of his indictment to streamline their trial. The evidence is not all that overwhelming, especially when Trump was right there in the middle of it when it all happened. If Trump is innocent, he should be very helpful to his lawyers when they go through those files and point them to where Smith is making false accusations. They have seven months and a large team. Seven months to prepare is plenty of time. Trump is just playing for more delays and might get a few more months but not enough to stall the trial into 2025.
To almost all of the examples you gave I say no. A protest even if it comes to Riot is not a attack against public officials, federal institutions. Most riots do not attempt to violate the constitution rights of the public. Or chant death to a present high level official "hang Mike Pence"Idk where the bar should be I do know that.