TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
If it's so obvious that Trump committed insurrection why didn't Smith charge Trump with the crime of insurrection? Of course, this is a rhetorical question and I don't mean to ask you to read Smith's mind, just pointing out that there seems to be a lack of confidence in the DOJ that Trump could be convicted of the crime of seditious conspiracy or insurrection. But what you say about disbarment is true. A criminal conviction of sedition is not necessary to invoke disbarment. You list some actions that could cause a person to be disbarred and I don't take issue with them. It's the process and means for invoking sec 3 of the 14th that I'm questioning. I'm also questioning whether or not we might be doing ourselves more harm than good by going down this path.
Poking about the web and looking for answers to my question about the process and standards that must be met to invoke the disbarment clause, I found this paper:
The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause Can Be Enforced Today
Legal processes at the state and federal level can be used to ensure that those who engage in insurrection do not serve in public office. The January 6 Select Committee can aid these efforts by offering some key findings in its final report.
www.pogo.org
State-Level Mechanisms
States have their own processes that allow a specified challenger to petition the state’s designated certifying body to find that an individual is not qualified to hold the office for which they are running. Those processes vary by state, but they could be used to enforce the 14th Amendment disqualification of individuals who are running for the following: to hold elected state office; to serve as a presidential elector; to serve as the president or vice president; or to serve as a member of Congress.
In some circumstances, individuals may bring legal actions to challenge a candidate’s qualification to hold an office. Where states permit challenges to a candidate’s ability to even appear on the ballot based on a lack of constitutional qualifications for the office, these challenges can often be brought before the election. A state level challenge to an individual’s qualification to hold the office of president or vice president should come at or before the primary stage of a presidential election, since that is the stage in which individuals are asked to cast a vote for or against the candidates themselves. After the primaries, individuals vote for presidential electors, not individual candidates.
Quo Warranto
The writ of quo warranto generally allows a court to hear challenges to a person’s right to hold public office and remove an unqualified individual from office. In many jurisdictions, quo warranto rules are now codified. At the federal level, Congress codified quo warranto in the District of Columbia Code.29 Under the quo warranto law, the federal district court in Washington may issue a writ of quo warranto against anyone in the District who unlawfully holds “a public office of the United States.”
Both the U.S. attorney general and the U.S. attorney for Washington D.C. may initiate this action of their own accord, or based on the relation of a “third person.”31 If the attorney general or U.S. attorney for D.C. refuses to bring an action, a “person interested” may ask the court for permission to bring the case in the name of the United States over the objection of the Justice Department.32 Despite the language of the statute, however, as a practical matter it appears that the U.S. attorney general and U.S. attorney for D.C. are the only people who can reliably bring quo warranto challenges against most federal government officials.33
Because the quo warranto statute constitutes federal law, this mechanism can be used to remove individuals from: holding appointed or elected office in the District of Columbia government, serving as appointed officers of the federal government (Senate-confirmed or non-Senate-confirmed) with offices in the District of Columbia, and potentially serving as vice president or president.34 For all four categories of office, the challenges would be brought post-appointment or post-election.
So, there it is. Mechanisms are in place for people or Attorney Generals at the state or federal levels to either prevent unqualified individuals from running for or holding public office. The decision will be made in court but not in a trial. In an earlier section of the article they discuss how people were prevented from occupying a public office in the past, including the recent disbarment of a public official in New Mexico. There are precedents. There are established legal mechanisms for carrying out the enforcement of sec. 3 of the 14th and we don't have to go back to 1867 to find them.
Do I have concerns over where this might take us if we follow this path? Yes, I do. But my concerns over us making this up as we go are answered. This path may not be well traveled but it has been done before, legally and tested in a courts of law.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Drawing the boundaries of where First Amendment protections end has been one of the ongoing tasks of our historical succession of appellate courts. As society and the way we communicate change, so do those boundaries.
I agree with you that a finding of sedition, another rather plastic term, needs to be specific and strict. Otherwise, legitimate and salutary protest against oppression is stifled or even punished as seditious by corrupt elements in government.
Imagine a history in which our government brutally suppressed the civil rights movement of sixty years ago, to the extent that the laws now guaranteeing equality were never passed. That would be the sort of outcome if sedition were freely applied to protest, or to use the current parlance, weaponized.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
A very good point for the courts to act before the primaries begin and by considering the Colorado case early, they can save a lot of trouble. They are eager to have their day in court, to present their evidence and arguments. Also, during the general election Trump's name would appear on the ballot, not an elector, people are voting for Trump or against him, even though the EC makes the call.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm comfortable with letting it be decided in the courts. I'm less concerned about the ability of judges to discern what this means:
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
I'm more concerned about how the Federalist Society intends to use this to elevate the wealthy class's power over us, like it did when it managed to equate money with free speech or all but end the Voting Rights Act.. I'm more concerned about how fascist political groups will try to weaponize this in their fight to place their own officials into elected office. After all, it is their own who most ardently advocate for the use of the disbarment clause of the 14th. It's a kneejerk reaction but if they are for it, I feel that I should be against it. Even if I can't say why.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Indeed.
The Heritage Foundation is the engine of this comprehensive abomination.
Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project
Presidential Transition Project The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars.
www.project2025.org
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I think for the SCOTUS not to disqualify Trump under the 14th, after a good case is presented in state court and he is disqualified by that state court, they would have to employ some serious pretzel logic that would make the Dobbs decision on abortion pale in comparison. How could they restore Trump to the ballot of any state that does not have a fraudulent case for disqualification? The 14th says 2/3 in both houses for restoration. There must be evidence and serious evidence to disqualify, and Trump provided a mountain of it. He is a unique individual treated differently by the legal system and he will be here too by being disqualified and there are unlikely to be repeats. Some fanatics will try to disqualify Biden, but there is not a shred of evidence for that or impeachment.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Getting Trump out of the way and news will be a start, then the media can pay more attention to serious issues and less to the doings a narcissistic assholes who fill the news daily with their misdeeds. Trump was a major driver of the culture wars and conduit for Russian disinformation and policy. His base won't go away, but perhaps on his way out he can divide the republicans. A write Trump in on the ballot campaign led by him would be sweet if he is disqualified, just the ego food he needs and liberals should by all means help, divide and conquer is how smart people deal with morons and the unthinking.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I have no idea how this will be decided in the courts because I don't know how strong the evidence is or what kind of evidence is needed to gain disqualification under the 14th.
Taylor-Greene's ability to take office was sustained after a group of voters sued to remove her from office under the 14th amendment. The judge ruled there was lack of evidence. Per this article from the AP the evidence brought in the suit against Greene was:
During the April 22 hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters, noted that in a TV interview the day before the attack at the U.S. Capitol, Greene said the next day would be “our 1776 moment.” Lawyers for the voters said some supporters of then-President Trump used that reference to the American Revolution as a call to violence.
“In fact, it turned out to be an 1861 moment,” Fein said, alluding to the start of the Civil War.
Greene acknowledged encouraging a rally to support Trump, but she said she wasn’t aware of plans to storm the Capitol or disrupt the electoral count using violence.
Her actions weren't considered to be evidence of insurrection. The judge said it plainly:
Beaudrot wrote that there’s no evidence that Greene participated in the attack on the Capitol or that she communicated with or gave directives to people who were involved.
The Jan 6 committee uncovered plenty of evidence on Trump's role in the attack on the Capitol Building on Jan 6. It remains to be seen if it's enough. It's going to be up to the courts to decide.
printer
Well-Known Member
The perps thought she was too dumb to have involved.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'm sure Jack knows all about it if the SS have office space there, but everywhere should have been searched by the FBI after the top-secret documents were found. If it happened to anybody else it would be hard not to imagine the FBI going through everything they own in the counterintelligence investigation over shit like this, even the houses of friends and family. What do you think they did over the Texeira case, sent him a polite letter and waited months for a response? Give the kid several chances to turn the secrets back in after dancing with lawyers for months? Seach everything including the houses and computers of others in his discord chat group? Put him in jail and keep him there pretrial after arresting him with a swat team on TV? Oppose his release? Are these the exact same crimes Trump is indicted for?
www.nbcnews.com
Trump’s post-presidential office is hiding in plain sight
For a man who likes his name in lights, his government-funded post-presidential office is as nondescript as they come.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
One of those conservative legal scholars wasn't just a member of the federalist society, he was a founder! To be a conservative federal judge or justice means being a federalist society member is a prerequisite and these guys determine constitutional thinking for conservative legal minds and their article will be cited every time this hits a courtroom.
Laurence Tribe: If Trump doesn’t qualify for insurrection clause, nobody would
106,493 views Sep 10, 2023 #Trump #Velshi #MSNBC
American legal scholar Laurence Tribe joins Ali Velshi to discuss the unique strength of a new lawsuit in Colorado seeking to ban Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment, why the case is destined to end up at the Supreme Court, and how the self-executing component of the article works. “This is more controversial because it isn’t as mechanical,” Tribe explains about the lawsuit. “Clearly we’re going to have to explore in this trial the meaning of insurrection, what it means to be engaged in it… and I think it’s clear to most people that if Trump doesn’t qualify [for that], nobody would.” On what's at stake in the 14th Amendment clause, Tribe says, “This was a major protective provision put in there because [the founders] realized that those who take an oath to uphold the constitution and then turncoat against it might not end up being prosecuted for anything,” he explains. “It’s important for the survival of the republic that someone who has shown him or herself to be an insurrectionist against the Constitution not get another chance to try.”
Laurence Tribe: If Trump doesn’t qualify for insurrection clause, nobody would
106,493 views Sep 10, 2023 #Trump #Velshi #MSNBC
American legal scholar Laurence Tribe joins Ali Velshi to discuss the unique strength of a new lawsuit in Colorado seeking to ban Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment, why the case is destined to end up at the Supreme Court, and how the self-executing component of the article works. “This is more controversial because it isn’t as mechanical,” Tribe explains about the lawsuit. “Clearly we’re going to have to explore in this trial the meaning of insurrection, what it means to be engaged in it… and I think it’s clear to most people that if Trump doesn’t qualify [for that], nobody would.” On what's at stake in the 14th Amendment clause, Tribe says, “This was a major protective provision put in there because [the founders] realized that those who take an oath to uphold the constitution and then turncoat against it might not end up being prosecuted for anything,” he explains. “It’s important for the survival of the republic that someone who has shown him or herself to be an insurrectionist against the Constitution not get another chance to try.”
Last edited:
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Probably lots of places to hide a body in that swamp of a White House he never got around to cleaning up.
In fact he made it a much more bigly swamp than it was when he got there.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
especially embalmed in ketchupProbably lots of places to hide a body in that swamp of a White House he never got around to cleaning up.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Georgia grand jury recommends indicting Lindsey Graham, Mike Flynn, & others. Will they be indicted?
20,141 views Sep 10, 2023 #TeamJustice
After hearing extensive evidence of election crimes by Trump and his many criminal associates in Georgia, the Georgia state special grand jury recommended indicting 40 individuals. However, the RICO indictment that was issued in Georgia charges only 19 of the 40 with crimes. What are we to make of the fact that 21 individuals the grand jury said should be indicted, haven't been?
This video explores the three most likely reasons these 21 individuals have not been indicted . . . at least, not yet.
The proper instinct of a true skeptic. As much as I wish for the death of the GOP I know that it must be a slow gradual one. If the removal of Trump and his cohorts causes a rapid crumble of the GOP to where democrats have a over whelming majority in all 3 branches at all 3 levels any party becomes an oligarchy and worse times will be ahead. I am fearful of the prospect
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo at this point we would benefit from a new party that represents the center right. No Labels ain’t it.