The question about the evidentiary standard goes to the heart of the issue.
Addendum. Ideally, if a standard is put forth, it will deal with the fact that an insurrection isn’t a one-man show. Dozens of legislators and others* are called into the question as coconspirators. It would be salutary if they can be measured against the standard in a defined (and definitive) way.
Once Jack convicts him of J6 crimes and indicts his cronies and others, he can then indict Trump for insurrection too after he gets a few convictions at his DC trial. If Trump were to win, it would increase the chances of him being refused the position, by congress and the courts and it would be one trial he would not be able to block. If he won, he would already be a convicted criminal under a life sentence for attacking the constitution and on trial as a criminal insurrectionist too. First get the fucker convicted ASAP and then worry about the rest.
That would be nice, but it does nothing to address or advance putting an evidentiary standard in place for applying the salient bit of the Constitution to this case and concurrent or future suspected insurrectionists.
not clicking on a CCP organ
did not click
It will deal with the current situation and congress can enact enabling legislation for the 14th, if the democrats win. If Trump is convicted, he can then be also charged with insurrection by the DOJ before the election. That would carry criminal sanctions as well as disqualification.
That's the point CJ Roberts made,that all these states would alter ballots to their liking and what a pandoras box we'd have here then,I now look at this court w/disdain as at the least it should be a 5-3 w/Garland on it,and if Obama could have convinced Ruth to retire then it'd be 4-4,I omit Roberts cause he is basically a peacemaker who if we had a 4-4 split would make rational decisions.Thomas,Alito,and the three Trumpers want to take us back to the stone age,corporations run amuk,political influence w/$$$$$$ unregulated etc. Using precedent when it suits them or flushing it if not and interpreting the Cons. literally when it suits and subjectively when it doesn't,all the while accepting perks from arch conservative billionaires. My lowest opinion of SCOTUS ever,they are in pocket.
They read the briefs, had meetings and settled on a strategy before the hearing began. Hopefully it included not hearing Trump's appeal on immunity and that will get the ball rolling, downhill and over Donald. That call by the appeals court on immunity was airtight and covered all the bases, no need to take it up. They were probably reading that one too, since it's been out, and they have access to it.
No.
A day late and a dollar short.
He is on trial for obstruction of an official proceeding. I doubt that is sufficient grounds for disqualification under article 3.
So, you don't see that there is an issue over unequal standards for what may be considered disqualification? Selecting candidates through the primary system is not a trivial matter. And then what if Trump is nominated by the GOP? Does Colorado not have him on the ballot while California does?
It is a pragmatic view, once he is convicted, then he can be slam dunked for insurrection via criminal prosecution, the only mechanism to do it. Nobody can get out from under a criminal conviction for insurrection and the 14th. We will see about immunity this week perhaps.
why do you say the bolded? It's not so obvious that Trump is "slam dunk" certain of a guilty verdict for insurrection. Nor is it reasonable to assume that Smith decided to leave charges off the current indictment "because he can always come back and charge him later".
I guess immunity will not be granted. To disqualify him for insurrection, serial objectives must be attained.
Sure it's unequal,and if Pres. candidates are omitted from ballots in an election(in this case Trump) then we all know it's more courts/appeals and all his patented allegations concerning a rigged election. I think that's the only choice that could be made by the court to keep him on the ballot. I don't know if my rant about the state of the court sounded like i disagreed w/the decision. I'm starting to get dizzy over all these legalities spread over multiple cases criminal/civil,federal/state and the flood the zone appeals tactics Agent Orange is famous for,not to mention my respect for you lntellectually.
