161
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
161 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2397 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A) what are you suggesting? That the mere accusation is sufficient?
Regarding B) , I'm sorry but it's because of those systems of checks & balances that our democracy buckled but did not break. If you open said door to denying anyone the capacity to run for office under such grounds, it's a very easy, weak link of the chain, to abuse. It's a high bar to convince me that this is a good idea. After conviction of conspiracy to defraud the US and rights of citizens at the federal level in Smith's case, I'd be far more convinced..
No. I'm suggesting that suits are filed, a hearing is held and a judge hands down a verdict based on the evidence.
This past November a Colorado district judge ruled that Trump absolutely engaged in an insurrection against the US government. She declined to remove him from the ballot because of some chickenshit reasoning that the office of President is not specifically mentioned in Article 3. So she kicked it up to the CO Supreme Court which actually followed through on the ruling that being an insurrectionist makes one ineligible for office.
So no, it wasn't just an accusation.
In the case of Maine, that didn't happen. For what it's worth I think the CO process is more robust but still somewhat susceptible to exploitation. Particularly odd to me is that a state court is determining what a person did at the Federal level and not within their state and not without a precedent at the Federal court level (yet). Despite this particular instance so happening to fall in line with reality, that seems... pretty abusable to me.
My understanding is that Maine was able to do what it did BECAUSE of the ruling in CO. A CO judge determined that Trump is an insurrectionist, so he's an insurrectionist everywhere. Just like how a trial in NY determined Trump is a rapist. He's a rapist in every state, not just NY.
It's also important to note that in the CO trial, Trumps team didn't deny that he engaged in the behavior he was accused of, they simply said he was exercising his First Ammendment rights. The judge determined that his actions weren't protected by the First. Hence, he's an insurrectionist.
So a couple things here.
This was a state ruling, not a Federal ruling. As such, what happens in one state legally has no bearing on what occurs in another state. Hence why it's so important the rulings of Federal trials from Smith go through and set a precedent with a legitimate jury no less. Don't get me wrong, it's my personal opinion that Trump and the broader GOP is largely guilty and complicit in this act of insurrection, treason, etc.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go — precedent for every red or worse purple state in the Union. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if Trump can't primary let alone be on a general election ballot. But ultimately, I'd feel much better about it if these cases were decided by a Jury based on Federal evidence; and finally, if Americans cannot reject such a person at the ballot... Then there probably is no hope for this country anyway.
As for the rapist argument, that doesn't seem to apply here. For one, that was a Federal, and second, that was a civil suit — not a criminal one, whose consequences are lesser and the bar lower. Doesn't help that the Jury explicitly rejected the rape claim.
We absolutely need to stop using the "if we hold these criminals accountable for legitimate reasons, they might use it against us for illegitimate reasons" BS.
These people are thoroughly unscrupulous, and they will use whatever means they want to further their agenda.
The very fact that you're scared of them using legitimate laws in illegitimate ways is EXACTLY why they should be stopped.
I get where you're coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
I get where you're coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
No, Trump's absolute incompetence and Dan Quayle helped prevent those things from happening. He has since realized how much more damage he could have done which is why he's so fucking desperate to win again, because he wants to do that damage.
For whatever reason Pence realized it was doomed to fail or too much risk to himself. Even if it succeeded, it doesn't preclude the checks & balances that came from elsewhere, including Congress that already was able to prevent a significant amount of damage during Trump's term.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that Trump is a threat to the country and should be stopped. I simply take issue with this approach prior to Smith's Federal trial.
So a conviction. 👌
IANAL. Also... I'm not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct me... But I don't know if the CO case resulted in a "conviction".