Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

[Rigby5]

4 indictments, 91 counts. This isn't "banana republic". This is justice..long overdue. None of which will prevent him from running for President. No one is being deprived of their "rights" to vote for the candidate of their choice. I don't see him sitting in a prison cell right now. If this were you or I, we'd be sitting in a jail cell or under house arrest while the government ensured our right to a speedy trial.
But to the powerful, goes privilege.

These 91 ridiculous charges are costing hundreds of millions and taking a huge chunk of time.
Clearly that was the intent, since the SCOTUS is obviously going to overturn anything left.
There has never been anything nearly as criminal as these ridiculous charges against Trump.
It serves no one to prosecute them.

But the effect is opposite.
It is giving Trump more coverage and sympathy than he deserves.
It essentially has guaranteed his re-election.
No one I know can now vote for anyone involved with these illegal prosecutions.

 

[Independentthinker]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm not understanding your thread title. If something is legal then it is Constitutional. However, this keeping him off the ballot thing is not going to wash, because it is both illegal and unconstitutional. It is only liberal fantasy.

 

[sealybobo]

These 91 ridiculous charges are costing hundreds of millions and taking a huge chunk of time.
Clearly that was the intent, since the SCOTUS is obviously going to overturn anything left.
There has never been anything nearly as criminal as these ridiculous charges against Trump.
It serves no one to prosecute them.

But the effect is opposite.
It is giving Trump more coverage and sympathy than he deserves.
It essentially has guaranteed his re-election.
No one I know can now vote for anyone involved with these illegal prosecutions.

I remember in the past anytime a democrat wanted a recount, you guys complained it was a waste of time and would cost tax payers money. Never heard a peep about that when Trump demanded recounts.

I agree. Not letting Trump run or throwing him in jail isn't going to fix this. He needs to be defeated. Don't go all snowflake again if he loses again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I remember in the past anytime a democrat wanted a recount, you guys complained it was a waste of time and would cost tax payers money. Never heard a peep about that when Trump demanded recounts.

Trump got recounts in every state where he asked for them, often multiple ones. They were all completed by the safe harbor date so the EC votes could be cast in the capital.

Not liking the results of the election and the recounts because you lost is not justification for (alleged) criminal action.

WW

 

[Rigby5]

Former President Donald Trump in a statement Sunday said he wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, repeating the false claim that Pence had the power to do so and slamming recent bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

Trump falsely claimed that a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to reform the Electoral Count Act proves his claim that Pence had the power, according to the ECA, to overturn the 2020 election. Though the Act is vague, it is clear the role of the vice president is ceremonial and does not include the power to overturn the result of a presidential election.

“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!” Trump wrote.

Trump says he wanted Pence to overturn the 2020 election and falsely claims it was vice president's 'right'

Former President Donald Trump in a statement Sunday said he wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, repeating the false claim that Pence had the power to do so and slamming recent bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

www.cnn.com

Demanding that Pence throw out enough votes on Jan 6th to swing the election to Trump was a rebellion against the Constitutional order, making it unconstitutional for him to ever hold public office again without the consent of 2/3rds of Congress.

That is just a lie.
Pence could not "over turn" anything, and everyone knew it.
All Pence could do is cause a slight delay in certification.
Which would have been a good thing, to let emotions calm a bit.

Failure to certify an election result does not and cannot extend the term of the previous president, in any way.
Anyone claiming anyone thought Pence could at all keep Trump in office, is lying.
No country works that way, and never could.
Nor does "certification" of the vote allow for votes to be "thrown out".
Those are ridiculously silly claims that no one ever suggested or believed were possible.

The ONLY crime involved is trying to prevent an ex-president from getting on the ballot the way 80 million people have the right to have happen.

 

[Rigby5]

The Constitution explicitly lists risk of life as a consequence of a criminal act.

If you can deny a person their freedom for crimes via due process, you deny their right to vote, the RKBA and various other rights as well.

A court can decide what is needed in order to defend the rights of others.
No one can dictate arbitrary "consequences of a criminal act" if they are not necessary in order to defend the rights of others.

There could be reasons why rights can be denied, but not without a judge approving them.
Then cannot be arbitrary legislative dictates that tie the hands of the judge.
Penalty mandates are totally and completely illegal in every way.
But there is no possible way that violating the right to vote could at all in any way be necessary in order to protect anyone else.
And again, it violates the basic principle of taxation without representation.
Anyone who has done that is a criminal.

 

[Rawley]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

One benefit is it has completely quashed their "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY" bullshit in their campaign.

 

[22lcidw]

I remember in the past anytime a democrat wanted a recount, you guys complained it was a waste of time and would cost tax payers money. Never heard a peep about that when Trump demanded recounts.

I agree. Not letting Trump run or throwing him in jail isn't going to fix this. He needs to be defeated. Don't go all snowflake again if he loses again.

This is not snowflake. We are a talking about a free and sovereign nation compared to one where we are forcibly blended into a world government. At least we must try to stop the move to a world entity that the leadership we are unsure of.

 

[martybegan]

A court can decide what is needed in order to defend the rights of others.
No one can dictate arbitrary "consequences of a criminal act" if they are not necessary in order to defend the rights of others.

There could be reasons why rights can be denied, but not without a judge approving them.
Then cannot be arbitrary legislative dictates that tie the hands of the judge.
Penalty mandates are totally and completely illegal in every way.
But there is no possible way that violating the right to vote could at all in any way be necessary in order to protect anyone else.
And again, it violates the basic principle of taxation without representation.
Anyone who has done that is a criminal.

That's what the courts do, that's what due process is all about.

If losing your voting rights for a felony is part of the punishment known beforehand, there are zero constitutional issues with it.

 

[Rigby5]

You think Trump should get a pass for all the crimes he committed? And you're going to be okay with him breaking the law if he wins again? Wow!

I think this is all by design. Trump broke any law he felt with even though his handlers repeatedly tried to stop him or leaked it when he did it. And he wouldn't stop, because he believes the president is above the law. And you think this guy should be president again? Okay.

I don't even know Jack Smith. I know I hate Trump. So who is Jack for me to hate him more?

Don't forget Mitch said he would have convicted Trump in the Senate, but he was no longer president. Of course Trump is arguing that when he broke the law, he was acting as president. So this is fucked up dude. The Senate needs to try Trump for Jan 6 NOW. Nancy impeached him. Now they need to rule. According to Mitch, he would have convicted Trump. IF ONLY he was still president. But since he was on his way out, he didn't.

Why? Because he didn't want Trump supporters to punish him. Either with their votes or death threats.

I do not think Trump committed a single crime.
I know Biden did by getting Shokin illegally fired to illegally prevent an investigation of Burisma Holdings.
But it was not at all wrong for Trump to want that investigated.
It was not at all wrong for Trump to want voter fraud investigated.
It was not at all wrong for Trump to have 100 classified documents mixed in randomly with over 15,000 other documents.
It was not at all wrong for Trump to estimate his properties any way he wanted.
It cannot be at all wrong to do anything with alternate electors, since there is no way that could at all effect an election in any way.

The impeachment was already ruled on by the Senate, and declared in Trump's favor.
That counts against Pelosi, not Trump.
There is nothing remotely illegal about anything Trump did, regardless of how much we may not like it.
Those attempting to prosecute are liars and crooks, violating the most basic principles of a republic.

 

[Rigby5]

I remember in the past anytime a democrat wanted a recount, you guys complained it was a waste of time and would cost tax payers money. Never heard a peep about that when Trump demanded recounts.

I agree. Not letting Trump run or throwing him in jail isn't going to fix this. He needs to be defeated. Don't go all snowflake again if he loses again.

I agree that the SCOTUS deliberately violated the law when they stopped the 2000 recount.
I will be very happy if Trump loses.
But the damage has already been done.
The bogus charges prevented an investigation of Burisma Holdings, Trump has been cost millions in defense fees and months worth of time from the campaign.
The ONLY fix is for Jack Smith and all the rest to go to jail for a very long time.
What they did can never be allowed.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

These 91 ridiculous charges are costing hundreds of millions and taking a huge chunk of time.
Clearly that was the intent, since the SCOTUS is obviously going to overturn anything left.
There has never been anything nearly as criminal as these ridiculous charges against Trump.
It serves no one to prosecute them.

But the effect is opposite.
It is giving Trump more coverage and sympathy than he deserves.
It essentially has guaranteed his re-election.
No one I know can now vote for anyone involved with these illegal prosecutions.

And those counts are for the justice system to work out. Because that's how it works. Trump has the right to trial, and the right to appeal if the judgement does not go his way. You should be celebrating that. It shows that no one is above the law. It will not affect him running for President. I suspect rather the opposite is true. I believe Trump's polling numbers will go down after Haley bows out because then voters will finally see that it will be a choice between checking the box for Biden..or for Trump.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump got recounts in every state where he asked for them, often multiple ones. They were all completed by the safe harbor date so the EC votes could be cast in the capital.

Not liking the results of the election and the recounts because you lost is not justification for (alleged) criminal action.

WW

Wrong.
Trump got not a single hand recount of paper ballots, as required by law.

All the states did was partial audits using machines.

 

[Richard-H]

Absolutely wrong.
Without a conviction, then it is a government crime to infringe upon rights without the person having the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.
A conviction is absolutely required whenever a charge is used to deny rights.

The fact congress "has the power to remove the disability" does NOT at all imply a conviction is not necessary.
Congress can allow convicted felons to vote or run for office.
It just implies denying rights like voting or running for office is weak.

Of course some speech can be illegal if it incites harm to innocents.
But that has to be proven in court, so that there is an opportunity to prevent a defense.
Without the opportunity for a defense in a court of law, any infringement on rights is a clear crime.

1. Running for President is not a 'Right'.
2. Barring someone according to A. 14 Sec. 3 is not a criminal penalty and does not require a conviction. It is a civil action and only requires 'preponderance of evidence'.
3. Trump has the opportunity to argue against the Colorado decision before SCOTUS on Feb. 14.
4. If Trump hadn't started the BIG LIE and just conceded the 2020 election like a grown up, he'd almost certainly be set up to win the 2024 election. Instead, he will be barred from ever holding office and found guilty of multiple counts.
5. #4 is called 'Poetic Justice'.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong.
Trump got not a single hand recount of paper ballots, as required by law.

All the states did was partial audits using machines.

Show us a state law that requires a "hand recount" by law and then lets see if (a) Trump requested a recount, and (b) if it was a hand recount required by law as you claim.

Which state law are you referring to?

WW

 

[Richard-H]

That is just a lie.
Pence could not "over turn" anything, and everyone knew it.
All Pence could do is cause a slight delay in certification.
Which would have been a good thing, to let emotions calm a bit.

Failure to certify an election result does not and cannot extend the term of the previous president, in any way.
Anyone claiming anyone thought Pence could at all keep Trump in office, is lying.
No country works that way, and never could.
Nor does "certification" of the vote allow for votes to be "thrown out".
Those are ridiculously silly claims that no one ever suggested or believed were possible.

The ONLY crime involved is trying to prevent an ex-president from getting on the ballot the way 80 million people have the right to have happen.

Wrong. If the electoral vote count is not certified, the winner is determined by the House of Representatives. Trump knew that if the House of Representatives decided, he would win, which is why he was desperate to stop the certification by the electoral college.

House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House - Chapter 24. Electoral Counts; Selection of President and Vice President

www.govinfo.gov

 

[BlindBoo]

That is just a lie.
Pence could not "over turn" anything, and everyone knew it.
All Pence could do is cause a slight delay in certification.
Which would have been a good thing, to let emotions calm a bit.

Failure to certify an election result does not and cannot extend the term of the previous president, in any way.
Anyone claiming anyone thought Pence could at all keep Trump in office, is lying.
No country works that way, and never could.
Nor does "certification" of the vote allow for votes to be "thrown out".
Those are ridiculously silly claims that no one ever suggested or believed were possible.

The ONLY crime involved is trying to prevent an ex-president from getting on the ballot the way 80 million people have the right to have happen.

Pence didn't even have the authority to delay the counting of the EC votes. Only Congress had that power, not the presiding officer.

That fact didn't deter Benedict Donald from trying to get Pence to Play Ball and unilaterally throw out several states votes. He knew Congress wouldn't be able to muster the votes necessary, so he urged Pence to unconstitutionally throw them out on his own so Benedict could claim victory and stay in power.

There is no crime for challenging the qualification of a candidate in any state.

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann,I did post it. I do believe it.
What's the basis of your stating “As Congress has the power to remove the disability. Congress has no such power regarding any criminal conviction”?

Few things are unequivocally absolute, but in this particular case, why is it legal to prevent Trump from running for federal office? I do suppose a person convicted of sedition against the government of the United States would and should be prevented from being sworn in as president of the United States.

Please continue pointing out any obvious and/or fatal flaws of my assertions but provide supporting evidence of what you believe to have found. Respectfully, Supposn

Ok. Let’s take a Time Machine to history. When the Idea of Service, public Service, in Government or the Military was considered an Honor. The Amendment is written for those who did not honor their oath. Those who swore an oath as a political leader, or officer in the Military, to support and defend the Constitution. You may have heard of this oath.



The Amendment was written for those who had taken the oath, and then betrayed it by working against the nation.

They had dishonored themselves. They had no right to expect that anyone would accept their honorable oath in the future.

In other words. You lied and betrayed me before. I won’t let you do it to me twice.


Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Congress could restore the honor of the individual. Congress could decide that the individual was worthy of the honor of service again.

It doesn’t say Pardon which is what would be needed to get rid of a conviction. It doesn’t talk of overturning or forgiving a conviction.

It talks about the tens of thousands who had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then betrayed it.

Our Ancestors didn’t view Political office as a Right. They viewed it as a Privilege. An Honor.

Those who betrayed that Oath. Who demonstrated they had no Honor. Those people did not deserve further Honorable service in the future.

 

[sealybobo]

This is not snowflake. We are a talking about a free and sovereign nation compared to one where we are forcibly blended into a world government. At least we must try to stop the move to a world entity that the leadership we are unsure of.

You guys seem like anarchists. And you're being controlled by the corporations. You think Nikki and Christie and Mitt and Liz Chaney are any different than Trump? Trump has got the GOP whipped. For that I am forever grateful to him. But he should never be president again. He's too much of a dirtbag.
In AEW fake wrestling I love MJF. His saying, "I'm their scumbag". So I get it. Trump is your scumbag. But I don't approve. I see how you like him though. Dude, even though he's the least religous person ever, who gave you the overturning of Roe V Wade? Trump did. So I get why you like him.

And he knows how to find today's hot topics and take a side. Like build a wall. Boy, did he get a lot of support just on that alone.

We don't need him. I can't wait for the day after the election. Let's vote next Tuesday.

 

[SavannahMann]

Wrong.
The border and abortion are nothing compared to the fact the 91 charges against Trump are so ridiculous as to themselves be an obvious attempt at "insurrection".
That is NOT how you run a republic except banana ones.
All those involved, like Jack Smith, will have to be punished.

So Trump didn’t have Classified Documents?