Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

[Rawley]

Stupidest ruling I’ve heard in a while. That clause was poorly written, but that shouldn’t get anyone off the hook. Trump was clearly an officer of the United States and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

LOL The Constitution could not be any clearer. The Pres appoints officers. He is not an officer. He is the President.

 

[jbander]

LOL The Constitution could not be any clearer. The Pres appoints officers. He is not an officer. He is the President.

What a hoot. Yup he is not a God because he is a God, Trump can't be stupid because he is the president. or the pres appoints officers so he can't be a officer, The president appoints heroes, so he can't be a hero. The president appoints humans so he can't be human. You just can't make this shit up!

 

[konradv]

LOL The Constitution could not be any clearer. The Pres appoints officers. He is not an officer. He is the President.

You’re playing with words. I’m not impressed.

 

[Rawley]

You’re playing with words. I’m not impressed.

LOL Because you'd have to ignore the word of the Constitution to reach the absurd conclusion TDSers are trying to advocate. Three states (out of three) have now held your argument is absurd.

 

[jbander]

You’re playing with words. I’m not impressed.

Absolutely brain dead comment. The right wing is insane and weak.

 

[jbander]

LOL Because you'd have to ignore the word of the Constitution to reach the absurd conclusion TDSers are trying to advocate. Three states (out of three) have now held your argument is absurd.

There is 50 states ace and they can bring it to a higher court they literally could have 100 200 courts cases deciding this.

 

[jbander]

In a new Mexico case a hate party politician was literally removed from office for being involved in Jan6th attempted over throw of our constitution and country, So the court has already decided in new Mexico . All the states that have had a hearing on stopping scum bag from being on the ballot have all said they will continue to the highest courts. and many other states are putting together charges as we speak to get rid of the piece of shit.

 

[Doc7505]

Actually it's completely constitutional.

~~~~~
Evidence? Do you have evidence?

 

[Leviticus]

Didn't read the spiel that is your post but I do agree that Trump should not be removed from the ballot as he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

Technically the law that bans people holding public off does not require a criminal conviction. It's considered a civil matter, And all that required is that a civil court agrees that there is compelling evidence that the person in question willingly took part in or aided a rebellion, insurrection, or sedition, or conspired to fo the same.

 

[Leviticus]

In a new Mexico case a hate party politician was literally removed from office for being involved in Jan6th attempted over throw of our constitution and country, So the court has already decided in new Mexico . All the states that have had a hearing on stopping scum bag from being on the ballot have all said they will continue to the highest courts. and many other states are putting together charges as we speak to get rid of the piece of shit.

But they would have to prove in court that double trump knew that the attack was going to happen before it did. That is where the difficulty in using this law to prevent him from running for office again arises. The fact that his political rhetoric was the reason for the attack is not enough to qualify. It would need to be proven that he actively and willingly conspired Make the attack happen.

The guy in mexico literally took part in the attack and it was proven that he took part in the attack and therefore he could be removed for taking part in an insurrection. I haven't seen any real evidence that donald trump knew the attack was going to happen beforehand. He is blamed mostly because Up his behavior during the attack, And because his lies about the election were the driving force behind the attack, Not because he actively helped plan it other had prior knowledge of it.

 

[Crepitus]

~~~~~
Evidence? Do you have evidence?

Have you read the 14th amendment?

That's the evidence.

 

[jbander]

But they would have to prove in court that double trump knew that the attack was going to happen before it did. That is where the difficulty in using this law to prevent him from running for office again arises. The fact that his political rhetoric was the reason for the attack is not enough to qualify. It would need to be proven that he actively and willingly conspired Make the attack happen.

The guy in mexico literally took part in the attack and it was proven that he took part in the attack and therefore he could be removed for taking part in an insurrection. I haven't seen any real evidence that donald trump knew the attack was going to happen beforehand. He is blamed mostly because Up his behavior during the attack, And because his lies about the election were the driving force behind the attack, Not because he actively helped plan it other had prior knowledge of it.

No they don't , where do you get that nonsense , you people make up more shit. All they have to do is show he sent them to do what they did. and that is clear. The piece of shit is this countries biggest threat and enemy as are his blind stupid hate driven anti American supporters/ They are all white trash. He knew and planned to not leave office way before he even lost the last election.to take over this country as a insurrection.
It is totally clear that he was willing to do anything including murder to stay in office. That when taking in everyone of his actions can be proved.

 

[jbander]

Have you read the 14th amendment?

That's the evidence.

Yup , these MAGA's make up more shit and as soon as something is made up in some lame nutso in part of the country it becomes proven fact to these micro minds.

 

[Leviticus]

No they don't , where do you get that nonsense , you people make up more shit. All they have to do is show he sent them to do what they did. and that is clear. The piece of shit is this countries biggest threat and enemy as are his blind stupid hate driven anti American supporters/ They are all white trash. He knew and planned to not leave office way before he even lost the last election.to take over this country as a insurrection.
It is totally clear that he was willing to do anything including murder to stay in office. That when taking in everyone of his actions can be proved.

Not how it works. The u s law both civil and criminal, Requires Malicious intent for something like this. That means you would have to prove that. Trump knew the attack was going to happen and that he intended it to happen from the start.

Any half decent lawyer would be able to successfully argue before a judge that trump never intended the attack to take place, and that people who are part of the group acted without his knowledge or consent. And unless you have clear evidence that he did intend the attack to happen. The judge will accept that in rule and trump's favor.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I always find the word, "Democrats", so funny and ironic because they're the most undemocratic party in the US.

 

[jbander]

I always find the word, "Democrats", so funny and ironic because they're the most undemocratic party in the US.

From the hate group that tried to bring down our country and constitution, you just can't make this shit up.

Not how it works. The u s law both civil and criminal, Requires Malicious intent for something like this. That means you would have to prove that. Trump knew the attack was going to happen and that he intended it to happen from the start.

Any half decent lawyer would be able to successfully argue before a judge that trump never intended the attack to take place, and that people who are part of the group acted without his knowledge or consent. And unless you have clear evidence that he did intend the attack to happen. The judge will accept that in rule and trump's favor.

Malicious intent is not a problem or a issue, it has been proven and supported by trumps closest family , his best friends, his lawyers and his cabinet when he was in office. And the greatest part is he has done it on tape over and over with his own words. In fact you can forget the rest of the witnesses and his own words will convict him. You people are cartoon characters.

 

[jbander]

Not how it works. The u s law both civil and criminal, Requires Malicious intent for something like this. That means you would have to prove that. Trump knew the attack was going to happen and that he intended it to happen from the start.

Any half decent lawyer would be able to successfully argue before a judge that trump never intended the attack to take place, and that people who are part of the group acted without his knowledge or consent. And unless you have clear evidence that he did intend the attack to happen. The judge will accept that in rule and trump's favor.

By the way Literally the attack on the capital doesn't even have to be the issue to prove his insurrection or rebellion against the united states. You are silly.

 

[Leviticus]

By the way Literally the attack on the capital doesn't even have to be the issue to prove his insurrection or rebellion against the united states. You are silly.

I don't think you actually know the definition of insurrection. It's the use of violence or the threat of violence to disrupt legitimate government function. You cannot be charged with insurrection unless the state can prove that you intentionally caused violence. They would have to prove that he knew there was going to be violence and intended for there to be violence. Whether or not he lied about the election and those lies spurred others to commit insurrection isn't enough to get a judge to rule that Trump himself was guilty of insurrection.

Trumps lies about the election are technically protected as political speech. The fact that other people used those lies to drive their own acts of insurrection isn't enough for most courts to rule against Trump. Intent plays a major role in both criminal and civil damages. Very few judges would be willing to rule that Trump committed insurrection unless there was clear evidence that he either actively conspired to plan the attack or had prior knowledge that others were planning violence.

Now, if there was evidence that he contact with the proud boys or others are were the ones who planned the attack and knew that the attack was going to happen beforehand, that would be a different matter. That would easily convince a judge to remove him from the ballot.
But no court would do so based only on the fact that his lies were the pricing force behind the actions of others. To be guilty of insurrection, there must be overt actions taken to cause violence.

Ill give an example.
If a person gives a public speech saying that a public speech saying That the capital building should be blown up, That isn't enough to get that person convicted for insurrection, even if someone else is inspired by that speech to do it. In order to be convicted they would Have needed to have taken an overt step to make it happen.

The law has Very thin margin when it comes to things like insurrection and sedition. Without overactions being taken and clear intent, The law will usually conspeech that promotes such activities to be considered. Political speech protected by first amendment.

You can usually get away with promoting rebellion or insurrection, Unless you have taken an over step to cause it to happen.

 

[Captain Caveman]

From the hate group that tried to bring down our country and constitution, you just can't make this shit up.

Bring down America? Your Democrats are doing that quite well tbh. As for the constitution, didn't you guys claim, "Not our president", when Trump won? So is being undemocratic by not accepting a duly elected president is ok in the constitution? You guys are as bad as each other.

I'm a Brit in the UK, but thank you in trying to pigeon hole me as being American Republican, lol

 

[jbander]

I don't think you actually know the definition of insurrection. It's the use of violence or the threat of violence to disrupt legitimate government function. You cannot be charged with insurrection unless the state can prove that you intentionally caused violence. They would have to prove that he knew there was going to be violence and intended for there to be violence. Whether or not he lied about the election and those lies spurred others to commit insurrection isn't enough to get a judge to rule that Trump himself was guilty of insurrection.

Trumps lies about the election are technically protected as political speech. The fact that other people used those lies to drive their own acts of insurrection isn't enough for most courts to rule against Trump. Intent plays a major role in both criminal and civil damages. Very few judges would be willing to rule that Trump committed insurrection unless there was clear evidence that he either actively conspired to plan the attack or had prior knowledge that others were planning violence.

Now, if there was evidence that he contact with the proud boys or others are were the ones who planned the attack and knew that the attack was going to happen beforehand, that would be a different matter. That would easily convince a judge to remove him from the ballot.
But no court would do so based only on the fact that his lies were the pricing force behind the actions of others. To be guilty of insurrection, there must be overt actions taken to cause violence.

Ill give an example.
If a person gives a public speech saying that a public speech saying That the capital building should be blown up, That isn't enough to get that person convicted for insurrection, even if someone else is inspired by that speech to do it. In order to be convicted they would Have needed to have taken an overt step to make it happen.

The law has Very thin margin when it comes to things like insurrection and sedition. Without overactions being taken and clear intent, The law will usually conspeech that promotes such activities to be considered. Political speech protected by first amendment.

You can usually get away with promoting rebellion or insurrection, Unless you have taken an over step to cause it to happen.

One more time since you aren't listening , The attempt to bring down our country and constitution on jan6th is not the only reason that trump can be charged with insurrection., Here is the law "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." Scum, bag took a oath of office to the constitution any act against the constitution is insurrection or rebellion. The courts that have been used already to stop scum bag (Colorado,Minnesota, Michigan) are getting retrials or going to higher courts and there is still 47 other states that can and most will have the same trials to stop scum bag.