I was talking about barring an individual candidate based on his individual actions, not something trivial like requiring the leader of the country to be a natural born citizen or above a certain, reasonable age. And since the consequences of barring a candidate (e.g. under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment) are so severe and violate the principle of separation of powers so drastically, the standards for proving that he attempted an insurrection must necessarily also be very high. In the case of confederate politicians and officials, it was a no-brainer that they were guilty of insurrection. The question of whether Trump is guilty of insurrection imho is a far less open-and-shut case.

It doesn't violate separation of powers. It is exactly the kind of question courts are delegated the power to decide.

It also was not a no-brainer. Was a county sheriiff guilty of insurrection? I'd say not. And yet they were barred from office. The bar for what constitutes participating in an insurrection is extremely low, which means Trump did participate in it. That leaves just the question of if it was an insurrection, which it was.

There are no requirements that an insurrection is a special thing with specific components, and in fact there are rulings that say you must interpret the laws with regard to what a normal person would consider. So you can't rely on secret or hyper specific meanings, which means it absolutely was an insurrection.

Since it isn't actually a high bar, and so obviously was an insurrection, Trump should be fucked. That being said, the current court has just flat out lied about facts several times in the past few years to make decisions they wanted to make, so it might not matter.

ok so "iNsUrReCtIon" doesnt realy mean any thing
certainly par for the course. fraud lefties turn everything into meaningless drivel. remember when being called a racist meant something .....yup ......

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jan 12 2024 05:43pm

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA Imagine posting a YT link and NOT reading WHY some have gained (obama gained wealth AFTER the presidency, so did Bush and Clinton) and then they get to TRUMP



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

This post was edited by Pyrotechx on Jan 12 2024 11:21pm

a person gota be really fukn stupid to think jan 6th was an insurrection or a fukn criminal. the rhetoric of TDS loonies




TDS leftie frauds are the party of the criminally insane and making trump more popular than ever.
mask harassment
lock down harassment
being called nonessential and having your work taken away
election fraud
ya im sure plenty of go fuk your self trump represents revenge. fraud lefties making him more poular that even
go REEEEEEEEEE about water and magnets

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jan 12 2024 11:42pm

That's all you have?

Also, guess those TRUMP judges that sentenced those Jan 6th terrorists must be stupid.

they are criminals that work for system. like TDS leftie frauds are criminals that suk up to the system.
4 years of BLM/antifa burning down city blocks then the RFEEEEEEing and crying about jan6th

Ah yes, rioting because of the injustice in the justice system VS the... terrorists trying to overturn a fair and free election.

TDS is some powerful chit

documentary by Dinesh D’Souza
2000 Mules

Who gave the order for vote counting to stop on Nov 3, 2020? 11.03.21


YOU AN ELECTION FRAUD DENIER

Its what the founding fathers discussed it as, and its how civil immunity was argued in the supreme court. It just follows. Its also been a non-consideration for most of US history. Not just because there weren't these bitter partisan spats trying to weaponize the courts against candidates, but because it would be redundant in most cases. We have to remember we're talking about this in the context of the Biden DoJ going after his predecessor. If it was federal charges against a sitting president, it simply makes no sense- he's the ultimate law enforcement officer, everyone responsible for making that charge is his officer serving at his pleasure, and he has a plenary pardon power. So when the framers looked at something like "charging the president", it would make zero sense in the case of "he hasn't been removed from office yet". That is why someone like Hamilton wouldn't discuss it explicitly, because it just doesn't make sense. And they just didn't envision these kinds of fringe cases where we test how executive power exists when a president has already left office

But I think the best counterexample is just to imagine the scenario where criminal charges are brought against sitting presidents for their official conduct. If it became a common thing. Open those floodgates and aren't we just inundated with what the supreme court warned against? If the only limitation is the creativity of prosecutors, well just look to NY where Trump is being charged under a catch 22 that makes all campaign financing illegal at either the state or federal level because they inverted their definition of a campaign expense, both overly vague and ex post facto (and conspicuously apply it to nobody but Trump). How many cases of involuntary manslaughter could we bring up against any president for their military orders? First degree murder with malice aforethought for Obama killing Al-Awlaki, etc etc. Presidents would spend 99% of their time in office either at trial or behind bars, because the opposition party has a new veto power that requires no majority.



The contrivance is that it imagines the president committing a murder with the support of a large enough bloc of the representatives of the government to matter to official policy. What if 50 senators + VP + house agreed with the president to use a nuclear option to pass laws that legalized the murder of their political opponents and removed all judges who disagreed with it? When you have control of the government and the public supports your murderous rampage, that's just the failings of democracy itself. That's the contrivance, its not just imagining a scenario where Trump kills people, its imagining one in which the government has legitimized it.

but here's the thing- what if its not a contrivance? Ask the family of Al-Awlaki and the ACLU lawyers who argued on his behalf. The vast majority or entirety of the people's representatives supported official policy of his murder. The president ordered a murder, and no court had authority to review whether it was circumstances that merited extrajudicial killing. He simply had someone assassinated. Obama was not prosecuted, and we all went on with our merry lives. Would it be the same if Trump committed a murder and the country agreed with him? Soleimani comes to mind. Murder statutes don't just say 'thou shalt not kill a US citizen', killing an Iranian spymaster is just as illegal.




But remember still, in the framer's mind any pre-impeachment prosecution would be an oxymoron, it would be asking the executive to prosecute the executive. The political process as a precondition both stems from the necessity of the separation of powers and the simple requirement that the only way to make sure the chief of law enforcement in the states is not above the law, is to give the option to remove him from that post so he could be prosecuted.



What did Trump actually do in the end? He huffed, he puffed, he blew some hot air like usual. He searched for evidence that wasn't there. He tried to play every rule in the rulebook to see if anything in the courts could save him, and when it couldn't, he played by the rules and left office. He told his supporters to calm their tits, he told people to disperse peacefully. Whatever Trump did, it certainly wasn't an attack on the civil fiber of American democracy like we're seeing now. Trump basically acted like the big orange dickhead he's always been- abrasive and thin skinned, but not a malicious instigator. Trump notably had lots of options to weaponize his levers of the presidency in his final days in office, and didn't. Lets remember that when Obama was leaving office, besides the laundry list of official actions he took to spite Trump, he held a meeting with Biden and Comey to authorize the spying on Trump and sic the FBI & CIA against him, which Trump had to fight for the next few years of palace intrigue. They put the hoover days to shame, that's a sad mark against our democracy.