My Trump-related thought for the day is that I've been seeing chatter by Trump supporters online that they are outraged by him being taken off the ballot in Colorado and Maine. In many cases, they are hinting -- and thus threatening -- that violence or even civil war may result from this, especially if Trump is taken off the ballots of even more states. My thought is that, while I can understand their frustration at having "their choice taken away" I doubt any of them sympathize with me and others like me in swing states who voted for Biden in 2020 and were targeted by the "Green Bay Sweep" as Peter Navarro called it. That was the scheme concocted by John Eastman to refuse to certify the electors for Biden and replace them with the fake elector votes for Trump. The January 6th "Stop the Steal" rally was part of the plan to put pressure on (threaten) Congress and Pence to do this. If Mike Pence had gone along with this and succeeded, and the Republicans in Congress refused to certify Biden but instead certified Trump as the victor, then my vote would have been invalidated, even though it was a legitimate vote. My choice would have been taken away.

My choice would have been taken away. — GRWelsh

Right. But when you predicate these actions on bogus beliefs, it justifies it.

If the election was truly stolen — as these clowns believe because Donald Trump said it and because it’s what they want to hear (and also out of spite, since they’ll claim that democrats did the same thing in 2016) — then it makes sense to throw them all out and start again.

But since there wasn’t a scintilla of truth to that claim, as should have been obvious from the beginning, it really was an attempt to steal. That’s what they were doing. Doesn’t matter if they refuse to let go of their silly delusions.

Likewise the insurrection: people were egged on to “stop the steal,” to stop the certification of the stolen election. Wasn’t simply a riot— people were there, on that day, because the electoral college votes were being counted. That too was based on the same zombie lie.

So again: what will it take to rid people of their delusions? Probably nothing. They’ll go on believing it to the grave. They’ll come up with other reasons for saying it’s true. Like with God. So now it’s “they allowed greater access to mail-in voting” and so forth. See, that counts as a steal. Etc.

Most of these people don’t know or care— they just say it because they think they should, and they don’t want the libs to be right.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion? — NOS4A2

I love to see dissenting opinions, when the dissenter fully backs up his opinion with facts.

IMO, outrage is reasonable as an initial reaction, but it should be followed by analysis.

Legal processes have been followed. The legal bases for removing Trump in both Colorado and Maine are documented. Analysis ought to be based on the merits of the legal arguments, rather than the ad hominem attacks we see. The same will be true when SCOTUS rules. We may agree or disagree with that ultimate decision, but we should all accept it as the final word.

Not only that, but removing people from the ballot is the modus operandi of the two-party duopoly. Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie or RFK Jr.

We’ve seen them use lawfare to get the greens off the ballot in different states.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19/texas-democrats-green-party-november/

Or “No Labels” candidates.

https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/30/politics/arizona-democrats-sue-no-labels/index.html

They did it to Ralph Nader.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee

The GOP does it too, for instance with the Libertarian Party candidates.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/05/Republicans-libertarians-ballot-remove/

“Democracy” means for them the grip of the Party on the theater of power. Remember this as they invoke “Our Democracy”, because by “Our”, they don’t mean you and me, they mean them.

Like Trump you say something then say something else to modify it. As if you did not say what you said and said something else all along. And like Trump you attempt to hide behind your words when your actions tell a different story.

Complete lies. You’re going to pretend you know what I meant more than I do, and this after you deliberately doctor my quotes to suit your little narrative.

Complete lies. — NOS4A2

You, Trump, and the mage faithful have rendered the term 'lie' meaningless when you use it. Except when you think you might win points for yourself and the cult of Trump.

Sorry, as already stated, and completely avoided and obfuscated by yourself, I don't argue to win points. That's your projection. I argue for its own sake.

This is a good explanation of how the 14th amendment disqualifies Trump from the upcoming election. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1222389987/donald-trump-maine-election-ballot-2024-supreme-court

What if he was acquitted of insurrection? Should he still be disqualified for engaging in it, in your opinion?

Regardless of if he is acquitted for insurrection, I think the Secretary of each state still has a right to make their own determination of whether he should be disqualified from the ballot.

Granting she has that right, do you think it is right or wrong to disqualify a candidate for a crime he has been acquitted of?

But seeing as he is guilty of insurrection, I highly doubt he will be acquitted.

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding.

Comment rescinded.

He was impeached twice, and acquitted twice. But never mind.

I don't think Congress is the final arbiter of a determination of whether Trump is guilty. That being the case, each Secretary of state can and should make there own determinations. If Congress disqualified Trump from election on the basis of insurrection after having acquitted him, that would be contradictory. However, it is not Congress, but the Secretaries of states who are currently making the determination. The Secretaries simply are not bound by Congress' erroneous acquittal. To answer your question more directly: is it right to disqualify from election a candidate who has been acquitted by Congressional vote? The answer is absolutely; the Secretaries definitely still have that right. I think it is right both legally, and in this case, morally too.

Nosferatu, see above.

In regard to the Senate's acquittal of Trump in the Second Impeachment Trial, this is what I got from Wikipedia:

Mitch McConnell, who voted for acquittal, said his vote was based on his belief that the Constitution did not permit the Senate to convict an ex-president.   He noted that Trump "didn't get away with anything yet" because the criminal justice system could still deal with the situation. He added: "January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, 'incitement.' That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day."

That sounds like wanting to have it both ways -- to "stay loyal" and vote with the majority of Republicans justifying it with a technicality, but also to blame and and condemn Trump rhetorically. To me, the Republican senators who voted to acquit Trump were for the most part cowards who did so out of a political calculation rather than what they truly believed, because on January 6th, 2021, they were running in fear for their lives. Ted Cruz hid in a supply closet and later called it a violent terrorist attack.

Voting results
Article I
(Incitement of insurrection)
Guilty Not guilty
Democratic 48 0
Republican 7 43
Independent 2 0
Totals 57 43

A majority of the Senate thought Trump was guilty -- which included Democrats, Independents and Republicans -- just not a 2/3 supermajority needed to convict. What a shame. That would have prevented so many problems, if Trump had been convicted, because he wouldn't even be a presidential candidate right now or ever again. It would be over.

Interesting quote from Mitch. He votes to acquit on the supposed technicality that the Senate has no jurisdiction given that Trump was no longer President and that it should be a matter for the DOJ. But then @NOS4A2 suggests that because the Senate acquitted then the DOJ no longer has jurisdiction.

It’s a cheat code to get away with any crime. :roll:

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding. — NOS4A2

That is one of the Constitutional questions that SCOTUS will have to decide on. The question was evaluated by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, in 2000.Their conclusion was:

"The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office."

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.

The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office. — Relativist

Well, Trump was impeached and acquitted while not office so clearly this doesn’t apply.

:wink:

ROFLMA! Trump's attorneys are almost certainly going to make that argument!

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing, but he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted. No one said he cannot be criminally prosecuted. That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. So thanks for bringing that up.

No one said he cannot be criminally prosecuted. — NOS4A2

You did.

He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. — NOS4A2

I was trying to say he wasn’t liable for the same charges in the impeachment because he wasn’t convicted. The constitution explicitly said “ the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable”. Trump is not “the Party convicted”. At any rate, these are two separate arguments.

And as per the paper that both Relativist and I have referenced:

The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate

As I mentioned before, your reading denies the antecedent. That he can be held criminally liable if removed from office isn’t that he can’t be held criminally liable if not removed from office.

So you think that both that both the party convicted and the party acquitted are liable?

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it — NOS4A2

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. — NOS4A2

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three".

This footnote is also relevant:
"President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."

I'm not sure of this, but I think "abandoning it" means this particular point isn't subject to appeal.

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

The decision was wrong.

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?