Illinois Judge Says 14th Amendment Bars Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot

[zippy2006]

Nope, there were many people participating in the insurrection on Jan 6, all of them are disqualified from holding office.

Except I don't believe a single one of them was charged with the equivalent of insurrection - a fun fact that is often ignored. According to the left a whole group of people engaged in an insurrection, and yet none of them ought to be charged with treason-level crimes except for the one guy who they really don't like.

 

[stevil]

Except I don't believe a single one of them was charged with the equivalent of insurrection - a fun fact that is often ignored. According to the left a whole group of people engaged in an insurrection, and yet none of them ought to be charged with treason-level crimes except for the one guy who they really don't like.

The legal term is seditious conspiracy. Some have been found guilty of that are have lengthy prison sentences

 

[zippy2006]

The legal term is seditious conspiracy. Some have been found guilty of that are have lengthy prison sentences

Okay thanks, I will have a look to see if there are sources which support your claim.

 

[A2SG]

This wasn't the argument anyone (including you) in this thread was making.
The Supreme Court sidestepped the question "Did Donald Trump participate or provide aid to an insurrection?"
Instead they simply said its not up to the state officials to determine if Trump participated in an insurrection, it's upto the Congress.


What I'm confused about is what process Congress go through to determine if a person has participated in an insurrection?
We had the House who said that Trump did participate in an insurrection and they impeached him for it. The Senate decided not to remove him from office, some of those Republicans who voted against removing him, said that they voted No because, since he was no longer in office, they thought it was a matter for the law rather than Congress.

I'm curious about something.

I know the SCOTUS didn't decide on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, and they left that decision up to Congress. But...didn't Congress already make a decision on that when the House impeached him?

Also, let's not forget, the Senate did vote to convict him of insurrection (by a vote of 57-43), but the vote fell ten short of the two thirds majority needed to remove him from office. Could all this mean Congress did find him to have engaged in insurrection, even if they did not have enough votes to remove him from office for having done it?

I know it won't happen, because of reasons...but where did I go wrong in my assessment?

-- A2SG, I know the SCOTUS decision didn't address this...they only answered the specific question posed to them....

 

[returntosender]

I'm confused, it was said on the news today that Trump could not be taken off ballots and was explained that he couldn't be taken off of any ballot. This from a high court

 

[stevil]

Could all this mean Congress did find him to have engaged in insurrection, even if they did not have enough votes to remove him from office for having done it?

That's a very good question. We should also bear in mind that some Republican Senators voted no, not because he wasn't guilty, but because they wanted to leave it for the Courts to decide.

 

[A2SG]

That's a very good question. We should also bear in mind that some Republican Senators voted no, not because he wasn't guilty, but because they wanted to leave it for the Courts to decide.

I know it wasn't a decisive vote, because it was ten votes short...but for those who continue to trumpet the idea that Trump was never charged with insurrection...well, he was. By the House, granted, rather than in a court of law, and, granted, he wasn't removed from office by the Senate (who chose not to view any evidence whatsoever).

Oh well. I guess that's how democracy works in 2024.

-- A2SG, and I use the term loosely....

 

[stevil]

Oh well. I guess that's how democracy works in 2024.

-- A2SG, and I use the term loosely....

That's how democracy "works" in USA.
Thankfully the other democratic countries are nothing like USA.

 

[A2SG]

That's how democracy "works" in USA.
Thankfully the other democratic countries are nothing like USA.

Depending on how things turn out come November, can I stay with you for a while?

-- A2SG, hear its nice down there....

 

[stevil]

Depending on how things turn out come November, can I stay with you for a while?

-- A2SG, hear its nice down there....

Not sure if you'd like it here. Not too many people, just barron land

 

[A2SG]

Not sure if you'd like it here. Not too many people, just barron land

Wow, it does look pretty. And I think I can get the hang of walking upside down eventually.

-- A2SG, that is how it works, right?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm curious about something.

I know the SCOTUS didn't decide on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection, and they left that decision up to Congress. But...didn't Congress already make a decision on that when the House impeached him?

Also, let's not forget, the Senate did vote to convict him of insurrection (by a vote of 57-43), but the vote fell ten short of the two thirds majority needed to remove him from office. Could all this mean Congress did find him to have engaged in insurrection, even if they did not have enough votes to remove him from office for having done it?

I know it won't happen, because of reasons...but where did I go wrong in my assessment?

-- A2SG, I know the SCOTUS decision didn't address this...they only answered the specific question posed to them....

The House impeached him but the Senate voted not to convict.

To be barred from running for office you have to be convicted.

What happened with Trump Is the equivalent of being charged with a crime and then found not guilty. To charge him a second time on charges already heard and dismissed is legal harassment.

 

[stevil]

The House impeached him but the Senate voted not to convict.

To be barred from running for office you have to be convicted.

The point that A2SG was making was that the bar to remove is a 2/3rds majority.
But what is the bar for determining that he did engage in an insurrection? is it 2/3rds or simply a majority.
The majority of people in the Senate voted that he did engage in an insurrection.

 

[A2SG]

The House impeached him but the Senate voted not to convict.

Not exactly. The Senate voted 57-43 to convict, ten short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office. Granted, not sufficient to convict, but not exactly an acquittal, either.

To be barred from running for office you have to be convicted.

True enough. As well as being removed from office at the time, he would likely have been prevented from holding any future office.

What happened with Trump Is the equivalent of being charged with a crime and then found not guilty.

Not quite. If we're comparing the Senate vote to a criminal jury trial, then he would have gotten a hung jury. Not the same as a not guilty verdict.

To charge him a second time on charges already heard and dismissed is legal harassment.

Trump can't be impeached now, anyway, since he's no longer in office. And hopefully, that won't change.

But, since Congress isn't a court of law, if he were to be charged with insurrection in some other jurisdiction, that wouldn't be unconstitutional. Impeachment isn't a criminal charge, and Congress isn't a court of law.

-- A2SG, I know what happened....but I'm simply wondering if a case can be made based on the facts presented here....

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not exactly. The Senate voted 57-43 to convict, ten short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office. Granted, not sufficient to convict, but not exactly an acquittal, either.

You still can't keep trying the man until you get the result you want. He's found not guilty. End of.

Plus, not one of Trump's supposed fellow insurrectionists were charged with insurrection.

You've really got nothing here but hot air.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Congress isn't a court of law.

Yet it's only Congress that can remove someone from the ballot based on insurrection - and that jury found he wasn't guilty.

 

[A2SG]

You still can't keep trying the man until you get the result you want. He's found not guilty. End of.

But that's the thing: he was never found "not guilty" of insurrection. The House impeached him for it, and an insufficient majority of the Senate voted to remove him from office, but neither of those are criminal courts. The DOJ chose not to charge him with the crime in criminal court, so Trump has not been tried for that. Granted, Trump has the presumption of innocence, but that isn't the same as being found not guilty.

I'm just wondering if the impeachment and majority vote could be considered sufficient to exclude Trump from running. Obviously, the SCOTUS didn't address that issue; but then again, that wasn't the question they responded to.

Plus, not one of Trump's supposed fellow insurrectionists were charged with insurrection.

Not really relevant, since none of those people are running for President.

You've really got nothing here but hot air.

I never claimed to have anything more than a question.

-- A2SG, I did start by saying this was just out of curiosity....

 

[A2SG]

Yet it's only Congress that can remove someone from the ballot based on insurrection

Yup, per Monday's SCOTUS decision. And the House did impeach Trump, and the Senate did vote 57-43 to convict; so it could be argued that, despite not having a two-thirds majority to remove him from office, both houses found Trump did engage in insurrection.

- and that jury found he wasn't guilty.

Again, not quite. The Senate voted to convict. They just had ten fewer votes than were needed to remove Trump from office. Not the same as a not guilty verdict.

-- A2SG, so he wasn't convicted, but he wasn't exonerated either....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not exactly. The Senate voted 57-43 to convict, ten short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office. Granted, not sufficient to convict, but not exactly an acquittal, either.

You still can't keep trying the man until you get the result you want. He's found not guilty. End of.

@Hazelelponi, technically he wasn't found "not guilty", the senate just didn't have the votes to remove him from office.

With regards to double-jeopardy, while you'd be correct in that the clause in the 5th amendment says you can't be tried twice for the same crime, since he's never technically been tried for that crime, that wouldn't really apply.

And I believe that could be a reason why they haven't pushed harder for official charges. While you can't be formally tried for the exact same crime multiple times, there's virtually no limit on how many times people can try "creative" back-channel approaches (that don't involve a charge or conviction) to try to achieve their desired outcome.

Through the proper channels, it's sort of a "You get one shot, better make it a good one", through the latter approach, they can make as many weak attempts as they want (with an unlimited number of mulligans) in hopes that something will stick.


@A2SG , correct, however that 2/3 majority would be indicative of a framework in which they wanted to error on the side of not removing a person.

...and while I wouldn't have lost any sleep if Trump had gotten removed from office, I'm actually glad such a safeguard exists as within the less-than-civil and less-than-prudent political environment we have today, a simple majority on such matters could quickly turn into a "revolving door of presidents" situation.

To give that assertion some context... Obama, Trump, and Biden all had opposing groups that were pushing for "Day 1 impeachment efforts" against them...and given that that the house and senate regularly trade-off on slim majorities, I think the 2/3 requirement is a good one.

 

[A2SG]

@A2SG , correct, however that 2/3 majority would be indicative of a framework in which they wanted to error on the side of not removing a person.

...and while I wouldn't have lost any sleep if Trump had gotten removed from office, I'm actually glad such a safeguard exists as within the less-than-civil and less-than-prudent political environment we have today, a simple majority on such matters could quickly turn into a "revolving door of presidents" situation.

To give that assertion some context... Obama, Trump, and Biden all had opposing groups that were pushing for "Day 1 impeachment efforts" against them...and given that that the house and senate regularly trade-off on slim majorities, I think the 2/3 requirement is a good one.

I'm not arguing against it, either. I was just wondering if there was a legal case to be made here.

Probably not, since no one with an actual law degree, or experience in Constitutional law has proposed it. Still, I wonder.

-- A2SG, probably should have gone to law school instead of journalism...