Donald is about to go through some things...

[fishonjazz]

Yes, there is a clause in the US Constitution that would prevent those who participated in an insurrection from holding office. That part is real. It is the imaginary extension where it also strips due process rights, the presumption of innocence, or any involvement of the courts this is wackadoodle. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you but don't hold your breath as that isn't how the law actually works. Trump will get his day in court.

Ya the founding fathers should have put in that clause language stating that those participating in an insurrection who are also found guilty in a court by the right judge (not a weaponized Democrat) and jury (no democrats) will be unable to hold office.

I won't hold my breath. And trump has already had many days in court with many many more to come. (Though according to you he only spends time in court because the justice system has been weaponized against conservatives)

I will continue to wait for you to provide your example that you spoke of many posts back.

 

[fishonjazz]

Btw when reading the articles I posted again I notice that it doesn't say that this clause can be imposed prior to any day in court.
Maybe the lawyers are simply saying that if trump goes to court and is found to be involved in an insurrection by a judge and/or jury and is convicted then his name is not allowed on a ballot.
I wonder if Al would have a problem with that usage of the clause.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office

Not needing courts is exactly what this line is referring to which is why they believe Trump's name should be struck from all ballots now, prior to any judgments in court.

The idea that Trump would be ineligible to hold office if he were convicted in a court of law for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is not controversial. It is the no-courts-needed-to-strike-Trumps-name-from-ballots-now that is the specious legal theory.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes, there is a clause in the US Constitution that would prevent those who participated in an insurrection from holding office. That part is real. It is the imaginary extension where it also strips due process rights, the presumption of innocence, or any involvement of the courts this is wackadoodle. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you but don't hold your breath as that isn't how the law actually works. Trump will get his day in court.

That's funny you think, or at least use it as a chance to troll, that fish or any of us don't want trump to get his day in court. That's all we want, and we've said it REPEATEDLY, that he needs to be held accountable to the LAWS he is accused for having broken. You see, the laws. With all due process thereof. We haven't expressed anything like wanting to skip due process any more than all the trump knob-gobblers have for Hunter Biden. Who also, by the way, should and will be held accountable for his alleged crimes. In court. Just like trump.


Trolls gonna troll.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not needing courts is exactly what this line is referring to which is why they believe Trump's name should be struck from all ballots now, prior to any judgments in court.

The idea that Trump would be ineligible to hold office if he were convicted in a court of law for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is not controversial. It is the no-courts-needed-to-strike-Trumps-name-from-ballots-now that is the specious legal theory.

It says self executing. Doesn't say self executing before or after a trial. With or without trial. Self executing could mean in the sense that if he is convicted of anything relating to an insurrection then his name is not allowed on a ballot. I have read that technically trump could win the election from prison/jail. Maybe this clause is simply a way of not allowing that to happen.

Anywho. I wonder if you would be fine if his name was not allowed on the ballot if he were convicted of something in court related to an insurrection.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's funny you think, or at least use it as a chance to troll, that fish or any of us don't want trump to get his day in court. That's all we want, and we've said it REPEATEDLY, that he needs to be held accountable to the LAWS he is accused for having broken. You see, the laws. With all due process thereof. We haven't expressed anything like wanting to skip due process any more than all the trump knob-gobblers have for Hunter Biden. Who also, by the way, should and will be held accountable for his alleged crimes. In court. Just like trump.


Trolls gonna troll.

Well trump should only be held accountable by republican DOJ's, judges, juries, etc. If he is held accountable by anything else then it's a politically motivated witch hunt don't ya know.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well trump should only be held accountable by republican DOJ's, judges, juries, etc. If he is held accountable by anything else then it's a politically motivated witch hunt don't ya know.

So the ones that are part of the prosecution and investigation that he himself appointed no longer count as Republicans, right?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I have read that technically trump could win the election from prison/jail. Maybe this clause is simply a way of not allowing that to happen.

Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

Anywho. I wonder if you would be fine if his name was not allowed on the ballot if he were convicted of something in court related to an insurrection.

No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.

No I'm talking about section 3 of the 14th amendment.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

No I'm talking about section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.

 

[fishonjazz]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.

According to section 3 of the 14th amendment he only has to aid or assist in an insurrection rather than actually commit it himself to not be allowed on the ballot.
So if a court determines he incited an insurrection then I think that would be considered aiding or assisting an insurrection.
Does January 6th happen without trumps involvement? I doubt it. Was January 6th an insurrection? IDK. Some people definitely think so. Not sure if a judge and/or jury think so though.

 

[fishonjazz]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.

Cool thing about pardons is that from what I understand trump can't be pardoned if he is convicted for the upcoming Georgia indictments since it isn't a federal indictment. So at least we can agree that would be pretty cool (since you are no fan of trump)