Is Trump going to be disqualified from running for President?

[msc545]

Here is the relevant part of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

"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."

Yes - he will be disqualified:

No - he will not be disqualified:

[goaded]

I think it's up to individual states. They should all disqualify him, until he sues to be placed on the ballot. Trump should have to prove he didn't even give aid and comfort to the people attacking the Capitol on Jan 6 (of whom dozens have been convicted of seditious conspiracy to steal the presidency). Tricky thing to do, considering even his eventual order to his supporters to go home contained the same lies about the election and how wonderful and hard done by they all were.

It's not just me that says so, either. Lawyers in the Federalist Society (the group that chose Republican SCOTUS picks for the last few decades, including Trump's) say the same: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

"[Section 3] disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

Frankly, all the Republican representatives and senators that voted without evidence to reject states' results should probably be disqualified, too.

[goaded]

For the hard of reading (it is over 120 pages long), there's a video summary in the first 23 minutes of this video:

https://youtu.be/dWAA-DOJc_o

[goaded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmY5gfKTCXg
Another helpful video on the subject.

[Drewtate]

do you believe Les Moonves who foolishly advocated #METOO also assaulted her in an elevator?
She couldn't remember the date, time, year or where it happened. On the worst days in my life I remember the date, the time, the year, the weather etc, hell even Cosby's victims remembered details even after being drugged. This is just a new false allegation tactic that any man could fall victim to, not being able to give a date means the accuse can't defend himself by providing an alibi and Trump has been a very public man in the last few decades its recorded where he's been, where and what time. White women have been making false allegations for a long time, many a black man has been lynched or jailed in the past because a white woman was ashamed to have slept or cheated with a black man. Of course it doesn't hurt that this woman's victims have money & of course E. Jean Carroll had a new book coming out when she made these allegations.

[Drewtate]

Let's examine this book perhaps, one of the many claims Carroll makes in it: that, in the mid-1990s, Donald Trump cornered her in a department-store dressing room and raped her. (The president has dismissed Carroll’s story, just as he has dismissed the claims of the 21 other women who have accused him of sexual misconduct.) New York magazine’s lengthy excerpt of the book goes out of its way to contextualize the news-making allegation: “Donald Trump assaulted me in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room 23 years ago,” its headline reads. “But he’s not alone on the list of awful men in my life.”
The book structures itself instead around the collection Carroll describes as her Most Hideous Men of My Life List—21 of them. The list includes Les Moonves, who, Carroll claims, attacked her in an elevator after she interviewed him for a report about the psychology of TV executives. It includes the romantic partner who, Carroll alleges, in a fit of rage, nearly choked her to death. (The New York Times, reporting on Carroll’s allegations, contacted the man she identifies in the book only by his initials; he declined to comment.) It includes a college classmate who, one crisp fall weekend, drove Carroll to an isolated area to look at the color-changing leaves, threw her on the ground, pulled a knife, and tried to rape her (she fought him off and then outran him, she writes). It includes the boyfriend of a babysitter who, with the sitter, made a game out of disrobing and then fondling the very young Carroll. It includes a camp counselor who molested her when she was 12.

[Drewtate]

There’s the television publicist who attacked Carroll in her car, she writes, “the same week Moonves attacked me in the Nikko Hotel elevator.” There’s the mob boss in Chicago. There’s Carroll’s own boss in the same city. There’s the official who refused to issue her a passport “unless I had dinner with him and sat on his lap.” There’s the rapist and serial killer—yes—who approached Carroll when she was on the porch of her house outside Nyack, New York, and who, when her dog growled at him, backed away.

[Drewtate]

Then the fur trapper in Montana (“a torturer of animals”), and the financial adviser (Dweebie D. Fleecer, she dubs him) who lost much of the money Carroll had given him as a seed for a retirement fund and then, when she questioned the failure, blamed her for his bad investments. There’s the mechanic Carroll meets on her road trip, after her car breaks down in Blytheville, Arkansas; he charges her an exorbitant fee to make the repairs, shortly after which the car breaks down again, leaving her driving without functioning brakes. (Carroll is able to maneuver the car into a stop at an empty parking lot; a man materializes to inform her, angrily, “You can’t park here.” Carroll explains the situation: busted brakes, just need to park long enough to get a tow, the whole thing. The fellow who quickly makes it to No. 9 on Carroll’s Hideous Men list repeats his no-parking mandate and punctuates it, she writes, with a warning: “Get out now.” She has little choice but to restart her brakeless car and comply.)

[Drewtate]

She's quite the teller of tall tales even if her book didn't sell despite her attack on Trump and Moonoves. But she's set a precedent for any man to be convicted based on zero evidence

[goaded]

@Drewtate So, why didn't you post all that rubbish on the opinion where I asked the question? For what it's worth (which is a hell of a lot), it's been proven in court that Trump sexually assaulted her, and the judge has subsequently explained that what happened is colloquially described as rape, even if it doesn't match the NY criminal code definition.

[Drewtate]

Because I went to the bother of posting it all and it got removed. Simple copy and padte😊

[Drewtate]

It hasn't been proven court.

[goaded]

@Drewtate "Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse” rather than “rape.”

He said the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.

The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”"
apnews.com/.../trump-rape-trial-columnist-carroll-4974ef026f3da61bc6f1b7ddda3ad10e

[Drewtate]

The jury reached a unanimous decision on May 9, after deliberating for less than three hours. Considering the preponderance of the evidence, the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her.
It's also worth noting that the law was deliberately changed in new York in which there are statues of limitations designed to stop such frivolous cases being brought to court. Very lucrative some of these false rape cases.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Neither side would allow a trial to conclude before the election. The dems won't risk it because if he's acquitted it's a massive boost to his campaign, the repubs won't allow it because if he's convicted there's no candidate, I think they'll drag on the trials til after the election is over with motions for this and motions for that.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Wish I could say so, but I highly doubt it.

[CaptainSmartass]

It depends, really. It'll certainly be long, drawn out affair if they do try to do it, though.

Simples...

[goaded]

It should only be election officials making a simple decision, the appeal might be a long, drawn out affair.

[Anonymous]

I get the impression that some are so fed up with the current administration, they'd vote for trump if he were dead.

[goaded]

They'd claim that the dropping of the charges (because he died) are proof that he was innocent. (It's not about "the current administration", it's decades of propaganda from Fox etc..)

[exitseven]

It will be hard to turn a riot into an insurrection, especially with all the video of the Capitol policemen opening doors for the protesters and leading t by email through the Capitol linked they were tourguides Nobody will buy this malarkey

[goaded]

"I have hundreds of hours of video of my client peacefully target shooting, so you can't possibly convict him of murder for shooting those people"? Or maybe "there are hundreds of hours of video of my client simply buying fuel; you can't possibly convict him on the basis of two minutes of video of him robbing that gas station"?

Dozens have already been convicted for seditious conspiracy in the attack on the Capitol in court, over a thousand of lesser crimes. At least one of the former is boasting that he'll be pardoned by Trump, another, after pretending remorse to get a lesser sentence claimed "Trump won!" as soon as the judge left the room.

[msc545]

Almost everyone but you buys it. You can see people tearing down fences and breaking windows and assaulting police.

Do you think this was "Crisis actors" doing this? Seriously?

[exitseven]

@goaded convicted in bidens court. 17 years in prison for basically trespassing. Murders get off with lighter sentences. There are people locked up that have not even been charged yet. They have been denied all their rights. This is bidens new justice system.

[goaded]

Convicted in a court of law, by juries of their peers. Whatever happened to the "party of law and order", or was that only for people they didn't like?

[exitseven]

@goaded a liberal D A and and a hand picked judge. Not to mention bidens own gestapo.

[goaded]

My, aren't you full of shit. There were multiple independent trials, multiple grand juries, juries, and judges, and they convicted criminals who conspired to steal the presidency for Trump. Biden didn't have a thing to do with it, any more than he does with any common criminal's conviction.

[exitseven]

@goaded So the capitol police did not open the doors and let everyone in? They did not guide tham peacefully through the capitol? You think there was multiple people killed and not just one unarmed air force veteran? Did biden not appoint merrick garland as AG and had garland not covered up for his crimes? . ? How about IRS whistleblowers testifying that garland's DOJ prohibited them from investigating Hunter Biden? The entire injustice is a sham. They lie and cover up the truth and the press parrots it and people like you got to bed every night thinking that what they tell you is the truth.

[goaded]

No, they didn't. Some police probably let some in, I've often wondered if the suicides were of traumatised police or ones who realised what they'd done by siding with the attackers (many were investigated). There are indications that the Oath Keepers were in touch with members of the Secret Service, although we'll probably never know because the Secret Service wiped all their communications, despite being told to retain them. You have to insane to ignore all the videos of violence and pretend it never happened.

"The investigation into the January 6 attack remains under investigation. Our Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the actions of 35 police officers from that day. We currently have suspended six of those officers with pay," the [Capitol police] department said in a statement.
www.npr.org/.../capitol-police-suspends-6-officers-investigates-dozens-more-after-capitol-riots

"Violations were sustained and disciplinary action was recommended in six cases;

Three for conduct unbecoming
One for failure to comply with directives
One for improper remarks
One for improper dissemination of information

Another case about an official who is accused of unsatisfactory performance and conduct unbecoming is still pending. The administrative investigation started after a criminal investigation, in which charges were not filed.

USCP internal investigations, including any recommended disciplinary actions, as well as personnel matters are not public information."
www.uscp.gov/.../update-uscp-s-january-6-internal-investigations

[msc545]

You also need to remember that the capital police were completely outnumbered and in many cases simply let people in because if they hadn't those same hordes of people would have simply broken down doors and done a lot of property destruction in addition to
Assaulting the police officers that were there. Had I been a cop I would have done the same thing. Better to have property destruction than face an angry murderous mob.

[exitseven]

@goaded They were not suicides. Do you think would kill themselves because someone put his feet up on Pelosis desk? More likely that they were killed because they were going to tell the truth about what happened.

[goaded]

OMG, now you're really off in cloud-cuckoo land!

[gorydetails]

The FBI determined that Jan 6 was not an insurrection. Case closed.

[goaded]

Courts decided that it was. Courts interpret the law, not law enforcement.

[gorydetails]

@goaded lmao. What the Jan 6 kangaroo court

[goaded]

No such thing.

[gorydetails]

@goaded there wasn’t a Jan 6 hearing?

[goaded]

There wasn't a kangaroo court. Just a bipartisan House investigation and criminal investigations.

[gorydetails]

@goaded lol. Sure chief.