Indecision 2024

[monkey]

"I am not an insurrectionist, congress said so." is still an obvious defence for Trump and one that any judge can just point to, if they need an excuse to let him on the ballot.

Except Congress (House and Senate) voted by a simple majority that he was an insurrectionist. But the Senate didn't vote by a large enough margin to remove him from office.

Yes, as lpm has already pointed out, and I have responded to. It remains an obvious argument for Trump's lawyers to make.

I'm not saying it is a good argument, just Trump's best argument (as far as non-lawyer me can tell), and one that seems to me that a biased judicial system can quite easily use to let him on the ballot.

Basically, I can see this happening -

"Hello, I'm a Trump appointed supreme court judge, Me and my judgy buddies have just invented a legal threshold to decide whether someone's actions can be judged as insurrection or not, where if someone is acquitted by congress they don't meet it. Here's a some pages of boring legal argument to justify it. Trump can go on the ballot"

To argue against that you need to make the case that the impeachment vote does not matter (and probably have it ignored).

The 14th amendment places a reverse criterion on the vote to general impeachment. It requires a 2/3rd majority vote of Congress to allow a former insurrectionist to take up office.

Yes, I know. But this point (after a couple of steps of thinking) has made me realise that being on the ballot and actually taking office seem to be separated. The Democratic Socialist Victor Berger was not allowed into congress but was allowed to be a candidate in subsequent elections (he kept winning them and wasn't allowed to sit until the supreme court overturned his Espionage Act conviction).

[Woodchopper]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

You can read a lengthy summary here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00112124

[dyqik]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

Since the insurrection was aimed at a legislative branch function, which he has no constitutional role in, there isn't any immunity that applies. The president has no official role in overseeing elections or the electoral count, and so his actions were not taken under color of Federal office.

The vice president, on the other hand, does have a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate.

[dyqik]

The Georgia grand jury recommended that Lindsey Graham be charged as part of the RICO plot there.

I wonder if there's a test case for the 14th Amendment Sec 3 there.

[dyqik]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

Since the insurrection was aimed at a legislative branch function, which he has no constitutional role in, there isn't any immunity that applies. The president has no official role in overseeing elections or the electoral count, and so his actions were not taken under color of Federal office.

The vice president, on the other hand, does have a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate.

And judge ruled that this is the law for Trump's chief of staff today.