dyqik wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 11:54 pmExcept 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).
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).