I don't think that is correct, is it? I believe the SCOTUS ruled that section 3 at the state level e.g. Colorado, only applied to someone standing for a state office and not a federal office. They did not decide that it could not be applied at the federal level. Some of the christofascists on the Supreme Court opined that it could only be applied to Trump if he was convicted by Congress (political not criminal), but that was a minority opinion and not relevant to the actual decision.WHY TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION BY THE WASHINGTON DC PROSECUTOR
This may help to understand why ‘insurrection’ is no longer related to the criminal trial/charges bought against Trump for the Jan 6 riots and attack on the Capitol by the District of Columbia because there seems to be some confusion what his legal jeopardy is - while Trump was indicted for High Crimes and Misdemeanours by the House of Representatives, the indictment fell short of the majority required to convict him (not legally but politically) when the vote took place in the Senate. The House referred the indictment charges of High Crimes and Misdemeanours to the DoJ which included recommendations for a charge of insurrection but the DoJ concluded ‘insurrection’ would be difficult to prosecute in the criminal court for a number of reasons:
INSIGHTS
*The issue of the 14th Amendment on ’insurrection’ was bypassed again recently when SCOTUS ruled that ‘public officials’ under part 3 of the 14th Amendment did not include Presidents - therefore Article 14th barring officials standing again for office who have been found guilty of ‘insurrection’ (which the Federal Law does not define) did not apply to Trump.
- When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes in Slate. “That narrowing increases the prospects for a pre-election trial.”
- One of the reasons an insurrection charge could be complicated: Prosecutors would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face “potentially tricky First Amendment issues,” former assistant U.S. attorney Randall Eliason writes in The New York Times. Those legal disputes “would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally.”
- The charge of “conspiracy against rights,” a civil rights law that prohibits trying to deprive someone of their right to vote, can serve as a more straightforward stand-in for an insurrection charge, which is rarely brought in court. The conspiracy charge, on the other hand, has been successfully tested. — Just Security
- There was outsized attention on a possible insurrection charge in part because the Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office. In theory, a conviction would disqualify Trump from serving a second term in the White House. — The Washington Post- *
- While the lack of an incitement charge simplifies the case against Trump, we’re still in uncharted legal territory, especially given that the defendant is the former president. Smith’s case “requires some unprecedented interpretations of the U.S. criminal code” — including proving that Trump knew he lost the election — and shouldn’t be seen as a slam dunk, Jim Geraghty argues in National Review.
Why Jack Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection | Semafor
We’ve curated insights from experts on why an insurrection charge was absent from the third indictment against Trump.www.semafor.com
He will lose in November, if he makes it that far.It looks inevitable i’m afraid that somehow Trump will be back in The White House in January next year!
Let’s hope you’re right, but i feel you should prepare for the worse.He will lose in November, if he makes it that far.
That's absolutely no way he will get more votes than last time so, imo, his only chance is massive voter suppression/fraud in the swing states. I am hopeful/expectant that the sane people are sufficiently wise to this to counter it effectively.Let’s hope you’re right, but i feel you should prepare for the worse.
He doesn't have to get more votes than last time if Biden gets fewer than he did last time. Which seems quite likely.That's absolutely no way he will get more votes than last time so, imo, his only chance is massive voter suppression/fraud in the swing states. I am hopeful/expectant that the sane people are sufficiently wise to this to counter it effectively.
Best get yourself across the pond then commander and start your searchAre there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
Only in America where a forgetful elderly crook or forgetful elderly opponent can be the nominees for president
I think that anyone who is looking at things 'on balance' is by definition using a modicum of critical literacy. Not much of this is required to see Trump for what he is. To find him an appealing choice for President (or anything really) requires a great deal of looking the other way and a refusal to understand information presented.Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
Unless I misunderstood, you said section 3 does not apply to the President. My understanding is that it doesn't apply to the President or any federal officer WHEN APPLIED AT THE STATE LEVEL but it can be applied at the federal level.What isn’t correct? Isn’t that what I said above? Maybe I wasn’t clear - this ruling only applies to the Appeal with regard to the State of Colorado over-reaching their powers to remove candidates from Federal election ballots.
As said above, the basis of the opinion was that while individual States ie Colorado administer federal elections (in this case the Primaries) , they do not have the power to decide on who runs in them - the State of Colorado had no power to remove any ex-federal officials from the ballots - Colorado only has the power to apply section 3 to state level officers .
A few judges in an unsigned opinion (ie outside the scope of the Appeal issue before the Court) suggested that there would need to be a change of law in Congress to decide whether or not section 3 could be applied by Congress to an ex-president (again never tested) but Congress already has the power to impeach and ‘politically’ convict a sitting President and bar him from running in public office anyway. However, that’s not the issue here, Trump is no longer a sitting President.
These judges were criticised by extending their considerations beyond the scope of the Appeal, so it’s unlikely to come to anything in the near future anyway.
I think you misunderstood - but it’s my fault, I’m not making myself clear obviously.Unless I misunderstood, you said section 3 does not apply to the President. My understanding is that it doesn't apply to the President or any federal officer WHEN APPLIED AT THE STATE LEVEL but it can be applied at the federal level.
I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
It's 'tooken' hold here already I think.I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.
Sadly it’s also taking hold over here.
Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Donald Trump voter – and understand what drives his success | Simon Jenkins
Within Trump’s wild exaggerations are grains of truth. Liberals have never dealt with them, says the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkinswww.theguardian.com
The USA deregulated their media in the early 80's and removed any meaningful regulation, cue Fox News. Without this Trump would have never happened.I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.
Sadly it’s also taking hold over here.