422
Historic hearings begin on whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from 2024 race
(abcnews.go.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
422 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3952 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry about that, I do remember putting in Denver county but didn't realize it was necessary.
Sounds like they'll have to prove 'specific intent'.
Yeah, they kept referencing something that I haven't heard before, intent of the law maybe? The people bringing the suit seem to be doing an amazing job. The judge kind of implied that already when she didn't allow something in court. She said that they've already shown a bunch of testimony saying the same thing so I'm going to not let it in. The defense lawyer was all stupidly smug about it, he didn't realize what she was saying. I'm not sure she's ever seen a lot of that footage before too, she looked shocked.
I think this means, they'll have to prove that Trump specifically intended to overturn the election. You may have noticed the manner in which Trump requests illegal things be done on his behalf. He uses language like "It would be great if... [insert illegal activity xyz]." This is what Michael Cohen is referring to when he says "Trump speaks like a mob boss" (this came up in the GA trial last week).
So the court is basically saying that the prosecution has to prove that Trumps intent was to overturn the election. IANAL, but that's hard to do considering that we don't know Trumps mind. This trial may depend substantively on the outcome of the GA trial. I'm not sure how much of a paper record has been left behind to prove intent, although from the outside, its very clear.
Does it have to be paper though? They had a lot of video of him telling them to not let pence do it and they have to fight. They also have witnesses that said they told him to tell the followers to stand down. I think that kind of evidence would be enough, but I'm not a lawyer either.
I mean, I think video evidence is fine. But what specifically did he say? Did he use weasel words? Witnesses are still second hand inference of intent. Good but not as good as Trump saying in his own words, "We need to stop the certification of the election."
He said Pence needs to stop the election and do the right thing and we need to help him. So yeah, it was directing Pence to do it. He said it explicitly. IMO, again not a lawyer, him directing Pence to change the results is insurrection and whether or not the followers decided to help or not is gravy.
I think you are being presumptive about the specific interpretation of words. You aren't wrong in the way you or I might use language or draw conclusions, but this will have to be held to a much higher bar. Telling Pence to "Do the right thing" isn't even close to passing that bar. No one here is defending Trump, but lets be honest with ourselves. This is going to rely on a very narrow interpretation of very specific language.
Best case scenario, this is all rendered moot by the trial going on in GA. Worst case scenario, either mistrial or not guilty in GA, then this one goes to the supreme court, and good fucking luck there.
I think the prosecution would have a far easier time if they went after the evidence in the GA trial. I don't think they'll get there off of words Trump made in public. Not even close to enough to prove intent.
He explicitly said to Pence, "Make sure to not certify the election and let the judges handle it." Although these are still weasel words, they still provide intent.
I think that would. Was that his exact language? Do you have a link? Has Pence testified as much? Were there witnesses or was there documentation (film or audio)?
I searched for that quote and didn't find anything.
Sure thing. Read the whole thing though, there is more on it where he repeats it.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Look I value our back and forth but I don't think you will get specific intent from Wallace based on that. Its not even close in my read. I think the prosecution would be far smarter to go after the GA evidence. Its stronger and much clearer about intent. Link here for the text transcript, and audio here. Also, consider that in GA, Meadows, the other major name in that transcript, has flipped.
I just don't think that the vast majority of trumps words in public are sufficient to show intent. There might be some truth social tweets more recently that do. But the guy really is a pro at managing language like this. He knows how to get away with criminal activity.
I disagree, that's the definition of an insurrection or coup, not accepting the vote.
You're more than welcome to argue that but the person whose opinion will ultimately matter here is Wallace's, and I'd be utterly shocked if she considered that sufficient evidence of sedition. This isn't about what I or you want. I think he should be disqualified. I want him to be disqualified. But its also important to have a sober estimation of how we think things will play out.