557
Trump and His Lawyers Dare NY Judge to Throw Him in Jail
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
557 points (97.3% liked)
News
21700 readers
4786 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's some weird argument by his cult that it's not in the constitution that a president can't be in prison. It's a lot of mental gymnastics, ignoring the fact that he traitorously stole classified nuclear documents from the US government, along with subverting democracy in the RICO case with the 18 co-conspirators.
You're conflating two things here. There is absolutely nothing in the cotus that bars someone from becoming POTUS because they are in jail. Imo, there should not be, just like you should not lose your right to vote simply for being a felon.
However, there is something in the cotus that bard someone from being an officer of the state if they've been part of an insurrection. This, imo, should bar him, but I'm curious to see how the court cases play out.
Isn't being a traitor to the US (RICO case + stolen documents + Jan 6th insurrection) against the constitution though?
This Chicago Tribune article goes into more detail.
Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible.
Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them.
Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It would be giving aid to an enemy surely.
As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times.
Toss a coin to your witcher.