Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

It's invisible evidence?

 

It's the only kind they have. I've been asking for evidence for years. No one has actually answered. That will never change. Unless @drluggit finally found something.

 

Where is it stated that fascism is illegal? Especially ideologically.

 

In case you haven't heard, Trump is over 35 years old. So, that is not an issue. Further, it is not a crime under US Statutes for being under the age of 35. Therefore, that section does not require the one thing that makes the claim of Insurrection to require a criminal conviction. That requirement can be found in both the 5th Amendment and the 14 Amendment Section 1. The commonality between these two Amendments is called the "Due Process" Clause. They basically state that no one can be deprived their Life, Liberty or property without Due Process. The key word here is "Liberty". Liberty is defined as the freedom to pursue a right. In this case, we are talking about Trumps right to run for a second term. And the 14th Amendment Section 3 states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. (Emphasis added by me.)

Since, Insurrection is considered a criminal act under us Statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Therefore, in order for this disqualification to apply, a person must have been charged with, and convicted of, violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Others that took part with storming the Capital Building on Jan 6, have been convicted under this federal Statute. Trump has not been. The charges that Trump has been charged were based on Obstruction and Conspiracy, but not for Insurrection. As I have said before, the DOJ investigated Trumps involvement and chose not to charge him under 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Therefore, Trump is not guilty of insurrection, and therefore eligible to run for President.

 

The 14th amendment is enforced by Congress, not the courts.

 

What is your basis for claiming that the courts can't weigh in on the 14th Amendment?

 

Once again:
Biden is NOT "trying to destroy the US"...
^And, Nobody (Repeat NOBODY) who actually deals in REALITY believes that assertion.
And, also once again, it appears this very basic point is beyond you. as you continue to demonstrate.

 

DC appeals court has shown no inclination to drag this out. They have ordered the last of the briefs to be submitted today, with oral arguments due Jan 9th. Most expect a ruling by the end of January (if not sooner). Trump will appeal to SCOTUS but the odds are that SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case. Leaving a date of March 4th for the start of the actual trial viable. Absolutely no chance Trump drags this beyond the 2024 election.

 

Many things are just WRONG, without being illegal. There's no LAW against peeing on your mother either. But it's WRONG.

 

Your right she can't charge anyone for Insurrection. That is a Federal Statute, and she is a state's governor. She also cannot block Trump from the ballots. And no matter how many times you state otherwise, the Due Process clauses of the US Constitution states that a candidate cannot be disqualified without due process. Since Insurrection is a crime under federal statutes, due process would require a criminal conviction.

 

If you want to see the true level of their desperation, look no further than the fact that they are not allowing DNC Primaries. They do not believe Biden could win the party nomination if challengers are allowed.

 

He hid them, lied about having them and refused to give them back? That's news to me!

 

If he's got it, he's keeping it very secret.

@drluggit

 

These are "federal charges"? Do you have any authority, besides, well, you?

 

Anyone who could find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight would beat Biden.
I was hoping Corn Pop would show up.

 

The damn court documents, ever read them? You'll notice there's a difference between "State of Florida" and "The United States" This is pretty simple stuff. Ask yourself why it took the most incompetent of legal minds in Colorado and Maine to pursue this novel legal theory. This is the Federalist Society's version of the Eastman gambit. A total misapplication of law.

 

SCOTUS will hear the case, the consequences of this novel legal theory are so great that they can't afford to not hear it. The only way they don't hear it, is if the Appeals Court does their work for them in shutting down this nonsense. And if that happens, all's well ends well.

 

Why do you think that the SCOTUS would not hear the case? Because they refused to jump ahead of the appeal's court? All they did was maintain the normal process. That process calls for a local case, an appeal of some issue of the case to the corresponding appeals court, and then after the Appeals court ruling, then, and only then, will the SCOTUS weigh in.

I believe that the SCOTUS will accept the case, because a case dealing with Presidential Immunity would have far reaching affects down the road. Especially, in dealing with a candidate in an election year. No, this case will be heard. They may not be rule in Trump's favor, but it will be heard and the holding the trial starting the day before Super Tuesday is seriously in jeopardy. The fact that the prosecution chose this specific date proves that the driving force of the case is political and not criminal.

 

I used to say Mickey Mouse, but he has become to Woke.

 

They won't hear the case because it's stupid.
The Supreme Court only hears a very few cases that are appealed to them. They only take a case if it's an actual controversy. They will see the DC appeal court decision and decide they got it right and there is no reason to hear it.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, in another case (back in 2020) that Trump does not have blanket "absolute immunity" from criminal investigations. There is no reason to think that this case will be any different
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scotus-rules-trump-financial-records-subpoenas/story?id=71382157

Having the case start in March has NOTHING to do with politics. In fact it's just the opposite. Judge Chutkan has already said that the campaign will have no influence on her decisions. In fact when she entered the gag order because Trump couldn't stop trying to intimidate witnesses on social media, she told Trump's lawyers the more he does it the more inclined she is to hold the trial sooner than later to prevent him from possibly poisoning the jury pool

 

As I answered before, DC Court of Appeals is going to rule against Trump and the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case and let that ruling stand. The court already ruled back in 2020 that Trump does not have blanket "absolute immunity". There is zero reason to think that they are going to rule differently.

 

I don't care about his immunity claims, I care that this 14th Amendment crap gets nipped in the bud(like it was, by almost every other court). Whether Trump's a crook or not, doesn't matter to me.

 

I understand the law. You do not.

Nobody's pursued this angle before because no other presidential candidate took part in an insurrection before.

 

His virtues were so bad, he knew he could never get elected as a Democrat.
So, he became a fake evangelical christian to get the votes of the Republicans. He knew which voters he could fool.

 

But he promoted a rally and was lead speaker at a rally and told a mob of protesters to go to the Capitol and fight like hell to take back their country.

And that mob then broke laws and tried to stop a democratic process. Of which he had involvement.

A former officer or representative of the gov't doesn't have to be convicted of anything. Only had to engage in an INSURRECTION OR REBELLION.