Progressives, part 3...

I could go along with the fake electors as insurrection, but calling Jan. 6 an insurrection and implicating Trump - with no trial - to remove from the ballot is flat un-democratic.

Both sides have shown repeatedly they are willing abuse the legal system in order to win elections (or overturn unfavorable results).

While the phony elector scheme is - or should be - clearly illegal, it's not that far from what Dems tried in 2016.  They were trying to encourage what was called "faithless electors" to exercise their right to ignore the state vote and choose Hillary (I think this is a major reason why both parties have their own slate of electors).  Democrats have also floated legislation in various states to cast their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, regardless of local state results.  Dems couldn't care less about state rights, except when it suits their agenda.

And the big problem is the media just isn't consistent on how it covers this because it's so partisan.  It's OK when it's your side, but "treason" when the other side does the same.

posted by gut

I could go along with the fake electors as insurrection, but calling Jan. 6 an insurrection and implicating Trump - with no trial - to remove from the ballot is flat un-democratic.

Both sides have shown repeatedly they are willing abuse the legal system in order to win elections (or overturn unfavorable results).

While the phony elector scheme is - or should be - clearly illegal, it's not that far from what Dems tried in 2016.  They were trying to encourage what was called "faithless electors" to exercise their right to ignore the state vote and choose Hillary (I think this is a major reason why both parties have their own slate of electors).  Democrats have also floated legislation in various states to cast their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, regardless of local state results.  Dems couldn't care less about state rights, except when it suits their agenda.

And the big problem is the media just isn't consistent on how it covers this because it's so partisan.  It's OK when it's your side, but "treason" when the other side does the same.

Not the same as the current court cases show. Also, you have the story in Michigan that Trump called election officials and tried to stop them from certification. It seems it is more about everything Trump did behind the scenes that led up to 1/6.

Again, there is a case to be made. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is not some targeted political hit job. 

I agree with you both sides toe the line, it just seems Trump crossed it. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

If a bunch of Obama followers attacked the capital in the waning days of his presidency, you would be screaming “insurrection” from the rooftops.  And you’d be correct.

I’d have called it a riot. Insurrections require much more actual violence, and you know maybe some guns or an organized plan to actually overthrow something. And the left would have called it a mostly peaceful protest. 

posted by iclfan2

I’d have called it a riot. Insurrections require much more actual violence, and you know maybe some guns or an organized plan to actually overthrow something. And the left would have called it a mostly peaceful protest. 

I don't know where the line is drawn in terms of the amount of violence that is necessary to be deemed an insurrection, but you're correct on the organized plan part. The Trump administration couldn't organize a two car funeral.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not the same as the current court cases show. Also, you have the story in Michigan that Trump called election officials and tried to stop them from certification. It seems it is more about everything Trump did behind the scenes that led up to 1/6.

Not an insurrection.  Election fraud and interference, sure, but c'mon.  The removal from the ballot stuff is purely political driven, and they'd be happy to let Trump run if Biden was leading in the polls.

I agree Trump crossed that line, and others.  Feels a bit like splitting hairs, but that line should and does exist.  Maybe if Trump didn't ignore the advice of lawyers all the time he wouldn't have gotten this deep.

By the way, it's wild to me that there's basically no crime or conviction that can disqualify someone from running for POTUS.

I don't know, maybe murder.  But the above is the basis of trying to use the insurrection clause.

On the other hand, one can understand the original intent that this prevents removing your political opponents by jailing them for trumped-up or made-up crimes.  You have the voters, electors and ultimately Congress having to certify the vote, among other protections, to prevent what Trump attempted to do to steal the election.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

It seems it is more about everything Trump did behind the scenes that led up to 1/6.

I'd agree that the main thing that should disqualify Trump would be the legally-binding result of a court case proving that he masterminded an insurrection (or "insurrection" for the "iT wAs a ToUr GrOuP" people). At this point, we don't have that. We do have a bunch of allegations that are still in the process of going to trial concerning him and his attempts to overturn the election and we have a lot of people playing connect-the-dots with how stuff he said along the lines of "fight like hell" was essentially him giving a green light to anyone and everyone to overthrow the government.

But we haven't gotten to that point yet and there's no true indication whether we will or won't other than easily-disregarded "wishful thinking" social media posts by MAGAs and anti-Trumpers. Can't say I'm shocked, though. With how attempts to impeach, censure and so on continue to be this super prevalent way for all of our little performance artists to show they're "fighting" the other side at their job, it was only a matter of time before a before-the-fact impeachment was going to happen.

posted by queencitybuckeye

I don't know where the line is drawn in terms of the amount of violence that is necessary to be deemed an insurrection, but you're correct on the organized plan part. The Trump administration couldn't organize a two car funeral.

Yeah, but somehow still managed to roll back regulations, push through tax cuts, achieve criminal justice reform, secure the border, hold NATO partners accountable, deter Russian aggression, reshore manufacturing, bring peace to the Middle East, strengthen the military, save the federal judiciary, gain energy independence, and all with near-zero inflation.  Funny how that all happened. 

posted by Heretic

people playing connect-the-dots with how stuff he said along the lines of "fight like hell" was essentially him giving a green light to anyone and everyone to overthrow the government.

I don't think that's remotely close to what was intended by "participate in an insurrection", much less mastermind or plan one.  It's also beyond a giant frickin' leap to call that an insurrection.  Was it insurrection when Schumer and other Democrat's fiery speeches about abortion and SCOTUS caused a nutjob to try to assassinate Kavanaugh?

At best, you could say his speech incited a riot.  Even that is a slippery slope.  Maybe you could get a civil judgement but highly doubt you could get a criminal conviction.

Let's just review the merits of this "case"

1) Not only trample free speech, but cherry pick words to claim Trump led a "call to arms".  I do agree when it comes to political influence it's a difficult balancing act between censoring opposition and the fact with highly influential politicians rhetoric can rise to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre.

2) Nevermind those "arms" amounted to a few guns and knives and some sign posts.  Remember when the Left used to tell us your guns were useless against the government?

3) Call something that is clearly a mob/riot - most of whom did, in fact, think it was a big joke and selfie tour - an insurrection is simply beyond the pale.

4) Take massive liberties with the intent and language of the insurrection act to block - wait for it - a political opponent from winning an election.

posted by QuakerOats

Yeah, but somehow still managed to roll back regulations, push through tax cuts, achieve criminal justice reform, secure the border, hold NATO partners accountable, deter Russian aggression, reshore manufacturing, bring peace to the Middle East, strengthen the military, save the federal judiciary, gain energy independence, and all with near-zero inflation.  Funny how that all happened. 

That IS pretty funny, as most of that didn't happen.

posted by gut

Let's just review the merits of this "case"

1) Not only trample free speech, but cherry pick words to claim Trump led a "call to arms".  I do agree when it comes to political influence it's a difficult balancing act between censoring opposition and the fact with highly influential politicians rhetoric can rise to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre.

2) Nevermind those "arms" amounted to a few guns and knives and some sign posts.  Remember when the Left used to tell us your guns were useless against the government?

3) Call something that is clearly a mob/riot - most of whom did, in fact, think it was a big joke and selfie tour - an insurrection is simply beyond the pale.

4) Take massive liberties with the intent and language of the insurrection act to block - wait for it - a political opponent from winning an election.

That's only part of it. Most of it is related to actions he and his advisors and attorneys did behind the scenes leading up to 1/6. 

Again, all of the current court cases are all related to leading up to 1/6. 

Stupid question time!

Does Trump's name have to be on a ballot for people to write him in?

posted by gut

Not an insurrection.  Election fraud and interference, sure, but c'mon.  The removal from the ballot stuff is purely political driven, and they'd be happy to let Trump run if Biden was leading in the polls.

I agree Trump crossed that line, and others.  Feels a bit like splitting hairs, but that line should and does exist.  Maybe if Trump didn't ignore the advice of lawyers all the time he wouldn't have gotten this deep.

It's all one in the same as one led to the other. You cannot separate the two. 

What Powell and Rudy did is directly related to all of this. 

I think the Dems will manage to convict him on almost all of the charges they are bringing up on him. And he will probably spend some time behind bars.

Just think, this all started because Trump had the audacity to beat Hillary and make Obama look like a fool for his mic-drop. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

It's all one in the same as one led to the other. You cannot separate the two. 

What Powell and Rudy did is directly related to all of this. 

Is there any evidence of Trump or his people actually interacting and planning with the people that breached the capital?  If the answer is no, then their actions didn't "lead" to anything.  Good lord, man, put down the leftwing rags.

In no universe has saying or doing something over here, and a completely unrelated individual reacting for whatever reason somewhere else, make the first party culpable for the second's actions.  So you say "man, that bank sucks" and the next day someone robs it - you should be on trial? If our legal system worked that way we would all be fucked.  That kind of thing only happens in a banana republic.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Stupid question time!

Does Trump's name have to be on a ballot for people to write him in?

Apparently the law prevents people from writing him in.

Can you imagine what would happen if the party that is "pro-Democracy" wins the election because it got Democrat judges to throw the other candidate off a ballot in a few states?

But I suppose it's a win-win for them.  If the SCOTUS correctly squashes this, then that will be the "proof" or justification for stacking the court to "save Democracy".

posted by gut

Is there any evidence of Trump or his people actually interacting and planning with the people that breached the capital?  If the answer is no, then their actions didn't "lead" to anything.  Good lord, man, put down the leftwing rags.

In no universe has saying or doing something over here, and a completely unrelated individual reacting for whatever reason somewhere else, make the first party culpable for the second's actions.  So you say "man, that bank sucks" and the next day someone robs it - you should be on trial? If our legal system worked that way we would all be fucked.  That kind of thing only happens in a banana republic.

You are stuck on the riot at the capital. The court cases are more the leading up the the certification of the results and trying to stop or impede the actions of 1/6 by Congress. It's all of what Rudy and Powell were doing along with Trump. 

The riot was just the culmination and outcome of all of these actions between election night and 1/6. 

I'm not totally convinced myself, but I at least understand the argument.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You are stuck on the riot at the capital. The court cases are more the leading up the the certification of the results and trying to stop or impede the actions of 1/6 by Congress. It's all of what Rudy and Powell were doing along with Trump. 

The riot was just the culmination and outcome of all of these actions between election night and 1/6. 

I'm not totally convinced myself, but I at least understand the argument.

So if you're not totally convinced, how convinced are you? Mostly, half, just a smidgen?