Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Foxi4]

Good thing it's an opinion article, and smarter/more qualified people on both sides of the aisle disagree with that assessment. The 14th does not require a conviction because of the specificity and severity of the crimes it applies to.

That’s not what the Amendment says, and your claim that it doesn’t require a conviction is entirely theoretical. That runs contrary to how the law works in the country at large. If the framers wanted to make an exception to Due Process, they would’ve specified that. Whether a person participated in an insurrection/rebellion or not, or whether they gave aid or comfort to enemies of the state, needs to be evidenced and proven, that’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion. If that wasn’t the case, there’s a whole lot of actors both foreign and domestic who could be considered enemies, and a lot of state agents that have “given them comfort” in one way or another. Claiming that Section 3 operates in isolation from the other sections of the Amendment or law in general immediately makes it vague enough to apply to just about anyone.

The only thing that speaks in support of that theory is that people who actually did participate in self-evident insurrection or rebellion (the Confederates, who were broadly given amnesty just 4 years after the fact via the Amnesty Act of 1872) were treated as such, but they generally didn’t seek public office and issued requests to Congress to have such limitations removed if they did, so their guilt was understood and self-admitted. Trump is denying any guilt and it’s not clear whether what happened was an insurrection/rebellion or not - the F.B.I. did not find any significant evidence of an overarching plot to overthrow the government. The Civil War *was* self-evident, it was an actual military conflict. January 6th is not self-evident, and could easily qualify as a riot by an angry mob of discontent, but otherwise disorganised citizens. The fact that Trump didn’t actually tell anyone to attack anything (quite the opposite, he urged the gathered crowd to remain peaceful) also doesn’t speak in your favour - Confederates most definitely gave soldiers orders, and there’s clean cut evidence of that. It seems to me that you want to treat Trump more harshly than Americans who fought an actual bloody war, which makes little sense.

Now, you might be asking why the Confederates weren’t prosecuted first under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 as I suggest, and the answer is pretty simple - they weren’t time travellers. The statute is based on Title 18 and simply didn’t exist. These matters were previously governed via the Enforcement Act (1870), if I remember correctly. To me the case is pretty obvious here. The 14th Amendment specifies that Congress is in charge of enacting its provisions by way of legislation. It has done so, by introducing a statute specifically about insurrection and rebellion on the basis of which one might be found guilty of it. If we conveniently ignore its existence then there’s no reason to have a U.S. Code at all since apparently we don’t need to find anyone guilty of anything to treat them as guilty.

 

[Xzi]

That’s not what the Amendment says, and your claim that it doesn’t require a conviction is entirely theoretical. That runs contrary to how the law works in the country at large.

The Amendment says nothing about conviction as a requirement, and yes, this country has always treated traitors/insurrectionists as a unique case. The founding fathers would not have bothered with all this pomp and circumstance, Donald Trump would've been dead by hanging on January 7th.

Trump is denying any guilt and it’s not clear whether what happened was an insurrection/rebellion or not

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

 

[Foxi4]

The Amendment says nothing about conviction as a requirement, and yes, this country has always treated traitors/insurrectionists as a unique case. The founding fathers would not have bothered with all this pomp and circumstance, Donald Trump would've been dead by hanging on January 7th.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

See edit above, you posted as I was adding a clarification. Section 5 specifies that Congress is responsible for enforcing the article through legislation. It has done so by introducing Title 18. There is an existing legal mechanism by which participation in an insurrection or rebellion is established by way of a guilty verdict. It seems counter-intuitive to ignore that when the Constitution specifically states otherwise. Flowery speech and nice quotes can only get you so far when the 14th Amendment *tells you* how it’s supposed to be enforced. I don’t know why you speak of “what the founders would’ve done” when the Amnesty Act directly contradicts what you’re saying - the Confederates were given amnesty wholesale with very few exceptions. Does it or does it not say that and do we or do we not have a statute that concerns insurrection and rebellion? The correct answer is “yes” to both, so Congress has fulfilled its role as directed in the section 3 and creating appropriate legislation. That legislation should be followed.

 

[Xzi]

See edit above, you posted as I was adding a clarification. Section 5 specifies that Congress is responsible for enforcing the article through legislation. It has done so by introducing Title 18. There is an existing legal mechanism by which participation in an insurrection or rebellion is established by way of a guilty verdict. It seems counter-intuitive to ignore that when the Constitution specifically states otherwise. Flowery speech and nice quotes can only get you so far when the 14th Amendment *tells you* how it’s supposed to be enforced. I don’t know why you speak of “what the founders would’ve done” when the Amnesty Act directly contradicts what you’re saying - the Confederates were given amnesty wholesale with very few exceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt..._Constitution#Section_5:_Power_of_enforcement

"However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997),[230] the Court narrowed Congress's enforcement power, holding that Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.[224] The Court ruled that legislation is valid under Section 5 only if there is a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's Fourteenth Amendment right and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.[231]"

Legislation is limited to corrective action when a person's 14th Amendment rights are found to have been violated. So it's not really applicable here. The only Congressional action that can be taken in regard to section 3 is a two-thirds vote to remove the restriction on running for office.

 

[Foxi4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt..._Constitution#Section_5:_Power_of_enforcement

"However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997),[230] the Court narrowed Congress's enforcement power, holding that Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.[224] The Court ruled that legislation is valid under Section 5 only if there is a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's Fourteenth Amendment right and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.[231]"

Legislation is limited to corrective action when a person's 14th Amendment rights are found to have been violated. So it's not really applicable here. The only Congressional action that can be taken in regard to section 3 is a two-thirds vote to remove the restriction on running for office.

It’s definitely applicable unless you want to say that Title 18 is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. Is that what you’re saying? The legislation *already exists*, it has been enacted, and a long time ago at that. Are you claiming there’s a constitutional conflict here? Sounds like something for the Supreme Court to handle, since that’s its job.

EDIT: For the record, I can *easily* argue that overthrowing the government would violate *everyone’s* 14th Amendment rights. One can make a case for that with a blindfold on and their arms tied behind their back, as they’re hopping on one foot - that actually *is* self-evident. So yeah, that’s not an avenue you really want to take.

 

[Xzi]

It’s definitely applicable unless you want to say that Title 18 is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. Is that what you’re saying? The legislation *already exists*, it has been enacted, and a long time ago at that. Are you claiming there’s a constitutional conflict here? Sounds like something for the Supreme Court to handle, since that’s its job.

EDIT: For the record, I can *easily* argue that overthrowing the government would violate *everyone’s* 14th Amendment rights, so yeah, that’s not an avenue you really want to take.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-contained and the language is some of the clearest and most concise that can be found anywhere in the constitution. Not even Trump's pet justices will touch this one with a twenty foot pole if they have an ounce of self-preservation in them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: disqualification from holding office and a few years jail time is a slap on the wrist for the crimes this motherfucker has committed. If that's all that ends up happening to him, he should thank his lucky stars.

 

[Foxi4]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-contained and the language is some of the clearest and most concise that can be found anywhere in the constitution. Not even Trump's pet justices will touch this one with a twenty foot pole if they have an ounce of self-preservation in them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: disqualification from holding office and a few years jail time is a slap on the wrist for the crimes this motherfucker has committed. If that's all that ends up happening to him, he should thank his lucky stars.

As Yoo mentions in his article, polling data seems to suggest that most of Americans (76%, in fact) disagree with your assessment. In their mind, January 6th was a protest gone wrong, not an insurrection. This is also the opinion that was reached by the F.B.I. at the time, the Special Counsel on this matter did not choose to recommend charges, the DOJ didn’t either, and the Senate voted to acquit, which you may choose to call a partisan decision, but it’s the only decision we have on the question of insurrection. If all of that is true and there was no insurrection then Trump can’t be guilty of participating in one. Conversely, if in spite of all the evidence to the contrary you want to treat Trump as if he were guilty of it, I have to question your commitment to the rule of law, it seems more evident that you want to restrict him from running by any means necessary. If that is the case, you are trading in that soap box you normally use for moral grand standing in favour of a temporary victory. Regardless of how things unfold, I think further conflict regarding this issue is as inevitable as a sunrise.

 

[Xzi]

Conversely, if in spite of all the evidence to the contrary you want to treat Trump as if he were guilty of it, I have to question your commitment to the rule of law, it seems more evident that you want to restrict him from running by any means necessary.

The evidence to the contrary is an anthill when stacked next to the evidence that he's guilty. Any attack on the capitol while the votes of the people are in the process of being certified is an attempted insurrection. Full stop. Trump used the word "fight" over forty times in his speech. Smith has him dead to rights, so if you want to hinge your argument on a conviction, then that's coming too. Public opinion has no bearing on that, because the public has not seen all the evidence laid out in a court of law.

 

[Foxi4]

The evidence to the contrary is an anthill when stacked next to the evidence that he's guilty. Any attack on the capitol while the votes of the people are in the process of being certified is an attempted insurrection. Full stop. Trump used the word "fight" over forty times in his speech. Smith has him dead to rights, so if you want to hinge your argument on a conviction, then that's coming too. Public opinion has no bearing on that, because the public has not seen all the evidence laid out in a court of law.

I would prefer that someone is treated as guilty once they are pronounced guilty in a court of law after due process has ran its course, which is *also* their constitutional right under the same amendment, under the Due Process clause. As far as conviction is concerned, I’m not sure if Trump is actually accused of insurrection or rebellion - I don’t think he is, but it’s hard to keep track of all the charges being thrown around. Even in Georgia he stands accused of interfering with the election process, not with staging an insurrection. That being said, I’ll wait and see what happens. My broader point is that stripping someone of their rights, including the right to run for office, in the absence of due process seems contrary to the core principles of American law, even if you consider the case to be extraordinary. Everyone deserves a trial before a jury of their peers, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[falconcrest]

Everyone deserves a trial before a jury of their peers, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

that would all depend on who you are/how much money you have.
for example if i was accused of theft,and was "innocent until proven guilty"
I wouldn't be sitting in jail while awaiting trial for said theft.but that's just how this idiotic country works.

 

[Xzi]

My broader point is that stripping someone of their rights, including the right to run for office, in the absence of due process seems contrary to the core principles of American law, even if you consider the case to be extraordinary. Everyone deserves a trial before a jury of their peers, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Every human, sure. Nazi ain't got no humanity. Once a person has demonstrated/declared their intent to end democracy and the constitutional order, they no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Foxi4]

Every human, sure. Nazi ain't got no humanity. Once a person has demonstrated/declared their intent to end democracy and the constitutional order, they no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

Godwin’s law. If this is your point of view, don’t forget that the first thing Nazis did was dehumanising their political enemies and stripping them of their rights. The Nazis themselves stood trial. Silly exaggerations aside, if you honestly believe Trump is a Nazi, he deserves no less.

 

[Xzi]

If this is your point of view, don’t forget that the first thing Nazis did was dehumanising their political enemies and stripping them of their rights.

Kind of like how Trump weaponized police and border patrol to dehumanize black and brown people during his term in office. You're free to put as many pairs of blinders on as you want, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to match that level of naivety.

Silly exaggerations aside

No exaggerations here, the man slept with Mein Kampf on his bedside table for almost the entirety of the time he was married to Ivana. The "fake news" thing was a stategy most famously employed by the Third Reich, and if he's allowed to run for election from prison or after he gets out of a short sentence, then that's the last parallel to Hitler he doesn't already have under his belt.

If the justice system and/or SCOTUS demonstrate corruption in failing to deliver the appropriate consequences, the American people will have a moral obligation to take things into their own hands. Let's hope it doesn't come to that so we can remain a nation of laws and some semblance of order.

 

[titan_tim]

don’t forget that the first thing Nazis did was dehumanising their political enemies and stripping them of their rights.

Have you not heard Trump talk about his enemies?!?! It's literally the playbook for dehumanization.

On multiple occasions he called political opponents dogs and animals. He's even described illegal immigrants as "infesting" the country and directly said “These aren’t people".

You really can't get much more dehumanizing than directly saying “These aren’t people".

On the opposite side, what dehumanizing language have you heard from the left? "deplorables"? Deplorable people are still people.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

As Yoo mentions in his article, polling data seems to suggest that most of Americans (76%, in fact) disagree with your assessment. In their mind, January 6th was a protest gone wrong, not an insurrection.

Reality doesn't care for feelings. Also, skewed and manipulated poll data.

Post automatically merged: Sep 1, 2023

Everyone deserves a trial before a jury of their peers, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

That's great, do you support legal aid then?

 

[Foxi4]

Kind of like how Trump weaponized police and border patrol to dehumanize black and brown people during his term in office. You're free to put as many pairs of blinders on as you want, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to match that level of naivety.

Illegal immigration is illegal. A country is defined by its borders.

No exaggerations here, the man slept with Mein Kampf on his bedside table for almost the entirety of the time he was married to Ivana. The "fake news" thing was a stategy most famously employed by the Third Reich, and if he's allowed to run for election from prison or after he gets out of a short sentence, then that's the last parallel to Hitler he doesn't already have under his belt.

It’s a book. You can buy it in Barnes & Noble, millions of people read it, they’re not Nazis for doing so. Criticising the media is not unusual - 24/7 news cycle harpies have always been despised.

If the justice system and/or SCOTUS demonstrate corruption in failing to deliver the appropriate consequences, the American people will have a moral obligation to take things into their own hands. Let's hope it doesn't come to that so we can remain a nation of laws and some semblance of order.

Be careful, someone might misconstrue this post as incitement to violence. See? This is really easy.

Have you not heard Trump talk about his enemies?!?! It's literally the playbook for dehumanization.

On multiple occasions he called political opponents dogs and animals. He's even described illegal immigrants as "infesting" the country and directly said “These aren’t people".

You really can't get much more dehumanizing than directly saying “These aren’t people".

On the opposite side, what dehumanizing language have you heard from the left? "deplorables"? Deplorable people are still people.

Not a day passes by when someone doesn’t suggest that Trump should be killed in one of 101 ways. He’s been called everything under the sun. This criticism rings hollow when Republicans are routinely considered sub-human, including on this forum. As for colourful turns of phrase, I seem to remember some politicians “not wanting to live in a racial jungle” or “being afraid of superpredators”, so be careful when you throw stones in glass houses. I personally don’t have a problem with calling MS-13 gang members “animals”, since that’s who the remark was aimed at. Here’s what actually happened:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/may/17/context-donald-trumps-comments-about-immigrants-an/

The round table discussion concerned crime at the border, and Sheriff Mims mentioned the MS-13 gang. That’s who Trump was talking about. They’re known ultra-violent criminals who rape, murder and behead people *for fun*. In fact, animals might be charitable in this case. As a side remark, they too would be deserving of a fair trial, however disgusting their crimes may be.

Reality doesn't care for feelings. Also, skewed and manipulated poll data.

Manipulated by who, CBS? It’s their data, not Yoo’s. All he did was going through the intensely laborious process of “adding a few numbers together”. It would be nice if the Confederates left in an orderly fashion when they got their steam out too, but they didn’t do that - they started the Civil War. The word “insurrection” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The number of people describing the events of January 6th as an insurrection has been steadily decreasing over time, and the answer to this question differs wildly along party lines. This was true in 2021 and it’s true now.

https://www.umass.edu/news/article/...-americans-views-events-us-capitol-jan-6-2021

That's great, do you support legal aid then?

I support due process for every U.S. citizen, I believe in the Equal Protection clause (which is also a part of the 14th Amendment, lest we forget) and I believe that the people of the United States are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Attempts to divide it by separating people into those who deserve due process and those who don’t are incongruent with the values expressed in the Constitution, including those within the 14th Amendment. It’s odd that I’m being criticised for saying that everyone deserves a fair trial - this belief used to be held universally.

 

[RetroGen]

TL;DR:

I think we can all agree with Foxi4 that we want Trump charged, prosecuted, tried, and incarcerated, to the fullest extent of the law, with zero regard for his wealth, privilege, or political status, just like any other American who committed the same crimes.

 

[mrdude]

TL;DR:

I think we can all agree with Foxi4 that we want Trump charged, prosecuted, tried, and incarcerated, to the fullest extent of the law, with zero regard for his wealth, privilege, or political status, just like any other American who committed the same crimes.

Who is "We"?

I don't want USA to have a two tiered justice system and an innocent man dragged through the mill for trying to make America Great Again. Trump is the best president to come out of the USA since at least WW2, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if I was an American. Yet you have The Biden crime syndicate and Kamala (MIA) running your country into the ground financially and into the ground on the world stage and they are 100% seen as useless degenerates throughout the world. You media system is bought and paid for, big tech is under govenment control, your politicans are bought and paid for - basically your democracy is an illusion and the globalists are ruining your country and making you all poorer while they get richer and the only reason Trump is being persecuted is because he is not in their pocket and not corrupt (unlike the Bidens etc).

 

[Foxi4]

TL;DR:

I think we can all agree with Foxi4 that we want Trump charged, prosecuted, tried, and incarcerated, to the fullest extent of the law, with zero regard for his wealth, privilege, or political status, just like any other American who committed the same crimes.

If he is found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, as has been the standard for all those who stand accused in a country that is free and governed by rule of law. This has always been the case, and I don’t understand the backlash against such a truism. I may very well have my own opinion on the matter, but ultimately it is not up to me to prosecute him. I can only argue for what I believe is true, I’m not in control of what other people think or do.

 

[titan_tim]

Not a day passes by when someone doesn’t suggest that Trump should be killed in one of 101 ways. He’s been called everything under the sun. This criticism rings hollow when Republicans are routinely considered sub-human, including on this forum.

That can really be said about any president in the last 20 years. It's been over 6 years since Obama has left the office, and people on Fox boards are still wishing the worst deaths on him. For the same comments towards Democrats, here are some quick quotes I'll copy and paste that I found in 10 seconds after clicking on one fox link:
"What is with the democrats wanting to groom kids"
"75 cents and a good scope and these freaks (democrats) are quieted. Is that wrong????"
"We need to go to war with these evil people, why can't you folks see that? If we don't stop them, then we will ALL be destroyed!"

The internet really is the worst place for people who don't have self restraint. It's people like that that make me feel like China has the right idea of not allowing an anonymous internet.

As for colourful turns of phrase, I seem to remember some politicians “not wanting to live in a racial jungle” or “being afraid of superpredators”, so be careful when you throw stones in glass houses.

I had to look up that racial jungle quote. All the way back in 1977! I guess when you said "the first thing the Nazi's did", you really meant the FIRST thing! As old as it is, it's still quite the quote! I look forward to the time that all politicians have never lived through the period of segregation. Even if the person doesn't consider themselves racist, it still taints them in some way to live in that world.

I personally don’t have a problem with calling MS-13 gang members “animals”, since that’s who the remark was aimed at.

That specific quote was aimed at them, but to his supporters, it permeates over to all immigrants. You can see that with the inhumane attitudes and treatment given to them. Families crossing rivers with razor wire to prevent them from crossing.