What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

Al-O-Meter said:
Yes, there is a clause in the US Constitution that would prevent those who participated in an insurrection from holding office. That part is real. It is the imaginary extension where it also strips due process rights, the presumption of innocence, or any involvement of the courts this is wackadoodle. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you but don't hold your breath as that isn't how the law actually works. Trump will get his day in court.
Click to expand...
Ya the founding fathers should have put in that clause language stating that those participating in an insurrection who are also found guilty in a court by the right judge (not a weaponized Democrat) and jury (no democrats) will be unable to hold office.

I won't hold my breath. And trump has already had many days in court with many many more to come. (Though according to you he only spends time in court because the justice system has been weaponized against conservatives)

I will continue to wait for you to provide your example that you spoke of many posts back.
 
Btw when reading the articles I posted again I notice that it doesn't say that this clause can be imposed prior to any day in court.
Maybe the lawyers are simply saying that if trump goes to court and is found to be involved in an insurrection by a judge and/or jury and is convicted then his name is not allowed on a ballot.
I wonder if Al would have a problem with that usage of the clause.
 
fishonjazz said:
Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office
Click to expand...
Not needing courts is exactly what this line is referring to which is why they believe Trump's name should be struck from all ballots now, prior to any judgments in court.

The idea that Trump would be ineligible to hold office if he were convicted in a court of law for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is not controversial. It is the no-courts-needed-to-strike-Trumps-name-from-ballots-now that is the specious legal theory.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Yes, there is a clause in the US Constitution that would prevent those who participated in an insurrection from holding office. That part is real. It is the imaginary extension where it also strips due process rights, the presumption of innocence, or any involvement of the courts this is wackadoodle. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you but don't hold your breath as that isn't how the law actually works. Trump will get his day in court.
Click to expand...
That's funny you think, or at least use it as a chance to troll, that fish or any of us don't want trump to get his day in court. That's all we want, and we've said it REPEATEDLY, that he needs to be held accountable to the LAWS he is accused for having broken. You see, the laws. With all due process thereof. We haven't expressed anything like wanting to skip due process any more than all the trump knob-gobblers have for Hunter Biden. Who also, by the way, should and will be held accountable for his alleged crimes. In court. Just like trump.


Trolls gonna troll.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Not needing courts is exactly what this line is referring to which is why they believe Trump's name should be struck from all ballots now, prior to any judgments in court.

The idea that Trump would be ineligible to hold office if he were convicted in a court of law for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is not controversial. It is the no-courts-needed-to-strike-Trumps-name-from-ballots-now that is the specious legal theory.
Click to expand...
It says self executing. Doesn't say self executing before or after a trial. With or without trial. Self executing could mean in the sense that if he is convicted of anything relating to an insurrection then his name is not allowed on a ballot. I have read that technically trump could win the election from prison/jail. Maybe this clause is simply a way of not allowing that to happen.

Anywho. I wonder if you would be fine if his name was not allowed on the ballot if he were convicted of something in court related to an insurrection.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That's funny you think, or at least use it as a chance to troll, that fish or any of us don't want trump to get his day in court. That's all we want, and we've said it REPEATEDLY, that he needs to be held accountable to the LAWS he is accused for having broken. You see, the laws. With all due process thereof. We haven't expressed anything like wanting to skip due process any more than all the trump knob-gobblers have for Hunter Biden. Who also, by the way, should and will be held accountable for his alleged crimes. In court. Just like trump.


Trolls gonna troll.
Click to expand...
Well trump should only be held accountable by republican DOJ's, judges, juries, etc. If he is held accountable by anything else then it's a politically motivated witch hunt don't ya know.
 
fishonjazz said:
Well trump should only be held accountable by republican DOJ's, judges, juries, etc. If he is held accountable by anything else then it's a politically motivated witch hunt don't ya know.
Click to expand...
So the ones that are part of the prosecution and investigation that he himself appointed no longer count as Republicans, right?
 
fishonjazz said:
I have read that technically trump could win the election from prison/jail. Maybe this clause is simply a way of not allowing that to happen.
Click to expand...
Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

fishonjazz said:
Anywho. I wonder if you would be fine if his name was not allowed on the ballot if he were convicted of something in court related to an insurrection.
Click to expand...
No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Nope. Trump is currently facing many charges. He could technically be jailed for any of them if convicted, but it is only a conviction for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 that would prohibit Trump from being President. Even with that clause in the US Constitution, Trump could still win the election from jail.

No. The provision is very clear. If he is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed on the ballot, but being convicted of "something" related to insurrection is not sufficient.
Click to expand...
No I'm talking about section 3 of the 14th amendment.
 
fishonjazz said:
No I'm talking about section 3 of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.
Click to expand...
According to section 3 of the 14th amendment he only has to aid or assist in an insurrection rather than actually commit it himself to not be allowed on the ballot.
So if a court determines he incited an insurrection then I think that would be considered aiding or assisting an insurrection.
Does January 6th happen without trumps involvement? I doubt it. Was January 6th an insurrection? IDK. Some people definitely think so. Not sure if a judge and/or jury think so though.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.
Click to expand...
Cool thing about pardons is that from what I understand trump can't be pardoned if he is convicted for the upcoming Georgia indictments since it isn't a federal indictment. So at least we can agree that would be pretty cool (since you are no fan of trump)
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment proscribes a penalty for engaging in insurrection which is 18 U.S. Code § 2383. As I have said many times, if Donald Trump is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he should not be allowed to hold office. However if it is being found guilty of "something related", or if someone else who is not Trump is found guilty instead of Trump, then no it doesn't count.

It is really, really, super simple. If Trump is found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's off. If he's not found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 then he's on the ballot and could conceivably pardon himself of all charges upon taking the oath of office after winning the election. Where things will get really crazy is if Trump wins the election but is convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 in the weeks between winning the election and taking the oath of office.
Click to expand...
Well he can't pardon himself of state charges and he has more than a few at the state level.
 
fishonjazz said:
Cool thing about pardons is that from what I understand trump can't be pardoned if he is convicted for the upcoming Georgia indictments since it isn't a federal indictment. So at least we can agree that would be pretty cool (since you are no fan of trump)
Click to expand...
Beat me to it fishbro.
 
If a sitting president loses an election, but attempts to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the winner of that election, in order to remain in power, but fails, he is allowed to run for the office of presidency again. And I sincerely wish that I don’t have any idea what I’m talking about in saying that, and must be mistaken, lol….
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Okay, but you skipped right over the part about showing that there is a rise of conspiracism at all. You blurt it out and show zero evidence that there is any more conspiracism today than 50 years ago with the moon landings, death of Elvis, and the JFK assassination. If you are alleging that there is more consipricism today then show your work on that point before you set about constructing explanations for a phenomenon that may not exist outside your own imagination.
Click to expand...

I’m not alone, but no matter, the most recent studies would indicate I’m quite mistaken in thinking conspiracism has increased:

journals.plos.org

Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time?

The public is convinced that beliefs in conspiracy theories are increasing, and many scholars, journalists, and policymakers agree. Given the associations between conspiracy theories and many non-normative tendencies, lawmakers have called for policies to address these increases. However, little...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org

This does not mean QAnon was therefore irrelevant, or not worth noting, at least so many times.

www.voanews.com

Trump Seen Moving Closer to QAnon Conspiracy

Apparent embrace of discredited movement comes ahead of an expected 2024 bid by former president to reclaim the White House
www.voanews.com www.voanews.com

And if there is a spike, in the Trump era, which my recency bias interpreted as an increase, it’s also not irrelevant to look a little deeper.


Abstract​

In the present contribution, we examine the link between societal crisis situations and belief in conspiracy theories. Contrary to common assumptions, belief in conspiracy theories has been prevalent throughout human history. We first illustrate historical incidents suggesting that societal crisis situations—defined as impactful and rapid societal change that calls established power structures, norms of conduct, or even the existence of specific people or groups into question—have stimulated belief in conspiracy theories. We then review the psychological literature to explain why this is the case. Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations. We then explain that after being formed, conspiracy theories can become historical narratives that may spread through cultural transmission. We conclude that conspiracy theories originate particularly in crisis situations and may form the basis for how people subsequently remember and mentally represent a historical event.
 
Hmmm…


“Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are in possession of text messages and emails directly connecting members of Donald Trump’s legal team to the early January 2021 voting system breach in Coffee County, sources tell CNN.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before a grand jury next week. Several individuals involved in the voting systems breach in Coffee County are among those who may face charges in the sprawling criminal probe.

Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top