As efforts to use the Disqualification Clause to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024 pick up around the country, the man himself has put forth his first detailed rebuttal of the plan.
I have a question:
Can the state movements on getting Trump disqualified from the ballot use sworn testimony and depositions from the Jan6 committee in their court cases?
My counter would be that if the “losers” seek to correct that loss using the tools of insurrection, then the losers have graduated into becoming insurectionists.
If this was a peaceful disagreement, why was the evacuation of the Legislative branch necessary? They were there to perform their Constitutionally mandated role of certifying the election.
To answer my own question, it’s because the rioters were engaging in violence. Hundreds, if not thousands are in jail for this and they’ve all said that they were there because Trump told them that the election results were invalid. There is a pretty consistent line here which gets you to defining this as Trump’s insurrection.
Technically, this is not a criminal trial and there are no criminal penalties attached so 4th & 6th amendment protections of due process and rights to confront accusers should not apply… But that is up to the court… I am guessing they will revert to common law
Bounce Donnie off the ballot: he doesn’t need help with bouncing off the walls.
Can we stop using using old photos of this excrescence? He needs to be shown in his current saggy and blotchy “glory”.
Thanks
He doesn’t need help losing the election either
The former President argued for a broader definition of “insurrection,” saying that it should be defined as “treasonous warmaking.”
Pretty sure you mean “narrower” here since if you make something broader, it makes it easier to apply to more situations. I have to imagine Trump was try to restrict it to just “treasonous warmaking” and not broadening it to include it as well.
I’m reasonably confident he’s going to lose and, as Donnie’d have it, the bigger the better.
By the same token, though, I’ll give what’s due to those seeking disqualification. I don’t think there’s been a better case for it since 1865.
If folks wanna take the shot, I’m not gonna tell them not to – it’s on their dime.
Sworn testimony is usable. The evidentiary weight it’s afforded is an open question.
This one confused me:
What’s less open is whether the Disqualification Clause only applies to engagement with foreign powers.
Wasn’t the Disqualification Clause predicated by the Civil War, in other words the opposite of engagement with foreign powers?
Never surrender! /s
I couldn’t stop myself from giggling every time this article refers to TFG arguing a point or threading a needle. Is there anyone on Earth ! who actually believes that Mango Mussolini actually could construct a coherent sentence, let alone a legal theory?
Hey, he’s got the big brain that can remember “Person, Woman, Man, Camera…TV.” He clearly has no problem with his brain cells coadhering.
Hell, is there any sentient being who can imagine him actually threading a needle? 
Trump also launched a more brazen argument that the Disqualification Clause requires “assistance to a foreign power” for it to be applicable.
Glad Kim and Putie are picking up the check, Donnie doesn’t.
When I yelled “fire” in that crowded theater, I was only trying to alert people to the danger a real fire would pose. Seriously.
