I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
I think @Beerman and I are saying the same thing. He has been charged, not convicted. Until he is he is qualified to hold office.
In my lay opinion, I don't disagree with the analysis posted by @NRSKarenRN. And, if Mr. Trump is found guilty of any of the charges he is facing regarding his activities on 6 January, it is possible that the Disqualification Clause would disqualify him from holding office. However, as I previously wrote my concern is this: Mr. Trump has not yet been convicted of anything.
Or are you suggesting that an accusation or allegation alone is sufficient to deprive one of their rights?
Agree - which is another reason why I think it's such a long shot. As TMB noted, we have documented participation, not a criminal conviction. Is that enough to disqualify? Luttig and and Tribe seem to think so. We'll have to see what the SJC has to say.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
Agree - which is another reason why I think it's such a long shot.
There are so many legal arguments to this. What is the burden of proof? Preponderance of evidence? This is a worthwhile political and legal discussion in the era of Trump.
Agree - which is another reason why I think it's such a long shot. As TMB noted, we have documented participation, not a criminal conviction. Is that enough to disqualify? Luttig and and Tribe seem to think so. We'll have to see what the SJC has to say.
Many wouldn't even agree that he participated in a insurrection.
I would refer you back to NrsKaren's post above. What, precisely do you disagree with in the Luttig/Tribe argument? What due process has been violated? Have you read the Jan. 6 indictment?
If he received due process and was convicted of treason or insurrection, then of course he should be disqualified per the 14th Amendment.
But, that hasn't happened.
Sounds like your'e claiming youve read the indictment. Then you should know he has not been charged with treason or insurrection.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
If he received due process and was convicted of treason or insurrection, then of course he should be disqualified per the 14th Amendment.
But, that hasn't happened.
Sounds like your'e claiming youve read the indictment. Then you should know he has not been charged with treason or insurrection.
The amendment doesn't say that one must be convicted of those crimes to be disqualified, though. Even giving aid and comfort to those who stormed the capital and delayed the peaceful transfer of power could, ostensibly, be enough to disqualify a person from holding office.
We all know that January 6th happened because Trump was lying about the election and invited his fans to the Capitol. We all know that Trump called the rioters special people. We know that he stood by and did nothing to calm that violent mob for an agonizingly long period of time. We know that Trump elevates those jailed insurrectionists during rallies and promises pardons.
It will be interesting to follow the legal arguments as this strategy to preserve our republic gains traction.
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
heron said:
Personally, while I think that he's disqualified under the 14th Amendment, I also think it's a wicked long shot. The application has never been tested. It's certain to wind up at the SJC.
I agree, and while I find the exchanges between Luttig, Tribe and others on this topic fascinating, it has the drawback of not being well-understood by most others, (including me a good deal of the time) much as the original rationale Eastman predicated his Electoral College argument on. If he had stopped there instead of going activist, he probably would still be employed by Chapman University.
I also think Pence lawyer Greg Jacob attempted to draw this distinction in his email exchange with Eastman, who was continuing to harangue him even after the riot started.
Thinking back on it, I think the January 6 Committee did a good job balancing oversimplification vs MEGO syndrome.
Off topic, but kinda funny. I saw the Jeanine Pirro rants on social media. It hasn't aged well.
Quote
Fox News' Jeanine Pirro ranted on the air just days before the 2016 election that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton couldn't be president because of the investigation into her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
Pirro's monologue has resurfaced and gone viral on social media in recent days because of the mounting legal woes engulfing Donald Trump, whom she has repeatedly defended and praised.
"We cannot have a country led by a president subject to ongoing criminal investigations, potential indictment, and never-ending hearings,” Pirro said at the time in footage that's still posted on Fox News' YouTube channel.
"We cannot have a president under that level of scrutiny that inevitably leads to even more questions and more investigations,” she continued. "And irrespective of what happens to her, whether she's indicted or even guilty, it doesn't matter. Her guilt is a moot point. She cannot take the Oval Office.”
The amendment doesn't say that one must be convicted of those crimes to be disqualified, though. Even giving aid and comfort to those who stormed the capital and delayed the peaceful transfer of power could, ostensibly, be enough to disqualify a person from holding office.
We all know that January 6th happened because Trump was lying about the election and invited his fans to the Capitol. We all know that Trump called the rioters special people. We know that he stood by and did nothing to calm that violent mob for an agonizingly long period of time. We know that Trump elevates those jailed insurrectionists during rallies and promises pardons.
It will be interesting to follow the legal arguments as this strategy to preserve our republic gains traction.
You're right, it doesn't say one must be convicted. So, who gets to decide if he participated in a insurrection or gave aid and comfort to an enemy? His political opponents?
So, now we're back to Democrats wanting to take it out of the hands of the voters, aren't we?
Funny how this Fourteenth Amendment business never came up until the indictments didn't do as intended.
Funny how this Fourteenth Amendment business never came up until the indictments didn't do as intended.
Exactly. All these indictments are only a left-wing witch hunt to stop Trump from becoming President there's no justification in these made up charges. Just like the democrats in many states conspired to make him lose an election that he won through fraud.
It's amazing the gripe the left wing has on the country. It's dangerous.
Oh wait, I forgot I'm not supposed to be sarcastic and have to have sources and documentation for all I say. Ignore me.
But truly, I don't blame them for trying to stop an unfit indicted man facing criminal trials that doesn't believe in Democracy from becoming President if the 14th Amendment allows it. Go for it.
I'm not saying that I support that idea since he could be innocent of all charges. But don't blame them. He's a menace.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
There are plenty of legal experts who disagree he participated in a insurrection or aided an enemy.
Sure. We'll get to see how that thinking holds up in court, most likely. But it is true that those experts would be responsible for the notion among the conservative public that Trump had nothing to do with the riot that was based in his election lies. It was all just a terrible coincidence. We'll all be reminded that, in Trump's view, the rioters are special people who will be pardoned.
heron, ASN, RN
4,671 Posts
Agree - which is another reason why I think it's such a long shot. As TMB noted, we have documented participation, not a criminal conviction. Is that enough to disqualify? Luttig and and Tribe seem to think so. We'll have to see what the SJC has to say.