Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.

  • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    111 months ago

    Well, if it wasn’t his intent, he sure did sit watching it on TV until it was clear that the US government would not be overthrown, instead of swiftly taking action like any other president would when congress is under attack

    We had to rely on Pence, hiding in the capitol basement, to actually attempt to manage this thing

    • AggressivelyPassive
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      Again, so what?

      Negligent, sure. But that’s not the point.

      You keep arguing on a moral level, which is entirely besides the point. The question is: is he guilty of insurrection? Not bad presidenting, not shitty behavior.

      • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        111 months ago

        It’s strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the capitol (which itself is just a component of his overall objective to illegally overturn the election results) was his intention all along

          • @trafficnab@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            I suppose it would ultimately be up to the supreme court to define what exactly that eligibility requirement (that you basically have to have never tried to overthrow the government) as written in the constitution means, but that doesn’t actually immediately involve a conviction of Trump for anything (as “being under the age of 35” doesn’t require some sort of criminal conviction)

            In the hypothetical scenario, someone would try to remove him from the ballot, and the supreme court would either uphold or reject that based on their interpretation of the language of the amendment