Ex-president’s lawyers made clear their preference and intentions to delay proceedings as they opposed December trial date

Ex-president’s lawyers made clear their preference and intentions to delay proceedings as they opposed December trial date

  • DarkGamer@kbin.socialOP
    4·
    2 years ago

    The courts need to act quickly though, because obviously he will stall for time in the hopes he’ll be president again and able to pardon himself.

    Unfortunately, a felony conviction would not disqualify Trump from running. He could run from prison like Eugene V. Debs did. To disqualify Trump the best bet would be invoking the 14th amendment for having, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” but that would be unprecedented, it’s an open question whether congress could disqualify a presidential candidate, and that’s a different matter than the classified documents scandal.

    • Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social
      9·
      2 years ago

      I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem.

      It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection).

      THAT is the problem- and it’s an unprecedented problem. The 14th established the precedent, and no, trump IS guilty and we all know it- “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal assumption designed to ensure due process and the protection of civil liberties. It is an assumption and not a statement of fact.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.socialOP
        1·
        2 years ago

        I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem. It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection). … The 14th established the precedent

        That’s not what’s being said here, and the precedent regarding the 14th probably isn’t what you’re presuming. From the article I linked above:

        The [14th] amendment was invoked one time in more than a century to bar someone from office
        There is some historical precedent, as the amendment has been used to bar someone from office — but only once in more than a century.
        In 1919, Congress used the 14th Amendment to bar Victor Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin and an elected official, from joining the House because he actively opposed the US entering World War I.
        In that case, a special committee convened and concluded that Berger was unfit for office. He was then barred by a simple majority in the Senate and the House. Because of this, some believe congressional precedent shows only a simple majority is needed.
        But Congress barring someone from joining its own body is notably different, Kalir said.
        “To think that the US Congress could prevent someone from becoming president of the United States other than through impeachment is big — it’s a big legal leap.”
        Berger’s case was also 102 years ago, and there has been no use of this section since.
        Kalir said if it were invoked today, it could be challenged in court and ultimately take years to play out.

        It might be possible, but it’s never been done before so it’s likely to be challenged and appealed. Since Republicans have corrupted the supreme court I wouldn’t hold my breath that this will work, nor do I expect majorities in both houses to uphold the law when it comes to Trump. It should certainly be attempted regardless.