Democrats 2024 Election interference (Page 2): I believe it will come down to a nuanced legal argument (omission, commission, legal duty vs. moral duty, intent, etc).

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

srg wrote:

Very well said.
Or, in a more common sense manner one could just summarize his words, heard on TV's everywhere, when speaking to the assembling throng; "Let's march down to the capital to overturn the election. I'll be right there with you "
Oh, and while we're at it, let's hang the vice president for disagreeing with me.

I believe it will come down to a nuanced legal argument (omission, commission, legal duty vs. moral duty, intent, etc).

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Architect1776 wrote:

Interesting how some stupid states are taking President Trump off the ballot.
This is illegal as we all know and it is a federal matter of so called insurrection.
Remember that Pelosi and committees have never actually indicted the President let alone convicted him of any insurrection.
These states are thus just interfering with the election which is a federal offense.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment DOESN'T require an indictment or a conviction.

The 14th Amendment is about QUALIFICATIONS!

Because of trump's actions from November 3, 2020 up to and on January 6, 2021, trump no longer qualifies to hold any elected office at any level.

Because trump is no longer qualified to hold an elected office, states can and should be barring trump from appearing on their ballots.

How hard is that for you and other trump cult members to understand?

Actions have consequences!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Architect1776 wrote:

Who knows what the Supreme Court will say.
But if they put President Trump back on the ballot it will be the final word on the fake insurrection stories.
After that, any mention of an insurrection will be proof that the person saying it is a complete idiot and a 100% liar.
Thus all media, democrats, RINOs and other clowns ... will be shown, beyond all doubt to be wrong as real Americans already know.

You seem to forget that a Colorado Judge has already declared that there was an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that ruling, and declared that trump was an insurrectionist!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Architect1776 wrote:

That section requires engagement.
There is no proof of any engagement.
Of course libs are too stupid and moronic to know that.

The evidence presented by the January 6th Committee says that you're lying.

As witnesses are flipping and turning into government witnesses, they're testifying to everything that went on behind the scenes, linking trump to the insurrection.

But you conveniently left out the "aid and comfort" part of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment!

trump aided his fellow insurrectionists, when he delayed for over three hours, by not calling them off and asking them to leave the US Capitol Building!

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

The evidence presented by the January 6th Committe... (show quote)

And the senate agreed 57-43

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

The evidence presented by the January 6th Committe... (show quote)

I am simply amazed at your insight and knowledge as to exactly what any insiders who flipped will say and that you have concluded that Trump had a legal duty (not a moral duty) to intervene in those three hours. You should share this knowledge and analysis with the judge. Why even have a trial? You could save the public all that time and money.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

And the senate agreed 57-43

The Jan 6th select committee had zero semblance of an actual trial where one has the constitutional right to confront and cross examine witnesses and present an affirmative defense. You should know this regardless of how you feel about the pompous orange man.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Effate wrote:

I am simply amazed at your insight and knowledge as to exactly what any insiders who flipped will say and that you have concluded that Trump had a legal duty (not a moral duty) to intervene in those three hours. You should share this knowledge and analysis with the judge. Why even have a trial? You could save the public all that time and money.

The peaceful transfer of power is founded in the constitution and the presidential oath of office states:

“……. will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.””

So yes he had a legal duty

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Effate wrote:

The Jan 6th select committee had zero semblance of an actual trial where one has the constitutional right to confront and cross examine witnesses and present an affirmative defense. You should know this regardless of how you feel about the pompous orange man.

What does my post have to do with the 6 Jan committee .

Two entirely different actions.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

What does my post have to do with the 6 Jan committee .

Two entirely different actions.

You weren’t responding to shutterbugs Jan 6 post when you cited the Senate vote?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

DennyT wrote:

The peaceful transfer of power is founded in the constitution and the presidential oath of office states:

“……. will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.””

So yes he had a legal duty

Again, he may be found guilty ultimately but I don’t believe you are more well versed in the legal nuances regarding the omission(s) during that three hours than the many attorneys on both sides of the council table who are probably wrestling with that very issue.

jcboy3

Architect1776 wrote:

Interesting how some stupid states are taking President Trump off the ballot.
This is illegal as we all know and it is a federal matter of so called insurrection.
Remember that Pelosi and committees have never actually indicted the President let alone convicted him of any insurrection.
These states are thus just interfering with the election which is a federal offense.

The Constitution. Repeat after me. The Constitution.

Indictment or conviction is not required; wasn't required for previous instances.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Effate wrote:

I am simply amazed at your insight and knowledge as to exactly what any insiders who flipped will say and that you have concluded that Trump had a legal duty (not a moral duty) to intervene in those three hours. You should share this knowledge and analysis with the judge. Why even have a trial? You could save the public all that time and money.

You obviously haven't been following the news, and the court filings, or you wouldn't have made your flippant comments!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Effate wrote:

The Jan 6th select committee had zero semblance of an actual trial where one has the constitutional right to confront and cross examine witnesses and present an affirmative defense. You should know this regardless of how you feel about the pompous orange man.

A hearing is different than a trial!

The place for confronting and cross-examining witnesses is during a trial.

During a police investigation, does a defendant get to confront and cross-examine police witnesses? No, that doesn't happen until the defendant has been indicted!

Yes, there are often depositions taken by the defense, but that happens during the discovery phase, leading up to the trial.

"You should know this."

The January 6th Committee uncovered evidence which was turned over to the DOJ.

The DOJ took that evidence and used it to conduct their own investigation(s) into trump and anyone else who was involved in the planning, organizing, and funding of the January 6, 2021 Insurrection.

Unfortunately for trump, he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to say. He was up to his eyeballs in the planning of the January 6, 2021 attempted coup, and the Insurrection.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

A hearing is different than a trial! br br The pl... (show quote)

You said, “ During a police investigation, does a defendant get to confront and cross-examine police witnesses? No, that doesn't happen until the defendant has been indicted!” but you left out one important constitutional consideration. The accused is cloaked in the presumption of innocence until he or she is found guilty.

“You should know this”

When you read biased news accounts and use them as evidence to find someone guilty and state facts not yet in evidence then I may question the validity. You have every right to personally conclude one’s guilt or innocence based on what you know or think you know but to state them as facts rather than your conclusions, well…