I think the jurisprudence is pretty clear that Trump can and should be disqualified. The precedents show that conviction isn’t necessary and the plain language of is that the person who sits in the Office of President is a Constitutional officer. That’s more reason why I believe the court will try to find a way to side step it.
I don't see how that would work. Colorado is using the insurrection clause to disqualify Trump. It would be like saying the Republican Party could decide to run a 25 year old. He either meets the qualifications or not.
... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof We already know that Trump money paid the Jan 6 organizers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/aeri...lions-january-6-organizers-report/7658737001/
Already reports of threats against the Maine SOS just as there were against the CO judges... trump is a mobster.
Trump appears to be concerned that the USSC will rule against him for political reasons ... versus say legal reasons. I wonder if that thought has actually crossed his mind, after spending a lifetime unconcerned about laws and if there would be consequences if he broke one. God help the USSC, if they rule against Trump in the eligibility case. No doubt, Trump will post their home addresses on Truth Social and let his crazies do their thing. Trump may very well be unconcerned if one or two USSC justices have to die, like his concern for Pence, in order to make his point. Trump concerned conservative Supreme Court 'may rule against him' on state ballot exclusions: report Former president Donald Trump “has expressed concern” that conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court “may rule against him” as his advisers gear up to challenge decisions in Colorado and Maine that exclude him from the Republican primary ballot, the New York Times reports. According to the Times, Trump fears “the conservative justices will worry about being perceived as ‘political’ and may rule against him, according to a person with direct knowledge of his private comments.” Last week, Maine joined Colorado in barring Trump from the Republican primary ballot “over challenges stemming from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,” the Times reports. That section “states that any officer of the United States who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution cannot ‘have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’” Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan note Trump’s team is “preparing as soon as Tuesday to file challenges” to those decisions. Per the Times:
"What do we do" is a threat? Meanwhile trump has been having his maga hit squad sending actual threats to state officials of MI and CO and the judges in CO.
Interesting article about the history of drafting and ratifying A24 S3. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fra...lification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364 The part I find most interesting:
This part also for broader context. Intention was ALL persons. Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who led the Republicans in debate, insisted that it wouldn't be enough to deprive the former confederates of their right to vote in federal elections -- he wanted them banished from government service altogether. "I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty-five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States," Howard said on the Senate floor on May 23, 1866. "I think such a provision would be a benefit to the nation." After about a week of discussions with colleagues, Howard offered the Sec. 3 language that was ultimately ratified. Howard's revision removed specific references to "the" rebellion and added an important qualifier: those who were to be excluded from government service would have to have violated prior oaths to defend the constitution by having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [it] or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Senators rejected various attempts to re-insert the word "voluntarily," or to restrict the exclusion to those who violated their oaths during the time they were still serving in office. There was a great deal of concern voiced in debate that Howard's exclusion clause might leave the South ungovernable, with so many confederates poised to be disqualified from serving, even in state posts. Opponents expressed fear that the provision might alienate Union-loyal supporters in state legislatures. Nevertheless, the version Howard introduced made it through the entire ratification process and became effective on July 9, 1868.
FA and FO. Section 3 cleaning up the insurrection mess Trump left behind ... [AP] New lawsuit seeks to keep Rep. Scott Perry off ballot for insurrection
All they do is focus on the election because winning the election is how he makes all of this go away. What Abba or whatever her name is surely is trying to do is float conspiracy theories for their base where if Trump loses the immunity case at the Supreme Court it's not because he actually lost. It's because these justices are scared of big bad Democrats. It also helps try and work the refs a bit especially with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and the Handmaid lady where they know that they watch Fox News and if it's mainstream out there on the right this notion that they are too scared that maybe they can force them to rule a bit more in Trump's favor. It's classic working the refs. Also Habberman is such a joke. She is constantly used and manipulated by the Trump propaganda machine. They aren't "WORRIED" and there's not this big drama going on behind the scenes that Habberman just so happens to have behind the scenes access to. Habberman is allowed to see and hear what they want her to go on CNN and say, and say it in a way that sounds like she's a serious journalist. Again... EVERYTHING they do is meant to drive turnout on the right by juicing his base so he has a punchers chance at winning the election. Juice the base, and hope other allies like Putin can get 3rd party candidates out there like Stein, and West to split off enough of the left progressive votes... and Trump wins the election, and then becomes president for the rest of his miserable life, and we all get to live under his grotesque shadow.
