I think it's gonna play out somehow.

Before the primary? After? Before the general election? After?

If he loses, then it's moot. If he wins - then what? Supposedly he's not eligible to hold office. Does that mean he's not eligible to run for office?

Those questions and more NEED answers. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is loaded with conservative ideologues. They could interpret whacko.

If he's not even eligible to run for office then what about all that money he duped as campaign funds, and is using for legal fees?

Then the part of the bill of rights is invalid. Anyone has a right to run if they are over 35 and native born. The constitution elsewhere says that you cannot restrict rights without due process of law.

At the time of the founding, the idea that a trial and punishment could take 3-5 years would have been felt unconstitutional as well... right to a quick and speedy trial and all...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
If the disqualification clause requires a criminal conviction for treason or sedition, then it is meaningless as to any politician running for office for the 3-5 years following the act of treason or sedition because that's how long the legal process will take to play out. Suppose trump was at the head of the crowd pushing it's way into the Capital Building on J6. Should he be allowed to run for the presidency then? Or should he be arrested, tried, convicted and then the appellate process begins?

I disagree that a conviction is necessary. It's a determination to be made by the folks in individual states who decide which candidates qualify to be on the ballot.

I would hope there would be a trial and conviction before the election.

The appeals may take longer, but once the conviction is registered, he becomes ineligible until any successful appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think it's gonna play out somehow.

Before the primary? After? Before the general election? After?

If he loses, then it's moot. If he wins - then what? Supposedly he's not eligible to hold office. Does that mean he's not eligible to run for office?

Those questions and more NEED answers. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is loaded with conservative ideologues. They could interpret whacko.

If he's not even eligible to run for office then what about all that money he duped as campaign funds, and is using for legal fees?

quote:

Originally posted by k-22hornet.:

quote:

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

No wonder all the Lefties/Communists continue to bang the 'insurrection' drum.

In case you missed it, here is what he said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Please. J6 happened because of trump. Trying to say otherwise is bullshit.

Neither you nor I are trained or experienced lawyers.

However, I think you have a point, which further complicates things.

The words and meaning of "due process" and "conviction" are important, I think.

Also, the definition of "insurrection" and "rebellion" are important.

Here's something:

https://www.thefederalcriminal...vernment%20authority.

18 U.S. CODE § 2383 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

The thing is that Trump hasn't been charged with "insurrection". That could change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0...-jan-6-violence.html

The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I would hope there would be a trial and conviction before the election.

The appeals may take longer, but once the conviction is registered, he becomes ineligible until any successful appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think it's gonna play out somehow.

Before the primary? After? Before the general election? After?

If he loses, then it's moot. If he wins - then what? Supposedly he's not eligible to hold office. Does that mean he's not eligible to run for office?

Those questions and more NEED answers. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is loaded with conservative ideologues. They could interpret whacko.

If he's not even eligible to run for office then what about all that money he duped as campaign funds, and is using for legal fees?

This is the best commentary and interview I've seen so far:

https://youtu.be/qYNF4FtO_uc?si=1Z-GsPkWWez3riV5

Arizona Secretary of State on the process for a Trump disqualification

INTERVIEW: Brian interviews Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes about the process that he's considering regarding disqualifying Trump from the ballot, how the courts will play into this, and what the deadline is for a decision.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...cid=socialshare&ei=9

Newsweek says:

The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court. The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.

=================================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ffe3e0041ae8e3&ei=27

Justices to Decide Whether to Take the Trump 14th Amendment Case
Story by John Rossomando • 5h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...15e99c5286fd3a&ei=29

Election Officials In 3 States Are Preparing To Disqualify Donald Trump From Running For President In 2024
Story by Carrie McCabe •
15h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...830b140feab2ac&ei=64

Trump Faces Legal Push to Bar Him From 2024 Ballots Over Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Story by Zoe Tillman •
19h

In their lawsuit filed Tuesday in Denver state court, the voters cite a section of the US Constitution that bars officials from holding office if they engaged in an insurrection against the government. They accused Trump of trying to “subvert” the Constitution and the US election system “through a sustained campaign of lies” and by inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.

The Colorado suit is part of a broader push by Trump’s critics to challenge the former president’s eligibility as he campaigns for a return to the White House.

A handful of lawsuits filed over Trump’s eligibility have been dismissed after judges found plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to sue. In the Colorado case, the mix of Republican and unaffiliated voters argue that as “eligible electors” they have the right to bring claims under state law.

It’s the first case involving Trump’s eligibility filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The organization succeeded last year in getting former New Mexico county official Couy Griffin removed from office under Section 3 after he was convicted on federal charges in connection with the Jan. 6 attack.

Noah Bookbinder, CREW’s president, acknowledged in a statement that the new case is unprecedented. The group said Colorado’s laws made it a “good venue” and that it planned to file ballot challenges against Trump in other states. Other organizations have vowed to press similar ballot challenges.

“You don’t break the glass unless there’s an emergency,” Bookbinder said.

The Colorado suit cites an earlier case that CREW and other legal advocacy groups have highlighted before in discussing Trump’s eligibility. In 2012, a federal appeals court entered an order saying states could exclude candidates if they were “constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” The order was written by US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was a lower court judge at the time.

Efforts to disqualify Trump’s Republican allies in the House from the 2022 midterms resulted in mixed court rulings on the viability of Section 3 claims, though none succeeded in keeping candidates off the ballot. The special congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack recommended in its final report that Congress adopt enforcement procedures. Several bills have failed so far.

The Denver case was filed against Trump, but also names Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold as a defendant because her office runs the state’s election operation. Griswold, who in the past declined to take a position on the ballot question, released a statement Wednesday saying she looked forward to the court’s ruling on the issue and was “hopeful that this case will provide guidance to election officials on Trump’s eligibility as a candidate for office.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...111e3eb871a318&ei=68

Trump files motion to move challenge attempting to bar him from 2024 ballot in Colorado to federal court
Story by By Hannah Rabinowitz and Marshall Cohen, CNN •
17h

https://youtu.be/a4ctpwX23TA?si=Ij6VBNVv_d5FyM28

bounced off the Republican primary ballot because he “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” and is constitutionally barred from holding any federal office again? And will it succeed where a similar Florida case filed? Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why the 1-2 punch of Colorado and a similar Arizona case may just do that trick.”

So bar Trump from the ballot before he's convicted of anything, even crimes he's not charged of?!

If the effort in Colorado is successful, and then by some twist Trump is acquitted or found to be not guilty, then THIS would be the best example of election interference one could imagine.

Turn of events? Then and now?

IMO, the passage of the 14th amendment, especially section 3, was EXACTLY the best example of election interference.

We don't have to imagine that because we all know the original intent of the amendment.

The problem or issue now is that part of the constitution is still valid and hasn't been tested in the context of now.

Congress is too dysfunctional to deal with it. So, this SCOTUS will, for better or worse.

Their decision will affect the future of the country FAR more than the abortion decisions, for example.

Another thing - I think the probability of Trump being acquitted or found not-guilty on most of the counts is close to zero chance.

I also think the probability of a toad juror causing a hung jury is high.

Also, as a fan of political drama, I hope Trump is barred. I want to see what happens then.

Also, if Trump is barred - what about his co-conspirators in congress?

What about all his co-conspirators regarding indictments for their actions on or about Jan 6.

==========================================================================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7dcc1d37df60c5&ei=59

Don’t blame the 'dumpster cult' for banal evil.

The whole above linked article is worth reading, but there's one section worth cut & paste:

We should just listen to him. (Peter Navarro)

“I get a House of Representatives controlled by Nancy Pelosi trying to put me in prison,” he told reporters. “Why? Because I’m a Trump guy! I get a Biden White House and a Biden Department of Justice. Does anybody want to tell me I’d be here if Republicans had held the House? Or if President Trump was in office? No! No! So a little bit of righteous indignation.”

In other words, he’s where he is, because the J6 insurrection failed. If it had succeeded, there’d be a Trump White House and a Trump Department of Justice. There’d be no accountability for him, “because I’m a Trump guy!”

---------------------------------------------------------

We should just listen is correct.

I mostly agree with the author, but he misses a significant point. The "insurrection" is still ongoing. It hasn't yet failed. The part before, during and after Jan 6 failed. The conspiracy is still alive, active, planned. The agenda and momentum are still relentless. Navarro explained it as most republicans see it, and believe it. And, most significantly, the insurrection having succeeded on Jan 6, or in the future, namely Trump's election, will result in the same effect.

So, it's down to this:

1. The ongoing insurrection fails or wins.

2. The rule of law fails or wins.

3. The constitution fails or wins.

#1 is contradictory or incompatible with 2 and 3. They can't be mutually inclusive. If 1 fails, the latter win. If 1 wins, the latter fail. That's the zero-sum of it.


The outcomes, in the short term all depend on whether or not Trump gets elected.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
So bar Trump from the ballot before he's convicted of anything, even crimes he's not charged of?!

If the effort in Colorado is successful, and then by some twist Trump is acquitted or found to be not guilty, then THIS would be the best example of election interference one could imagine.

I do not see it as a criminal law issue. The issue is like impeachment that the Supreme Court ruled is a political question that the Courts should not get involved with.

President Trump could violate the prohibition, but not be criminally liable. I just do not think the S. Ct., is going to put the thumb on the scale like they did w Impeachment. The Court w impeachment said we will not intervene. Here I think they will say, this is not our place to exclude from the ballot. The theory is untested and was intended to be used against ex-Confederate officials, but President Johnson followed a more Lincoln like approach with pardons and clemency. Congress impeached and nearly removed him for it.

Now, the National GOP can bar President Trump from appearing as a R, Candidate. I have given that caselaw before. That is what needs to happen.

quote:

The issue is like impeachment that the Supreme Court ruled is a political question that the Courts should not get involved with.

Is the Constitution and its deciphering and application a "political question"?

What's SCOTUS for if not deciphering the constitution and how it applies?

So, they said impeachment applies to the political arena, or more specifically the branch of Congress.

This seems different.

Are they, SCOTUS, gonna shuck this or do their duty to avoid the chaos?

I don't think they have a choice but to hear it and make some precedence.

There are several words that could be hinge points, which they could use to avoid barring Trump or any other insurrectionist who previously took oath of office.

Officer, or office - there is a question of whether POTUS is an officer or holds office within the context of the 14th, sec 3.

Then the section 3, addresses only whether one can serve , not run.

Then he's not been charged with insurrection.

Also, what's "rebellion".

There are too many ways SCOTUS can shuck this.

Also, there are too many ways it can be weaponized unjustly, if not clarified.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ced01515f658e1&ei=80

The political perils of using the 14th Amendment on Trump
Story by Aaron Blake • 2h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=44

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Rom?ocid=socialshare

I am just telling you what they did with Impeachment when a fed judge named Nixon sued to stop his impeachment.

The Court said not our problem and not our circus.

Well, I do appreciate your feedback and views on stuff like this.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But, , it is highly doubtful that the disqualification clause is still valid. The second sentence in that section, which Trump critics conveniently ignore, provides: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, I do appreciate your feedback and views on stuff like this.

I hope you know, I was not trying to be rude. You may be right. The theory is untested, and the provision did not require a conviction. The point was to bare Confederate officials from ever holding and office again. However, Johnson, as Lincoln would and wanted to do more, went soft.

When the Court made that decision not to get involved in Impeachment proceedings, calling it political question, they were interpreting the Constitution. Some things are purely the relentless of the legislature. In that problem Congress.

Again, I believe the better answer is to deny President Trumps affliction w the Republican Party. A lot of caselaw says, the national party gets to decide who can run for a party.

Now, that would almost guarantee a dem win as the stumpers would leave or stay home, but that is the kind of political action to expunge the element that needs to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbithabit:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But, , it is highly doubtful that the disqualification clause is still valid.

The second sentence in that section, which Trump critics conveniently ignore, provides:

“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

I quoted your post but separated the sentences for clarity between your comments and the words of sec 3.

And I looked it up to be sure you got it correct. https://constitution.findlaw.c...he%20United%20States.

You didn't say why you think it's no longer valid.

Also, what makes you think the second sentence is "conveniently" ignored by never Trumpers?

And what makes you think congress can get their act together to vote likewise on ANYTHING by 2/3 of the members, both houses?

The word "disability" -- does that apply to each individual case or does such removal apply to the whole section of the amendment?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, I do appreciate your feedback and views on stuff like this.

I hope you know, I was not trying to be rude. You may be right. The theory is untested, and the provision did not require a conviction.

Again, I believe the better answer is to deny President Trumps affliction w the Republican Party. A lot of caselaw says, the national party gets to decide who can run for a party.

Now, that would almost guarantee a dem win as the stumpers would leave or stay home, but that is the kind of political action to expunge the element that needs to happen.

Yes, I know you were not being rude.

As to the national party dumping Trump - that ain't gonna happen as the situation is now, especially if there's any chance he will run 3rd party. I've said before that I wouldn't be surprised if somehow they maneuver to bar him from the ballot, and pass the blame on anyone or anything but themselves. SCOTUS could get them off the hook with Trumpsters. What better scapegoat than the constitution. It's been a while since they honored it anyway.

Barring him could save the GOP from total ruin, and the country too, BTW. That's more than a twofer - imagine that!! The Dems doing the GOP establishment a favor - a gift, something they don't have the courage and morals to do for themselves, although they want to, and giving Trump's base a little Tuff-Love, for the sake of the country, of course.

Oh, the irony.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b642ed7ae0df69&ei=53

Why Trump's Candidacy Faces Graver Threat From 14th Amendment Case In Colorado: 'One Of The First On The Issue, And Not The Last'
Story by Shanthi Rexaline •
23h

Alawsuit filed in a Colorado state court to prevent former President Donald Trump from contending for the presidency under the 14th Amendment could have far-reaching implications, according to a report.

What Happened: A lawsuit filed in a Colorado state court by Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, or CREW, on behalf of four Republican and two unaffiliated voters seeks to protect the rights of voters to “to fully participate in the upcoming primary election by ensuring that votes cast will be for those constitutionally qualified to hold office,” Jordan Rubin noted in a blog post on MSNBC.

The lawsuit comes close on the heels of a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit in Florida that sought to keep Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot under the 14th Amendment.

While dismissing the Florida lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg said that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”

Why It’s Important: The filings in the federal court and the state court could be different, Rubin said. The latest suit is better poised to get the courts to answer the question of whether Trump should be disqualified from running for the presidency, he added.

Trump has since sought the removal of the Colorado state case to federal court just as he has done in the Georgia election subversion case, Rubin pointed out.

“In the meantime, this lawsuit poses a bigger threat to Trump's candidacy than the recently dismissed case in federal court, and it will be worth watching,” he added.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told Politico that "there have been conversations among secretaries" about the idea of barring Trump from seeking the presidency. She said the lawsuit in her state was likely one of the first on the issue — but not the last.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b642ed7ae0df69&ei=64

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has had his request to move his trial to a federal court rejected by the judge presiding over his case.

Meadows, along with former president Donald Trump and 17 others, is charged in relation to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. All have pleaded not guilty.

An attempt to move their cases out of Georgia state court was hinted by Trump and other co-defendants in Fulton County. The latest ruling on Meadows’ case, however, suggests any similar attempts are likely to fail.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Donald Trump’s Election Money To Be Seized ‘If Obtained by Fraud’

That's an interesting twist, which I had thought about but didn't see any press on it.

What Trump did was in effect the same as a "go fund me" account based in lies, both the BIG LIE and many, many others - a constant stream of lies.

There's probably several campaign laws that apply, plus just plain fraud, state and fed.

Wouldn't that be the chits?

The copyright for the solicitation picture that he used belongs to the Fulton County Sheriff. I don't think that he was given permission to use it. The sheriff could and should try to go after the money.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e36df57964a65b&ei=15

GOP lawyer with ties to three Trump rivals enters 14th Amendment fray
Story by Amy Gardner, Patrick Marley, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez •
15h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4647ff2b1c5b75f&ei=9

We Sued to Knock Trump Off the Ballot. Here's Why We'll Win | Opinion
Story by Eric Olson, Sean Grimsley, and Nikhel Sus •
2h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c7ab0ea45f7522&ei=11

Trump hit with 'early loss' after 'embarrassing' stall tactic in lawsuit: analysis
Story by Matthew Chapman •
12h

"I noted a possible early complication in the Colorado case, with Trump trying to move it to federal court (the same sort of thing some criminal defendants in Trump’s Georgia prosecution want to do there)," wrote Rubin. But ultimately, "The effort was quickly shot down by a federal judge. That's because Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who's named in the suit along with Trump, would have also needed to want to move the case to federal court. But she didn't. That flaw in Trump’s removal attempt led Chief U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer to dismiss it as 'defective' on Tuesday, sending it back to the state court."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c8724efc5fb4e7d&ei=8

Trump Faces Supreme Court Case He Can't Afford to Lose
Story by Katherine Fung • 2h

I guess TDS is what passes for liberal porn these days!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...64c391b72f42b&ei=117

Commentary: Framers would likely agree with disqualifying Trump under the 14th Amendment
Opinion by Ivan Eland, Tribune News Service • 1d

wake me up after he's both charged and convicted of a relevant to the 14th charge --

otherwise it's 3rd world politics to keep a party silent --

more proof that the electoral college, vs popular vote, was a good idea

Is there anything else you would like to be "woke" for?

My view of the reasons for the 14th, sec 3 especially, is to thwart 3rd world politics, such as the fascist lies and acts demonstrated by Trump and supporters.

I have a question for attorneys herein - as Doc Butler would say - appeal to authority.

Regarding the words "insurrection" or "rebellion" in the 14th, sec 3, what is the burden of proof?

And does Trump's second impeachment establish the burden of proof, more likely than not or whatever it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Donald_Trump#Verdict

The House passed the article of impeachment on January 13, 2021, by a 232–197 vote. All 222 Democrats voted to impeach, joined by 10 Republicans (including House Republican Conference chairwoman Liz Cheney). Four Republicans did not vote, and the other 197 Republicans voted no.

Voting results
Article I
(Incitement of insurrection)

Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021, with 57 senators voting in favor of conviction and 43 voting against.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

And does Trump's second impeachment establish the burden of proof, more likely than not or whatever it is?


Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021, with 57 senators voting in favor of conviction and 43 voting against.

You answered your own question -

If it's so easy to prove, it should be an open and shut case, done by article III.

heck, at this point, there should be an actual court trial to settle the point - hold it in DC, not Dallas.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

And does Trump's second impeachment establish the burden of proof, more likely than not or whatever it is?


Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021, with 57 senators voting in favor of conviction and 43 voting against.

You answered your own question -

If it's so easy to prove, it should be an open and shut case, done by article III.

heck, at this point, there should be an actual court trial to settle the point - hold it in DC, not Dallas.

I would hope the "perfect" phone call made to Ga. Sec. of State Raffensperger would be all the evidence required to lock that fat bastard up for life.

DJT : "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779-vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ensperger_phone_call

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

And does Trump's second impeachment establish the burden of proof, more likely than not or whatever it is?


Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021, with 57 senators voting in favor of conviction and 43 voting against.

You answered your own question -

If it's so easy to prove, it should be an open and shut case, done by article III.

heck, at this point, there should be an actual court trial to settle the point - hold it in DC, not Dallas.

I don't think I answered my own question, which may be due to my limited understandings. I'm not connecting the dots.

First, it's my understanding that the impeach trial in the senate is not a criminal trial. But the determination of "insurrection" per the 14th, sec 3, is not criminal either. There is a difference in a criminal conviction burden of proof and a civil case burden of proof. The requirement in the senate for conviction is 2/3 vote in favor, which was not met, thus acquittal. The penalty for conviction in the senate is removal from office, and I assume prevention from holding office again, nothing else, but not specifically per the 14th, sec. 3, which would be moot in such situation.

But as we all know, the "Burden of Proof" is a rather ridiculous concept in a political arena such as the US senate and the Texas senate.

Second, outside the impeachment process, trump hasn't been specifically charged with insurrection, so no court case is pending specifically on such charge. Could SCOTUS let him off due to the acquittal in the senate?

But I think the votes in the senate on the charge of insurrection and conviction, 57 in favor, 43 against, more than satisfies the "more likely than not" burden of proof std, if that's the appropriate standard for the 14th, sec 3 to kick in.

My questions are: does the senate vote count for anything outside the senate, regarding the 14th, sec 3?

Does the January 6 committee report count for anything re 14 sec 3?

IOW, even when and if this all goes to SCOTUS, how are they going to decide if Trump is an insurrectionist, per the 14th, sec 3?

The early analysis by those two conservative scholars said something to the effect that Sec 3 was self-executing. I consider that BS because I think there is a burden of proof associated with this. Of course, it's been met in various ways, whatever level is applicable, but not deemed so in a court with power to render/apply the law one way or another.

Let's make it simple - on impeachment
The US consitution
Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of , Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

AAs he is no longer in office, and wasn't convicted, it's no longer relevant

Now, a brief court case, presented with overwhelming evidence, could convict him -

let's see it happen

Jan 6 commission means nothing in court

I didn't make up the 14th, section 3.

It doesn't mention impeachment or high crimes, as I recall.

Which raises another question, if Trump is convicted of High Crimes, per any of the 91 counts in four indictments, are those High Crime Convictions enough to bar him from office per the 14th, sec 3, without impeachment?

I remember reading something that said he could serve as POTUS from prison, if elected.

Let's imagine something even more ridiculous than what's already - he is elected, and is convicted of High Crimes, and subsequently impeached under the provision you stated, then MTG (or clone) becomes POTUS!!!!

Even more ridiculous - suppose he's elected, convicted of high crimes, does anyone really think congress will impeach, convict and remove him?

Amazing-- no other punishment in America with Due Process (That's the 4th amendment, if you needed prompting) -- but let it be your political pony, well, let's don't even have a show trial ..

amazing

I'm not advocating no due process.

I'm just wondering how it can be satisfied in this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not advocating no due process.

I'm just wondering how it can be satisfied in this situation.

have a trial
go through appeals process, if needed
SCOTUS for final result

that's THE process, for everyone