Flying SquidPence Says Trump Shouldn’t Be Disqualified Even If CONVICTED — Says ‘That Needs To Be Left To The American People’
CandelestineI mean, of course he said that. He’s trying to win a republican primary race right now. Would disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of the primary voting repub electorate be a good strategy for accomplishing that?
If your aim is to be the leader of the Republican ticket, your only option is to change Republican voters’ minds about that.
There’s no reason to run at all if you don’t, since the current default Republican position is “he did nothing wrong and the election was stolen, so he deserves another shot at the presidency.” You can’t run against him and agree with all of those things.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone’s likely to change primary voters’ minds about that, but it’s the only logical strategy a non-Trump Republican could use to win.
Yeah, but Trump tried to kill him. I mean I know he has no integrity or shame, but to see it on this level still amazes me.
He’s so damn scared of taking a hard stance on trump. Pathetic, sniveling coward
Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?
14th amendment, section 3.
JackbyDevNo 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 Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn’t you know that? Duh.
That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.
Ah, so he’s essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.
Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations. And “innocent until proven guilty” is not a legal construct; it’s simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).
5th amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.
You can't treat a person as though they're guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.
An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It’s the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution’s case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it’s very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it’s just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor’s office wants to charge is indicted.
Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?
I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.
Move too slowly and you can’t secure a conviction by election day 2024.
Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal…and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.
I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out…but not leaving enough time for Trump’s lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.
Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win…and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.
Personally I think anyone should be able to run for president. Regardless of your status. The Constitution is a flawed document. The 2A along with that point should not be in there.
That being said, if the US were to vote in that spot stain again, then they deserve what they get. Just unfair the rest of the world has to deal with it.
snooggumsTrump didn't win through the popular vote though, he won in a close contest by taking a few states with massive voter suppression. While that was a technical win, it wasn't the US getting what it deserved when most people did not vote for him and even more people likely to vote against him were uunble to vote.
If he wins again it will be through further attempts to manipulate the vote.
That is all true.
And I’d go a step further. Many of us have voted in the minority our entire lives. Not one president has represented my views.
I agree there are some issues with US voting but there also is a reason for their system. It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Unless we voted in absolutely every issue, regardless if the size, democracy for practical reasons will never be perfect. That being said, your point is a completely different issue than being discussed. At minimum democracy should allow any person to run regardless of their status or how we feel about them. Ted Bundy should have been able to run but if he won, that would be very telling about the US voter.
As someone in a lower populated state, my vote should not have more of an impact on the presidential election as that role represents the entire country like senators represent an entire state. Making each state a winner take all result makes it even worse, since voter suppression is far more effective in winner take all than if the electoral college votes were proportional to the state's vote.
While the concept of each state having equal standing is a reasonable approach, it has skewed so far from the initial implementation that it could be discarded from everything except the Senate and it would be a far better representation of the country as a whole while still giving small states a lot of power and influence.
RagnellSee, this only works if you think everyone in the state is voting in lockstep. They aren't. Let's assume two choices. In a state with 100 people, 64 vote for A and 36 for B. In another state, with 1000 voters, 466 vote for A, 534 for B. A third state with 100 people, 53 vote for A and 47 for B.
That ends up, with an electoral college system, as 2 votes for A and 1 for B. A wins. HOWEVER, only 583 of 1200 people voted for A. 617 people voted for B. Not only are the wishes of the state with 1000 voters devalued, but the minority votes of the people in the smaller states are also devalued, because it is assumed that the STATE votes rather than the PERSON.
There is no reason to keep this system.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Except that “areas” don’t vote.
People do.
And the electoral college does nothing but penalize those who live in certain areas while rewarding others who live in different areas with wildly variable power behind their votes.
There’s no reason an American living in Wyoming should be able to vote 7 times, but if they move to California they only get one vote…yet that is the system were currently living with…except that instead of describing it as discrete votes, the one single vote is just weighed 7x more, so that the system can deceive people into thinking it’s fair and reasonable.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future.
At the risk of having an extended debate in the finer points of what some wigged weirdos were envisioning hundreds of years ago when they wrote this lauded document, I don’t think that the founding fathers necessarily intended that…I think it’s unlikely that they knew that some areas of the country would house as many people as whole states in a single city in the long run.
Wanna know what the wigged weirdos thought?
Slavery.
Half the wigged weirdos had a bunch of people living in their states that they considered property and certainly weren’t about to let them vote…but at the same time, they were doing the work of people who would have to live there if not for the slaves.
So they wanted to have their cake and eat it too: they wanted to have their slaves count as population when it came to representation but they weren’t remotely considering those same people as population when it came to actual voters.
So you got the 3/5 compromise in it’s appalling simplicity, and the electoral college which favored lower population (read: plantation) states by giving them outsized influence over national elections compared to what their actual population would normally warrant.
If that wasn’t enough, the EC was also intended as an insurance policy for the elite: if the population ever overwhelmingly elected someone that the elites overwhelmingly opposed, the EC could serve as a last ditch firewall to protect their interests and simply ignore the will of the voters to choose their own leadership.
You’ll notice that none of the purposes of the EC are in the interests of the people.
The US Constitution, which outlines many aspects including what the three branches of government are, also outlines disqualifiers for consideration.
You cannot just cherry-pick which few words you like and discard everything else! It’s an all-or-nothing thing (as stipulated by the Founding Fathers/signatories and the croonies who’ve adulterated its intentions/meanings over the years).
𝕾𝖕𝖎𝖈𝖞 𝕿𝖚𝖓𝖆By that logic, we should then remove all barriers to run. If a convicted criminal can run, there’s no reason a 28 year old with no criminal background can’t.
Might as well ditch the citizenship requirement while we're at it.
Elon musk starts sweating
oh god, Elon isn’t running for president, is he??
Can’t. He was born in South Africa.
No thank God but he absolutely would if it wasn’t for that pesky “gotta be born here” law.
(Getting this out of the way first: I’m not a Trump supporter.)
Convicted felons can and have run for President in the past. Some campaigns have even been run from prison. Disqualifying somebody from running for office because of a conviction is extremely easy to weaponize. It’s the next step in removing somebody’s right to vote because of a conviction (a thing we do/have done and shouldn’t).
I agree with you on the age thing, though. If you can vote, you should be able to hold office.
I think the charges are pertinent. Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying. Likewise anyone convicted of some voter fraud crimes should have their right to vote revoked. Now I don’t mean all crimes in this areas. But there are definitely some that should stick around
This is the correct answer, in my opinion. Someone that went through a tough patch earlier in life and was convicted of stealing a car or something? Largely irrelevant to their ability to govern, if previous crimes were compensated for (i.e. they served their sentence). Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker.
Regardless, if Trump gets convicted of any of these crimes, that mother fucker will be serving prison time. How can he possibly be president if he’s in jail? At least, for this 2024 cycle. Honestly, I don’t see him lasting another 10 years anyway, so I feel this whole debate will ultimately serve fruitless beyond the 2024 presidency.
Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker.
Sure, now you just need enough evidence to get 12 people (who statistically are going to end up including at least a couple of Republicans and at least one outright Trump supporter) to unanimously agree that he did that and go through the whole process before the election.
How can he possibly be president if he’s in jail?
Can’t use the criminal justice system to prevent an elected official from discharging their duties - the most legitimate use of this is to prevent the DC police from being functionally a third house of Congress by detaining people they expect to vote “wrong.”
So presumably a Trump convicted of crimes that don’t bar him from office (and there are enough different charges in enough courts that he could very well be in prison but not barred from office depending on what sticks) and then elected would be let out for the duration of his term, to the degree required to discharge his duties and put back in the hole at 12:01PM Jan 20, 2029 (like an especially prestigious example of work release). But that’s never a bridge we’ve had to worry about crossing before, so who knows what would actually be done.
cough cough 14th Amendment, Section 3. cough cough
For those who don’t want to follow the reference:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office 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 Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying.
Some of the things he’s been charged with are, but there are SO MANY CHARGES and only some of them would disqualify him from holding office, if convicted. And there’s no solid grounds to deny him anything other than an opportunity to flee the courts until he’s actually convicted of something.
ZalackThe problem is that government isn’t a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.
I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.
We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.
Impeachment. Lmfao.
“You irreversibly damaged our society, we’re going to have a very stern talk when you’re term as leader is up, not before. No, we won’t undo any of the damage you caused.”
HexareiThe problem is it’s not the felony, it’s the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony
elscallrThere’s a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.
TheCraiggersIf this actually works, the next step will be abolishing the two-term limit. “Leave it to the will of the people to decide if they want a dictatorship.”
USA ONEIf Trump os convicted, then by default he is Disqualified per the United States Consitution. Only a 2/3 majority vote in Congress can overcome that.
He’s already persona non grata with MAGA. That ship has sailed, Mike; it’s over the fucking horizon, buddy. TBH, if he’d taken a hard stance and has been saying “yeah, bitch, that’s right, I alone saved democracy and prevented a civil war*, die mad about it”, I’d like him a lot more, I’d even consider him a serious contender for the GOP candidacy. But Mike can’t seem to decide who he is. One day he wakes up and it’s right back to simpering up to Trump and MAGA, and the next day he wakes up and lets MAGA know that he’s got the world’s biggest case of Ligma. Which is it, Mike, are you a crony with a spine that’s weaker than Raditz, or are you a democracy saving, woman avoiding, sigma grinding badass?
*I know that Mike alone didn’t save democracy, but, speaking as someone who’s never voted Republican his whole life, it’s undeniable that Mike played a crucial role in the outcome of J6. It’s one of those few moments in history that really was balanced on the point of a knife and Pence did exactly the right thing by consistently refusing to play ball with these fucks.
blazeraIf the people want to elect a convicted criminal, disqualifying him isnt going to solve the real problem you have
That's true, it won't, but the opportunities for solving the root problem(s) are much less with said convicted criminal in power than they are with him in prison.
Th4tGuyIIThe fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
Recent studies have revealed that republicans never had spines to begin with. They have more DNA in common with worms than any other creature.
The fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
Noo you don't understand, he's not spineless he's principled! /s
You triple posted
Ah, did I? Unfortunately I can't see them, but thanks for letting me know
ScrollinMyDayAwaySo a convicted felon can lose their right to vote, but they can still be President. Gottit.
So a convicted felon can lose their right to vote, but they can still be President. Gottit.
Who can vote is a decision for each state (subject to various federal restrictions added over time, mostly in the form of Constitutional amendments), who can hold the office of President is determined by the Constitution.
Pence being a spineless coward aside, it depends on what he is convicted of. Trump has been charged with a lot of shit, and some of those charges would not disqualify him from the Presidency while others would.
He is technically correct, the best kind of correct. If convicted of anything he is currently being tried for, he would remain legally able to run for president. Whether or not I morally agree with him running, the constitution doesn’t concern itself much with my personal morals.
So brave
ArugulaZOkay, then YOU should be disqualified alongside him, you Vanilla Tic-Tac.
MethylchloroisothiazolinoneLet the people decide? We’ve come full circle. We are here because the rapist defendant decided he didnt like what the people decided.
So it’s only when it comes to the right to bear arms that the constitution actually matters?
As a non US citizen living in Europe US Republican things are confusing to say the least… 😂