Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot

https://lemmy.world/post/12537294

Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot - Lemmy.World

So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they’re carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.
When was he convicted of insurrection or anything related to that?
Key Findings From the Jan. 6 Committee’s Report, Annotated

The panel included 17 specific findings in the executive summary of its final report.

The New York Times
Its paywalled, but does it talk about him being convicted of insurrection?

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol outlined 17 specific findings on Monday in the executive summary of its final report. Here are the findings, with additional context.

  • Beginning election night and continuing through Jan. 6 and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on Jan. 6.
  • Annotation: This reflects the committee’s finding that Mr. Trump’s repeated false claims that the election was rigged had both a political and financial motive. During its second hearing, the panel introduced evidence that Trump supporters donated nearly $100 million to Mr. Trump’s so-called Election Defense Fund but that the money flowed instead into a super PAC the president had created. It was not just “the big lie,” the committee said. It was also “the big rip-off.”

  • Knowing that he and his supporters had lost dozens of election lawsuits, and despite his own senior advisers refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome.
  • Annotation: Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election and lost all but one of them. Many of the suits, the committee determined, were brought even after some of Mr. Trump’s closest aides — including his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, and his attorney general, William P. Barr — told him that there was no fraud that could have changed the outcome of the race.

  • Despite knowing that such an action would be illegal, and that no state had or would submit an altered electoral slate, Donald Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes during Congress’s joint session on Jan. 6.
  • I am aware of the facts, but again, there was no conviction of insurrection or anything related. Do you understand how the conviction is the important part, not what people claim?

    Conviction is not the important part, at all.

    The 14th Amendment was intended to keep former Confederates out of government. The people who wrote it had no intention of putting former Confederates on trial.

    I agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.
    It was also meant to apply to any future insurrections, like the one on Jan 6.
    Jan 6th wasnt and insurrection, and trump would need to be convicted of an insurrection not just declared guilty by someone.
    Nobody needed to be convicted in 1868, therefore Trump doesn’t need to be convicted today.
    Yeah because it was literally a civil war…
    The 14th Amendment applies to insurrections, not just wars. Any attempt to stop the function of government by force is an insurrection, including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and Jan 6.
    Sounds good if it is a universally understood insurrection.

    Insurrection has a legal definition, and that’s the definition that counts.

    Judges are the ones responsible for deciding whether a legal definition applies, and so far all those involved said it does.

    Do you see the issue with one judge or a couple judges deciding who get to run for office at their whim?
    Judges already do a lot more than that, they have the power to decide who lives and dies.
    Thats fair, but Trump running for office could be a lot bigger than that if it leads to domestic conflict.
    Judges generally don’t care if their decisions lead to domestic conflict. Nor should they, that’s how rule of law can succumb to mob rule.
    I understand that, but when judges do things like remove people from ballots over accusation, that is obviously a political decision.

    When they order congressional districts that obey the Voting Rights Act, that is also political. It has resulted in elected representatives losing their seats multiple times

    Judges enforce the law, and politics are not above the law

    The law is not what they say, its biased and is not real justice many times. Do you recognize the five or so prosecutions against trump are political, and could result in severe domestic violence?
    I think Trump broke the law and needs to face the consequences. I am not afraid of his threats of violence.
    Okay, lets look at the real estate “crime” because i know real estate well. Who did he defraud and how?

    Right, but 14A has only ever been used to disqualify two categories of people - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted of an appropriate crime (such as the Espionage Act or charges related to Jan 6).

    Trump is neither, so he’s going to challenge being disqualified by anything less on due process grounds. 14A is vague on that. Which ends with SCOTUS essentially deciding what due process should be, likely by looking at how it’s been used historically.

    Can you do a text search and find the word “conviction” in the amendment?

    Here’s the text:

    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.

    And, again, this has all gone through Congress. Trump did it. Everyone knows it. Even the Trumpists know it.

    And that was in reference to a particular known and agreed on insurrection that occurred. I think they were called the “reconstruction amendments”, and the reason was to get things back going after the civil war.

    Yup, and the reason for guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race was also a result of a specific insurrection that occurred.

    I think it’s perfectly fair to say that if someone tried to overthrow the US government, they’re not qualified to be running the US government.

    I think that would be fine if they were convicted of that crime.