Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.
I think this is the courtroom, it’s under Judge Wallace. Anyone know if we can hear it or when it starts?
https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/?streamId=35b1db1b-2ccc-47e8-9f59-33cd656391f9
Edit: Sound just started.
Edit 2: wtf is the defense lawyer doing, trying to get his Etsy paintings sold? I want to support that guy now.
Edit 3: They’re on break and will be back, I didn’t catch how long the break is.
Edit 4: They’re back but it sounds like it will be short and then break for the day.
Edit 5: It is not short, it’s still going.
That’s a wrap, they’ll start at 8:00 tomorrow morning.
These updates were gripping
I know you’re being sarcastic, but it was for people who came into the thread to see if they wanted to click the link or not, there are no recordings. Basically, trump’s lawyers are unsurprisingly smug, want to block everything the people bringing the suit want, and the judge is being ultra fair. If you watched the impeachment trial or Jan. 6th commission, it was very similar to the police testimony there. Meaning, it was really, really bad for the police. Also, I didn’t know about this:
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
In case you did want to buy some of his art:
Those are quite the homoerotic cowboys.
Don’t you go judging Buck and Colt
I’m not judging. They look like fine young men. I just didn’t expect them.
fine young men
So very fine…
Holy shit you’re not kidding, I love it.
Ram Ranch
Just wanted to say thanks for posting that link.
NP, it’s hard to believe it’s not an old timey TV show. You got the shitty defense lawyer and the noble policeman and a very dramatic testimony.
What county to select?
Denver Courtroom 209
Denver, the link should take you right there.
It doesn’t for me, I just get taken to the main page.
Sorry about that, I do remember putting in Denver county but didn’t realize it was necessary.
Sounds like they’ll have to prove ‘specific intent’.
Yeah, they kept referencing something that I haven’t heard before, intent of the law maybe? The people bringing the suit seem to be doing an amazing job. The judge kind of implied that already when she didn’t allow something in court. She said that they’ve already shown a bunch of testimony saying the same thing so I’m going to not let it in. The defense lawyer was all stupidly smug about it, he didn’t realize what she was saying. I’m not sure she’s ever seen a lot of that footage before too, she looked shocked.
I think this means, they’ll have to prove that Trump specifically intended to overturn the election. You may have noticed the manner in which Trump requests illegal things be done on his behalf. He uses language like “It would be great if… [insert illegal activity xyz].” This is what Michael Cohen is referring to when he says “Trump speaks like a mob boss” (this came up in the GA trial last week).
So the court is basically saying that the prosecution has to prove that Trumps intent was to overturn the election. IANAL, but that’s hard to do considering that we don’t know Trumps mind. This trial may depend substantively on the outcome of the GA trial. I’m not sure how much of a paper record has been left behind to prove intent, although from the outside, its very clear.
Block him. He belongs in jail.
Think of all the seditionists who will also be disqualified, once #45 sets the precedent.
Everyone who provided aid, as well.
Which is why getting this conviction right is so important.
The key quote I got from the live stream was the term “specific intent”.
Similar efforts need to be launched in every battleground state for it to stand a chance of blocking his path through the EC
Not just battleground states. Every state should do this. The more the better, imo
In fairness, thanks to the electoral system all we would need is like 6 specific states and he effectively never win. Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, and Missouri would be 79 electoral votes, there are only 538 total, 241 are already virtually unobtainable by conservatives, losing those 79 would mean the most that trump could get would be 218, meaning he could never get the 270 he would need to win and those aren’t even removing states like Florida and Texas because that would never happen.
Neat! I live in Pa, so hopefullyy state won’t let me down lol
Specific intent is what she just said.
Scott Gessler is an absolute asshole here in the Colorado suit.
A triall to decide if the American justice system works? Aren’t they currently cosigning a genocide?
Yeah ok. I’ll hold my breath.
Probably no consequences for him out of this hearing either. Did he even pay on any of his civil trials yet? The executive branch is failing to back up the judicial branch.
Be careful what you wish for. You shouldn’t be able to disqualify someone who hasn’t been convicted yet. Otherwise this will be weaponized, and each side will start using it to remove people from ballots using frivolous lawsuits.
Trump performed a failed coup, I’m okay with going after others that perform coups.
There’s no conviction so we can’t legally says he’s culpable.
The 14th says nothing about a conviction being necessary.
It’s a bit sticky. But yeah, I’d find him in violation of the 14th in 1.433 seconds flat.
Doesn’t matter. Ordinary soldiers for the Confederate army were never convicted either but they were banned regardless.
Yep! And precedent seems like it should weigh heavily. But “no conviction” is the obvious legal road to follow. And his lawyers will follow that road.
Don’t they have to show that one is needed? The Constitution doesn’t say one is.
The 14th shouldn’t need to say a conviction is necessary. It should be obvious a conviction is necessary, otherwise you could derail anyone running for President just by accusing them of sedition then claiming the 14th.
The part of the 14th amendment that would bar someone from being president for engaging in insurrection is worded kind of similarly to article II where it lays out qualifications for president
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Compare that to
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.
You don’t need to be convicted of not being a natural-born citizen to be barred from being president, and in fact you can’t, it’s not a crime. And neither do you need to be convicted of insurrection. These clauses in the Constitution stand on their own.
So a conviction for something isn’t necessary for someone to be barred from office for that thing.
The Constitution could just as easily say “No person shall be president who has worn socks with sandals.” That doesn’t mean wearing socks with sandals is illegal, just that you can’t be president if you’ve done it. You can’t be convicted of it because it’s not a crime (fashion crimes aren’t actually crimes.)
Of course if it was illegal, a conviction or lackthereof could certainly be brought up to support or oppose any challenge to whether someone is qualified, and while a conviction would certainly be pretty damn compelling evidence, it still may not necessarily make or break the argument in either direction because we live in a world of legal loopholes, weird precedents, and government officials exercising their discretion however they see fit.
Fair point! But there’s a burden of proof that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been tested.
Except, that’s not what the constitution says.
None of the people disbarred from office by the 14th were ever convicted of anything.
The whole point of the 14th amendment is that it is self-executing. No conviction is necessary.
And everyone who has sworn an oath (or otherwise has a duty) to uphold the constitution must abide by it.
You might find that unreasonable, but if so, then you must amend the constitution to remove the 14th, otherwise it remains the Supreme law of the land.
Trump probably unironically believes he has tried to uphold the constitution. Ignorance of the law is only a crime for plebs like you and I, not police or presidents.
Are you saying he had no involvement in it? If someone, Republican or Democrat was involved in a coup I think it is fair to not give them chance to do it again. Frankly some congressmen are also breaking this amendment, one is even a speaker.
If you think there is no actual evidence a court can review, besides the outputs of a different court… Then I don’t think you get it.
If FL decides to kick Biden off the ballot, they will have to defend that decision in court. What evidence would they provide to support the accusation??
The overwhelming majority of people who have been disqualified under the 14th amendment were never charged with a crime. That’s simply not how it works.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This absolutely will be weaponized, same way impeachment is being weaponized now.
Weaponized against people who break the oath to defend the constitution? Good. Trump and all the people part of the failed coup should be removed from office. They are text book traitors.
same way impeachment is being weaponized now
I’m inclined to agree. It’s obvious that Trump is guilty of attempting a coup, however he has not yet been legally convicted of that.
People, please stop downvoting the above comment because you don’t like Trump. I wish all of the world’s ills on Trump, but that doesn’t make reddig33 wrong. Nobody should be able to be stripped of their rights without a conviction. Our justice system works achingly slow - especially when this situation is without precedent.
Qualification for an elected office is not a right. There are other constitutional requirements which must be met in order to be qualified to run for office. For President, the person must be at least 35 years of age, for example.
Another qualification is that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort tp the enemies of the United States, after having taken an oath as an elected official to support the Constitution.
Disqualification from office is not punishment for a crime.
“Another qualification is that you have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort tp the enemies of the United States, after having taken an oath as an elected official to support the Constitution.”
This has to be proven. Obviously it happened, but from a legal standpoint, that has not yet been proven in court.
Can you show me what part of Amendment 14, Section Three, states that a conviction is required?
deleted by creator
Can you show me where it doesn’t?
The fact is that this is untested legal grounds, which is why it’s headed for court in multiple venues. As usual, the Constitution is vague and open to interpretation. I personally hope he is barred from running, but I stand firm that nobody should ever be stripped of any rights without a conviction first. Doing otherwise is a scary precedent.
Here’s where it’s not stated:
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.
It’s not untested legal ground. Many Confederates were disqualified from office on this basis, some were removed from office. There is precedent. Edit: There was a county office holder in … AZ? NM? I forget – who was essentially removed from the ballot on this basis. The judge found that Jan 6 was an “insurrection” and that he had “engaged in” it, but the election happened before any further action was taken, and the guy lost anyway, so it was moot.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three is worth a read.
Edit: The reason it’s going to court in multiple venues is because it is the job of the Secretary of State for each state to determine who is and is not qualified to be elected. As such, it would be reasonable for a Secretary of State to disqualify Trump (at least) from the ballot, after which, Trump would file suit to reverse that. In the cases going on now, parties with standing are filing suit to compel the Secretary of State to perform the duty of their office.
Here is Section 3 (with emphasis added):
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.
I emphasized where it defines who is barred from office and doesn’t state a conviction is required.
I wasn’t born in US, so I can’t be president, where’s my conviction?
BTW: 14 amendment applies to people who were in the government, and broke their oath. It is basically enforcing it and preventing those people from being part of the government that they betrayed. There’s even a clause where house and senate can vote 2/3 to reinstate such person.
I think you forget that he was impeached for it.
No action was taken because his party controlled that, but he was nevertheless impeached.
And he won’t be. The J6 indictment accuses him taking advantage of it, not starting it. The likely reason why Jack Smith did that was because Trump would start appeal that because of impeachment that’s a double jeopardy and delay everything further.
If someone involved in insurrection while being in the office they should not have privilege of running again.
