Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot
Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot
An Illinois judge ruled Wednesday that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for another term in office because of Jan. 6 riot
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Man is guilty as sin but just to play devil's advocate for the press: they are subject to libel laws and cannot make definitive statements of guilt/non guilt or else risk being sued.
So on the one hand it's dumb that they aren't telling it like it is but on the other hand I sympathize that they don't want to put their finances on the line to pay the Donald Trump legal fund if he decides to sue.
Permanently Deleted
To my knowledge he hasn't been found guilty in trial court yet, has he? Courts keep kicking the can down the road because the US justice system is a sham. If he was found guilty already, he'd be behind bars.
Basically, there are differences between the recommendations of investigation committees, eligibility to run for office, and a conviction. Just because some determination was made by a court or by a legal body doesn't necessarily mean he was found guilty of the crime. Not yet at least.
Colorado trial and supreme Court found that he has "engaged in" an insurrection. I've got a link to the Supreme Court opinion in this thread.
They can definitively state that he was found guilty for his hand in the insurrection, as per the multiple cases. There’s no room for libel there, it’s a fact. He was found guilty.
Did I miss a case? AFAIK, to date he hasn't been found guilty of anything because that would imply he's been through a criminal trial to completion and we should be talking about his sentencing.
To the best of my knowledge he's been found liable in a couple of civil cases and owes a buttload of damages as a consequence, but still hasn't been found guilty of any crime, yet.
You would think journalism would be subject to libel laws, but after seeing Fox and company blast lies for decades, I don't have that confidence.
Yes, Fox finally got hit with one major lawsuit for one massive lie, but given all the lies they've run, it shows how far past the line you need to go.
And only because they lied about a massive corporation who then turned around and sued them. Not everyone they lie about has a legal team on retainer ready to defend them. In this case, Trump can’t find lawyers willing to defend him at this point, but Fox News would never paint Trump in a bad light, it would alienate their viewer base
Yes and I would agree if he were before the court for the first time, but multiple judges have already made a determination in those things.
They don't want to be on the bad side of the possible future dictator of America.
You mean their Republican donors?
alleged role,
Until he's been criminally convicted for it, it's "alleged" in order to avoid defamation and libel cases.
He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It's not alleged.
He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It’s not alleged.
If you want to be safe from libel and defamation cases, it's "alleged" until you've been found guilty/liable at trial, and that hasn't happened to Trump yet.
I don't think that's true. The Colorado state supreme Court says he engaged in an insurrection. Truth is a defense.
The Colorado state supreme Court says he engaged in an insurrection. Truth is a defense
The truth is up to interpretation. You can say what you believe to be the truth, but somebody with a lot of money and access to experienced lawyers can cripple you with a lawsuit regardless.
Do you really want to engage in a trial that could theoretically take years? Spending untold sums of money in order to defend yourself? Even if you will probably win, you're tying up a lot of capital and manpower to fight it. For what? The difference between an article that has the word "alleged" or not?
The risk-reward just isn't there.
With that logic couldn't you basically never tell the truth about anyone sufficiently rich and vindictive enough to pursue you in court? Like Trump could be sitting in jail, and we'd still be saying alleged because he might tie you up in court?
You simply refer to it as "alleged" until found guilty/liable when referencing someone doing something criminal or similar.
They could also get by with quoting that judges opinion, so long as they made it clear what they are quoting.
But a judge presenting an opinion regarding a ballot removal in which the accused was not entitled to a thorough defense and the standard being held was "whatever the judge personally felt best" rather than the more rigorous standards of a criminal trial was probably enough for their legal department to insist on the "alleged".
and you just basically described why news organizations prefer to use alleged
So if Trump is sitting in jail, found criminally guilty in his indictments, USA today would be justified in what, calling him allegedly guilty, in case he feels like bankrupting them with his money? I find this very hard to beleive.
If he is found guilty, he could make the argument that publications making that claim prior to the verdict swayed the jury's opinion. One would think an informed jury is always a good thing, but American courts are very strict about the information they present to the jury and in which context to allow them to make decisions. Not that it is likely, but it could result in a mistrial if it was proven that any juror read any news from the publication making the claim.
After he is found guilty, and assuming the verdict stands, publications are free to say he was convicted of X, Y, or Z freely.
Once he's been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court they'll drop the alleged.
This isn't even a Trump specific thing, they use "alleged" or "accused" to refer to any crime committed by anyone that they haven't been found guilty/liable for. Or will describe them as being arrested for specific charges or a specific incident if that's what they're reporting on. But in that case , they'll refer to them as being arrested for X and then being alleged or accused of X, but not simply that they did X.
But Trump was found, in multiple courts, to have engaged in an insurrection. He does not need to have a criminal finding of that for it to be true and accepted fact in a court. I'm sorry, but this is a hard disagree from me, when state courts find as a matter of fact that he did engage in an insurrection its not an allegation anymore.
once he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom, it's much less risky. still risky, actually, but much less so. i remember during trump's term he actually wanted to change libel laws specifically for stuff like this - you would have to be extremely careful what you say so you don't get sued
That's how these people are taking advantage of our open, democratic system. They're acting in bad faith, but our system has to play along and treat them "fairly" to avoid giving them any potential out or ammunition for them say they're being discriminated against or treated improperly. It's such BS though, we're having to bend over backwards to treat these people with kid gloves while they run roughshod over our democratic system and they will literally not treat others fairly when they get power. This man and all his enablers in Congress/Scotus need to be in shackles already, they're a shit stain on history and they're getting people killed in Ukraine by holding up US aid.
They are just pussies.
Greedy, don’t forget greedy
Just like the Democrats do for israel.
When was he convicted of insurrection or anything related to that?
I watched it on TV. Doesn't take a genius to watch the days events of January 6th unfold, and the months prior to know he attempted a coup to stay in power. Why it failed, I don't have any insider knowledge.
But it's come out that it was a lot more coordinated behind the scenes than what we all witnessed on Jan. 6th. We don't need a jury for that (although there is an ongoing criminal investigation for it)
Literally the FBI said it wasnt at all coordinated. But that is a separate question to if Trump was responsible for what happened in any way.
Judge Wallace in Colorado found that Trump engaged in insurrection. It’s now a legal fact.
I doubt USA Today is based in Colorado, other states might decide he didn’t engage in insurrection. There are still cases pending against him.
Donald Trump spent months telling people to come to the capital on January 6th, you really gonna try to say that wasn't coordinated in anyway, hell?
But, that's not even what I was talking about, Trump fired generals, and had a whole fake electorate scheme, and there was a behind the scenes coup attempt that the public didn't really know about. That's the part I was saying was coordinated. Jan. 6th was a distract if anything for the real coup plot.
And the only reason it failed is bcz there were a lot of high level officials in the government who wouldn't go along with it.
What is wrong with telling people to come to the capitol? I understand your point, but he didnt do anything illegal or he would have been prosecuted already.
He IS being prosecuted for the fake electoral scheme. You also seem to think this country's laws actually apply equally to everybody. You obviously haven't been paying enough attention to what's been happening.
Our system is pay to win.
So he has been convicted then? I agree, money and power talk; you ever wonder why this trial is happening now, not a couple years ago?
you ever wonder why this trial is happening now, not a couple years ago?
Each trial is unique, but there are two general reasons. First, in cases of large criminal networks, it's typical to prosecute Lieutenants first and move up the chain, and that's what has happened. That maximizes the ability of prosecutors to collect information before striking at the top. Second, Trump has no real defense on these cases, so his entire strategy has been delay, delay, delay. He wants to win the presidency and make the charges go away by whatever means he can muster.
Because these things take forever to go through the courts and a major tactic Trump uses is delay delay delay. He constantly has his attorneys push for delaying any hearings. Then there are appeals which also delay, then bounce back to the other courts of various levels. It takes absolutely forever because he's rich. If it were you or I we'd be sitting in prison and having a judgment within a month.
Literally people on Jan 6th were already convicted and are out of prison. The jan 6th shaman was sentenced to 41 months in prison and was already released back in the summer... I can understand how the process take a long time, but when was trump arrested?
We all have a gigantic issue with that fact. He's wealthy and now a "politician" so he gets Special Treatment™ while the plebs get the hammer.
The plebs also had a much more obvious case of some form of "breaking and entering" while the Mafia Don sits back and can say "it wasn't me, all I said was: will someone rid me of this troublesome
pencepriest?"
Cost of living where I'm at is getting fucking expensive... I've always had hesitations about it but about how much does a nice rock to live under cost these days?
Its too complicated of an insult, you need to be more direct and more clever.
You'd probably be able to more easily afford a place to live if a) the central bank didn't print 50% of the money supply in recent years and b) if there weren't millions of migrants competing with you for housing or c) people moving near you from places that are being overrun by migrants.
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.
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.
I agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.
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.
Here's a non-paywalled link: https://archive.md/Zm8dk
Thank you!
Here you go happy reading: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
You will find section G. Titled "President Trump engaged in an insurrection" to be of interest.
So a judge did an unjust thing and you want me to accept that as something that as okay?
Are you guys aware of what his happening right now with trump and all these cases and how its targeted prosecution? I am not even going to vote for him, but its pretty obvious what is happening, and I fear how this will end.
Prosecutions generally are targeted at criminals.
In corrupt countries does the government ever prosecute people for political reasons?
Gosh, as a citizen of the United States I just can't imagine what goes on in a corrupt country. LOL
That was my point, its a targeting based on politics not on law.
Fraudulent prosecution is a thing, so this particular prosecution is fraudulent. Hmmm, seems like you missed a few steps there.
Look at the documents case. They bent over backwards to try and get those documents back quietly and let Trump off the hook. If you or I had those documents, we wouldn't even be given the opportunity to hand them over. We would have SWAT coming through our door, and we would be hauled straight to solitary. A two tiered Justice system exists, but it isn't what folks like you think.
That's the end of my patience for taking you seriously.
Of all of the things, the document case is the only one that works, the problem is that all the various presidents have been guilty of it, and Hillary did much worse and had nothing done to her.
But you need to look at the combination of all of the cases, and how they have half a billion on two bul1shit cases. The problem is the MAGA people are going to be correct that the election was tampered with if trump loses. I am a trump voter, but I can see the dangers.
There is a big difference between civil and criminal cases. Anyways, the fact that he was found liable in both cases would tend to indicate they weren't "bullshit". In fact, they were both absolutely straightforward cases with solid evidence that Trump did exactly what he was accused of.
I really, really don't give a shit what MAGA morons think about anything. Anyone still MAGA at this point is too far gone for me to care.
Exactly, you guys want to removed about the orange man, but dont actually want to look at the dangerous things we have going on with the government right now.
You should recognize that your message to people here is simply, hey people obviously dumber than me, did you know you're all dumber than me?
You're assuming people that disagree with you know less or don't know something that you do.
That's not how you engage in effective, constructive discourse. You should first seek to understand, then to be understood.
I dont think they are dumber than me, they are just mislead by the media and dont have the ability to see beyond their own bias. And about this subject I do obviously know more about it than they do.
Obviously 🙄
Fair thee well, traveler
If each and every one if these cases was not carefully and fully investigated over a course of several years, you might have an argument.
Were both of the impeachments careully and fully investigated?
Lol. Considering even I watched the events in one case happen live? Yeah. Some things are very easy to investigate.
What's that got to do with the conversation? You're not even any good at the what-a-bout-ism thing, dude. Feel free to overthink it so you can come up with another "zinger"; I don't care, and won't be responding anyway...
They were both obviously political and not well investigated. The one about Ukraine and Zelensky was obviously silly, but you guys dont realize that because you dont listen to good news sources.
^^^ Look at this response. See what I mean?
You blind, deaf, and dumb?
Removed, keep it civil.
Just dumb. Did I miss the part he was convicted of insurrection?
You missed the part where he was found by a court to have engaged in insurrection.
So there was a trial and everything?
There was a legal finding of fact.
man, where's that sea lion gif when you need it?
Just shut the fuck up, Russian Agent.