this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
750 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19160 readers
5365 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn't you know that? Duh.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, so he's essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] hydrospanner 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] nasser 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, yes. As much as I would hate it he should still be innocent and able to run until he's convicted. Hopefully at least one of his many cases ends that way...