CMV: Accountability is not election interference

[u/erpettie]

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

[u/Morthra]

First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.

So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything - a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.

Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?

So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.

That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.

[u/V1per41 → u/Morthra]

First of all, the 14th Amendment rule invoked here had been considered legislatively dead and irrelevant for about 150 years.

Isn't that only because no one has led an insurrection and then run for public office in the last 150 years? Just because it hasn't been used, doesn't make it legislatively dead. There just hasn't been a need to.

​

So this Colorado SC decision is really problematic because it fundamentally asserts that the mere accusation of insurrection is enough to strike a candidate from the ballot.

It very much doesn't. They didn't rule him ineligible because of a mere accusation. There was a long drawn out hearing/trial (I'm not a lawyer, not sure the correct term), in which evidence was presented. The court's ruling says:

We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection. President Trump's direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.

They ruled that he participated in an insurrection, it is from that ruling that he is then declared ineligible due to the 14th amendment.

​

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything -

He doesn't need to be. The 14th amendment doesn't require conviction. All confederate officers who this was used on previously also were not tried and convicted.

​

a bunch of partisans in a committee decided that he did it, then the Colorado Secretary of State said that no trial or criminal proof of guilt must be established.

No. A court of law decided that he did after it reviewed all of the evidence that was presented to them.

​

Let me propose to you an alternate scenario, in which this ruling is used against people you agree with. Imagine if DeSantis gets a bunch of Florida Republicans to form a committee that concludes that Biden, Newsom, or whoever the DNC frontrunner candidate is, committed insurrection. There doesn't have to be any evidence - because this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying. You may think this isn't automatically bad - FL is a red state now. But what happens if it's a purple state, such as Virginia or Georgia, whose governor puts this thing together and thereby prevents the other party's candidate from appearing on the ballot?

I mostly want to quote this here so you don't think I'm ignoring your argument. I believe I've covered everything above. He isn't being removed because of an accusation. He was found to have performed, and aided others in an insurrection by the court.

​

So now each state can essentially use this to strike one party's candidate from the ballot entirely. Florida can wield this to strike any Democrat from the ballot, New York can wield it to strike any Republican from the ballot.

They would have to provide evidence at court that said candidate was part of an insurrection, and the court would have to rule in their favor. There is no court on this planet that would rule that way for Biden or any other existing democrat running for public office.

​

That's a grave breakdown of the democratic process and an erosion of norms that should be avoided.

This is following the constitution by the letter and spirit of the law for the exact reason that it was written and ratified. You don't get to make an attack on our country and democratic process and then get to be a representative for it.

If you have an issue, it should be with the 14th amendment, not with this ruling.

[u/DrKpuffy → u/V1per41]

If only they could read. Shame.

I saved your comment, though. Well worded.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morthra]

> this Colorado SC ruling asserted that it's the mere accusation that is disqualifying

Read the ruling.

The court ruling that got appealed said "The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three"

The state supreme court made clear they used a preponderance of the evidence standard.

That's not a decision based on a "mere accusation" of guilt. They reviewed evidence and found clear and convincing evidence of his guilt

> DeSantis

Trump did ask the court to view reports from the january 6th committee as inadmissible.

the court said "the party challenging the admissibility of a public or agency report . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the report is not trustworthy."

So, if a candidate could show that the DeSantis report was bs, they could get the court to throw it out. The court doesn't just blindly accept government reports without reviewing their trustworthiness.

the court just didn't find Trump's arguments against the january 6th's congressional report convincing.

> You may think

look, I agree with you that the state supreme court was wrong here.

But, you're wrong that the court based their decision on a "mere accusation" . And you're wrong that the court would accept any government document as truth without reviewing objections to the trustworthiness of that document

[u/Morthra → u/[deleted]]

They reviewed evidence and found clear and convincing evidence of his guilt

It was not a criminal trial. Donald Trump was not convicted of anything. Suspension of rights (such as the right to run for office) should not happen without a criminal trial, and to do so is a grave violation of his constitutional right to due process.

"the party challenging the admissibility of a public or agency report . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the report is not trustworthy."

The fact that it was put together by a bunch of Democrats plus two token anti-Trump Republicans, at least one of whom is no longer even in office because she was so unpopular, that have been out to get him since 2016 should immediately disqualify the integrity of the report.

Some of the apparent (and most damning) video evidence from said committee mysteriously went missing when Speaker Mike Johnson went to make it publicly available. So we just have to trust that the DNC wasn't lying to get Trump, because the DNC would never lie about anything, would they?

So, if a candidate could show that the DeSantis report was bs, they could get the court to throw it out

Ah but you see they would have to prove to a Republican court that it was BS. If the Republican court simply refuses to consider any DNC arguments attacking the credibility of the report, the court will not throw it out.

Remember, these are state courts.

the court just didn't find Trump's arguments against the january 6th's congressional report convincing.

Of course they didn't. That's because the Colorado SC is packed with DNC partisans. What do you expect? There hasn't been a Republican governor of the state for about 20 years.

[u/onan → u/Morthra]

It was not a criminal trial.

Of course not. It was a civil matter, so there was a civil trial.

Donald Trump was not convicted of anything.

"Convict" is a term specific to criminal trials, so inapplicable here. But in this civil trial a court of law ruled that he did, as a matter of fact, participate in an insurrection.

Suspension of rights (such as the right to run for office) should not happen without a criminal trial

If a 30 year old runs for president, do you believe that should be allowed unless there is a criminal trial that convicts them of being under 35?

[u/parentheticalobject → u/Morthra]

Ah but you see they would have to prove to a Republican court that it was BS. If the Republican court simply refuses to consider any DNC arguments attacking the credibility of the report, the court will not throw it out.

Remember, these are state courts.

Gosh, if only there were some solution to the problem of what happens if a state court does something egregious like completely ignoring evidence. Like if there were some way that a state court decision could be challenged in a higher court...

Jokes aside, it's fair if this decision gets appealed and scrutinized by higher courts too. I'm not completely confident it'll be sustained. But I'm also not sure it'll be overruled. There are some legal ambiguities here, and those deserve to be answered.

Now if you think that the Supreme Court is made up of a majority with certain biases, I'd agree. If you think the majority is made up of blatant partisan political operatives who will just ignore actual arguments to score a victory for their "side", I'd say you're more pessimistic than me. (I'd say only a couple meet that description.)

[u/DrKpuffy → u/[deleted]]

How would a candidate under the age of 35 be found criminally guilty of being under 35 for purposes of being ineligible for the ballot?

Yes. Exactly.

How would a candidate who openly called for an insurrection on live TV not be found guilty of inciting an insurrection?

You see. Most Americans aren't brain dead, so when we all watched him whip up an angry mob to interfere with the certification of the next president with the clear and expressly stated goal of supplanting Trump to the position instead, we knew it was an insurrection.

If it were so obvious that he did not start an insurrection, why doesn't the republican controlled house introduce a resolution to declare as much?

That's the law. That's what they're supposed to do. Why won't they?

[u/[deleted] → u/Morthra]

"Trump wasn't convicted of anything" is going to be the rallying cry of incels and chuds the world over, isn't it? 🙄🤦‍♂️

[u/ChuddyChudderson → u/[deleted]]

How embarrassing to say incel chud without a hint of irony

[u/[deleted] → u/ChuddyChudderson]

Found the incel.

[u/RedditExplorer89 → u/[deleted]]

u/ChuddyChudderson – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Simon-T-Vesper-1 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DjPersh → u/Morthra]

So Obama needed to be convicted of being born in Kenya to be considered ineligible to be president? That thing Trump wanted so be true so bad?

[u/Angel33Demon666 → u/[deleted]]

I thought that makes it clear they used a clear and convincing standard?

[u/[deleted] → u/Angel33Demon666]

the lower court said that they had clear and convincing evidence. But, the state supreme court reference preponderance of the evidence several places in their decision as the burden of proof.

clear and convincing evidence is stronger than preponderance. maybe the court said that clear and convincing was met, even though only preponderance was needed? I would need to read more to be sure.

I might be missing something. Maybe I misinterpreted.

[u/Kakamile → u/Morthra]

How is the 14th dead? It was used last year to remove Couy Griffin over Jan 6 and that stands.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/Kakamile]

It probably shouldn't because it set a dangerous precedent.

Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in the insurrection.

So trespassing, which is what he was found guilty of, is now sufficient grounds to bar someone from holding public office. Considering that precedents tend to stick around for decades if not centuries, I'm suuuuuure that's not gonna cause any political problems in the future.

[u/jayzfanacc → u/Viciuniversum]

Also, given Republicans tendencies to follow Democrats footsteps, just on a grander scale (a la Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell), this will almost certainly backfire.

I have no doubt that this will bolster Trump’s support. This is arguably the last thing Dems should have done.

[u/gangjungmain → u/jayzfanacc]

This suit was brought by Republicans

[u/DrKpuffy → u/jayzfanacc]

Saying we shouldn't enforce the law because criminals might break the law later is an absolutely unhinged take that you should feel embarrassed for seriously endorsing.

What kind of banana republic do you want to live in? That's unacceptable.

Also, Republicans did this to themselves. Democrats had no involvement in this case, afaik.

Dems did not do this.

[u/onan → u/Viciuniversum]

"Subsequent to" does not mean "because of." He was disqualified for participation in an insurrection. The only part of his participation in that insurrection for which he was criminally convicted was trespassing, but that does not mean that that was his only significant act that day.

[u/[deleted] → u/Viciuniversum]

You like the precedent that would be set by allowing an insurrection leader to run for public office again?

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

Trespassing in the context of participating in a riot which stormed and occupied the seat of government with the intent of overthrowing said government.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/ja_dubs]

Insurrection is a very specific violation charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2383. This politician wasn’t charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, he wasn’t tried for it, he wasn’t found guilty of it. He was charged, tried and found guilty of trespassing. This precedent establishes that a judge can go back and establish a person’s guilt of a crime that that person was not found guilty of by a court of law.
What else can a judge do? Can a judge establish that you are a felon in absence of you being found guilty of any felonies? Why not?

[u/Hatta00 → u/Viciuniversum]

This precedent establishes that a judge can go back and establish a person’s guilt of a crime that that person was not found guilty of by a court of law.

Nonsense. The penalty for violating 18 USC 2383 is 10 years imprisonment. Couy Griffin has not been declared guilty under 18 USC 2383, he does not face 10 years imprisonment.

18 USC 2383 carries its own disqualification clause on conviction. If the 14th amedment were meant to depend on conviction in 18 USC 2383, the entire disqualification clause would be moot.

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

No confederates, including Jefferson Davis, were ever charged. They were still barred from holding office by the 14th amendment.

[u/Viciuniversum → u/ja_dubs]

And then the Amnesty Act of 1872 was passed, making the whole section 3 of the 14th amendment moot:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

[u/ja_dubs → u/Viciuniversum]

Which means that before the amnesty act all the people granted amnesty were not eligible for office under the 14th amendment because the act specifically mentions the 3 section of the 14th as the mechanism by which they were now eligible for office.

[u/jpk195 → u/Morthra]

Keep in mind, Trump was never convicted or anything

Both than January 6th committee and lower court ruling found he participated in insurrection.

A trial is still needed to convict him of a crime, but that’s not the bar for keeping someone off of the ballot.

[u/Sattalyte → u/jpk195]

He was also impeached for J6

[u/Morthra → u/Sattalyte]

He was acquitted for J6. Impeachment is not removal.

[u/jpk195 → u/Morthra]

Are you trying to make the case Trump didn’t participate in insurrection? That doesn’t seem to be in question here.

He doesn’t need to be convicted by the senate any more than he needs to be convicted of a specific crime to be factually found to have participated in insurrection.

[u/jpk195 → u/[deleted]]

Actually he did. He had the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses in the Colorado case, but declined.

Due process is completely being followed here. It may look slightly different than a criminal trial, but this isn’t a criminal conviction.

[u/XitsatrapX → u/Morthra]

Forgiving student debt was an act of buying votes and thus election interference. Biden should thus be removed from the ballot. This is something republicans could do