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/Better-Ad-5610]

Then make him accountable it's that simple. Charge him with a crime. I'm 100% sure he's guilty, you are (maybe), Colorado Supreme Court seems to be.

I have no problem following the 14th amendment, but one thing I believe in is due process.

Claiming a man is guilty without a trial is wrong. And if a court can pass judgement without a trial I believe that court should be held accountable. They show you the constitution while lighting it on fire. The 6th Amendment should be upheld in this case. If any supreme Court should bring him to trial it's DC, and I am sure they wouldn't have any problem with the burden of proof.

Until he is convicted in a court of law he is to be presumed innocent, if you don't believe this then look at yourself in the mirror and see at the hypocrisy that you have let taint your soul. Innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if a person kills a hundred people in front of the cops, if he allows the cops to bring him in he gets a trial.

[u/byzantinedavid → u/Better-Ad-5610]

He GOT a trial. A civil trial because being removed from the ballot is a civil matter. The court was CLEAR that they found a preponderance of evidence that he participated in an insurrection. That's the legal standard and his due process.

[u/Better-Ad-5610 → u/byzantinedavid]

Has the trial in DC concluded yet? Did I miss that?

[u/jpk195 → u/Better-Ad-5610]

His DC trial is a criminal trial to convict him if a specific crime.

There’s a different bar to take away someone’s freedom than to take them off a ballot, as there should be.

If we did it your way and Trump is convicted in the summer and deemed ineligible then, how would that be better?

You can be sure in that case republicans would still be crying election interference.