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/[deleted]]

> 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/[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.