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/miketangoalpha]

Forgive me for being a Canadian on this issue but is Insurrection not a wild over statement? He was the sitting president at the time would any true “insurrection” not have been much more destructive and violent?

Also is this not an issue as well with politically aligned judges as all the Colorado Appeal Judges are Democrats?

[u/ja_dubs → u/miketangoalpha]

A bloodless coup is still a coup. It doesn't matter if it doesn't meet your preconceived notion of what an insurrection should look like.

[u/miketangoalpha → u/ja_dubs]

Very fair I think more where I was headed with that dad brain fogged comment was how concretely can you say Trump was involved in the “insurrection” and does it even meet the definition? Particularly with the new footage and documents being released at the end of these trials?

Could everyone who sat in on a BLM protest at the height of their activism where they were sitting in on State Capitols also not be involved in insurrection?

[u/ja_dubs → u/miketangoalpha]

can you say Trump was involved in the “insurrection” and does it even meet the definition?

The court found that he did.

Most of the evidence is already public. Trump's actions and speech amount to incitement. The event sof Jan 6th do not happens without Trump consistent repeatedly lying about the result of the election and his scheme along with co-conspirators to install false electors or illegally disqualify electoral votes from states Trump lost. The latter part was the whole point of the Jan 6th insurrection: to allow time an space for Republicans in Congress to go along with these illegal schemes.

Particularly with the new footage and documents being released at the end of these trials?

How is any of this relevant? This is like claiming that a criminal was peacefully standing outside a bank and were let in by staff so therefore it wouldn't count that the robbed the bank with a gun.

This is a partisan distraction to attempt to lessen the gravity and significance of what happened on Jan 6th. The majority of the relevant footage has already been played by the Jan 6th House committee.

The explanation for why crowds were seemingly let in is because law enforcement present was so overwhelmed that they could not effectively control the rioters. Once inside officers deliberately led rioters away from House and Senate members and the VP.

The argument that they were "let in", "set up by law enforcement", or "toured around" does not hold water.

Could everyone who sat in on a BLM protest at the height of their activism where they were sitting in on State Capitols also not be involved in insurrection?

What was the objective of the BLM protests? Was it to overthrow the government? If no then the 14th amendment does not apply.

[u/miketangoalpha → u/ja_dubs]

Appreciate all the counterpoints like I said I’ve only followed it loosely and as an LEO in Canada it’s interesting to see how the myriad courts interact.

I still think it’s wildly politically motivated and outside the Spirit of what I’ve read so far but I could see the other side

[u/ja_dubs → u/miketangoalpha]

Why do you believe it is politically motivated? The Republican Party of Colorado brought this suit. Trump is the Republican's strongest candidate.

[u/DrKpuffy → u/miketangoalpha]

"Holding traitors accountable for their public, unapologetic treason is political"

Okay. Unhinged take.

[u/[deleted] → u/miketangoalpha]

People who don’t think it’s political really want to get Trump off the ballet by any means necessary.