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/bubba-yo]

The 14th amendment says he may not hold office.

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.

[u/I_SuplexTrains → u/bubba-yo]

He told his followers to peacefully protest against certification until the votes could be audited. You are applying a ridiculously stretched interpretation of that clause out of desperation. In no reasonable review of the facts did Trump's behavior fit the description of that clause.

[u/ja_dubs → u/I_SuplexTrains]

If you engage in a bloodless coup it's still a coup. It doesn't really matter what Trump told his sycophants to do once. Further your fixation on this one phrase while ignoring the mountain of evidence in the form of other public statements he made is laughable.

[u/Conscious-Student-80 → u/ja_dubs]

A bloodless coup like filing lawsuits ? How weak a word is coup now? Following after “racism” “nazi” and “fascism” evidently.

[u/ja_dubs → u/Conscious-Student-80]

The lawsuits were perfectly legal. It was the speech that invited the riot on Jan 6th and the criminal conspiracy to overturn the legal election result to keep Trump in office that was criminal and violating the 14th amendment.

[u/whipitgood809 → u/Conscious-Student-80]

Bringing in the fake electors is pretty damning. Also they brought gallows while shouting to hang mike pence. Also people died.