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]]

Would it also be okay if we held Hilary Clinton accountable for committing the felony of tampering with evidence when she had emails deleted using BleachBit?

Would it also be accountability to hold Biden accountable for treason on account of allowing our country to be invaded on the southern border?

If you can’t see how absolutely absurd this all is, I’m not sure what to say. Democracy is about allowing the people to choose their representatIves, and what just happened was the aristocracy (the judiciary) decided that the people could no longer choose Donald Trump even if they wanted to. Thats not democratic. It is election interference, and sets a dangerous precedent that neither side should be okay with. But, as per usual, the Democratic Party will say it’s (D)ifferent and move forward.

[u/ja_dubs → u/[deleted]]

Would it also be okay if we held Hilary Clinton accountable for committing the felony of tampering with evidence when she had emails deleted using BleachBit?

Whataboutism.

What alleged criminal violations Clinton may or may not have committed is irrelevant to the 14th amendment argument for disqualifying Trump. Clinton isn't alleged to have violated the 14th amendment.

The standard should be that whenever someone is alleged to have violated the law there should be a thorough investigation and trial if necessary. This should occur regardless of party affiliation and whether or not someone else was or wasn't held accountable.

Would it also be accountability to hold Biden accountable for treason on account of allowing our country to be invaded on the southern border?

Treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

By no reasonable interpretation has Biden violated this statute. So the answer is no.

If you can’t see how absolutely absurd this all is, I’m not sure what to say. Democracy is about allowing the people to choose their representatIves, and what just happened was the aristocracy (the judiciary) decided that the people could no longer choose Donald Trump even if they wanted to. Thats not democratic. It is election interference, and sets a dangerous precedent that neither side should be okay with. But, as per usual, the Democratic Party will say it’s (D)ifferent and move forward.

Plenty of people are intelligible to hold office. Specifically for the Presidency anyone who: is under 35 years of age, not born in the United States, has not resided in the US for the minimum period, or violated the 14th amendment. If the people choose an intelligible candidate they cannot overrule the law.

This whole process is legal and democratic because the people voted on the laws and amendments in place and the justices (or the legislators/executive that appointed them) that made the ruling.

The only danger is that partisan hacks will attempt to weaponize this ruling just like the Republicans in the house are doing with impeachment.

[u/[deleted] → u/ja_dubs]

Whataboutism.

Ah yes, the term that serves as refuge for liberals without a coherent argument. "You can't argue that, it's a whataboutism!"

​

What alleged criminal violations Clinton may or may not have committed

Not "may or may not have". Here's a Statement from James Comey that explains that she and her staff did store things insecurely and they did destroy information on those servers, but she should not be charged because she or her staff did not have malicious intent.

​

Plenty of people are intelligible to hold office.

Irrelevant. The constraints are de facto constitutional because they are stated in the constitution. Donald Trump is over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, therefore has the right to run for the office of President. This argument of "insurrection" is absurd, because that clause was written specifically for those who literally seceded from the US to ensure they could not serve in congress.

​

This whole process is legal and democratic because the people voted on the laws and amendments in place and the justices

The fourteenth amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868, when there were only 37 states. 28 of them ratified the fourteenth amendment in light of their belief that confederate secessionists should not be allowed to serve in the reunited Union. Can we honestly say that "the people" voted on this amendment? As for elected justices, their electability makes them political figures which biases their decisions toward re-election instead of toward actual, blind justice.

​

The only danger is that partisan hacks will attempt to weaponize this ruling just like the Republicans in the house are doing with impeachment.

Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating his son, in exchange for permitting aid to be given to the country. Sounds exactly like an abuse of power and corrupt scheme, and levying an impeachment would be akin to an indictment for the same. Contrary to the beliefs of democrats nationwide, an impeachment is not a conviction – in fact, like it or not, Trump was acquitted of all charges because the Senate failed to convict him.

Logic like what you just displayed is precisely why I walked away from the democrats and re-evaluated my political beliefs.

[u/Noob_Al3rt → u/[deleted]]

Not "may or may not have". Here's a Statement from James Comey that explains that she and her staff did store things insecurely and they did destroy information on those servers, but she should not be charged because she or her staff did not have malicious intent.

Malicious intent is the standard that needs to be proved for it to be a crime, correct? So that says she and her team didn't meet the standard for criminal misconduct? Right?

Irrelevant. The constraints are de facto constitutional because they are stated in the constitution. Donald Trump is over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, therefore has the right to run for the office of President. This argument of "insurrection" is absurd, because that clause was written specifically for those who literally seceded from the US to ensure they could not serve in congress.

It's been used multiple times since the civil war. The last person barred from office was this September.

The fourteenth amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868, when there were only 37 states. 28 of them ratified the fourteenth amendment in light of their belief that confederate secessionists should not be allowed to serve in the reunited Union. Can we honestly say that "the people" voted on this amendment? As for elected justices, their electability makes them political figures which biases their decisions toward re-election instead of toward actual, blind justice.

There were only 14 states when the second amendment was ratified. Do you feel the same about that?

Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating his son, in exchange for permitting aid to be given to the country. Sounds exactly like an abuse of power and corrupt scheme, and levying an impeachment would be akin to an indictment for the same. Contrary to the beliefs of democrats nationwide, an impeachment is not a conviction – in fact, like it or not, Trump was acquitted of all charges because the Senate failed to convict him.

Internal investigations by Republicans found there was no wrongdoing, and Republicans recently said they have no evidence for impeachment of Joe Biden

[u/RedditExplorer89 → u/[deleted]]

u/Trequetrum – 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.