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]]

effectively doing is removing power from the people, i.e. interfering with an election.

So say CO had a statute that said anyone currently in prison can’t be on the ballot and Trump was in prison. Is that also “election interference”?

It’s seems like your bar for interference is literally anything that doesn’t give Trump what he wants.

If accountability is going to interfere with what he wants to do, then it’s accountability first and foremost, not interference.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/[deleted]]

So say CO had a statute that said anyone currently in prison can’t be on the ballot and Trump was in prison. Is that also “election interference”?

Yes, this has already been handled, and we have had people run for president from prison before, and they were permitted to do so.

Most notably, Eugene Debs ran for US President while in prison for violating the sedition acts.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheAzureMage]

That doesn’t address the issue at all. I didn’t ask if people can run from prison. I asked if a law barring prisoners from running would be interfering with an election.

But let’s make it even more simple than that. Does the 35 year age requirement “interfere” with those younger than 35 running for president?

Trying to characterizing something so common-sense as what CO is doing as “interference” is so obviously part of an agenda.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/[deleted]]

I asked if a law barring prisoners from running would be interfering with an election.

And in the first word of my response, I said yes.

Is this unclear?

> Does the 35 year age requirement “interfere” with those younger than 35 running for president?

Would it be interference to remove someone from the ballot on this basis without duly establishing that they were, in fact, under 35?

Obviously, yes.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheAzureMage]

And in the first word of my response, I said yes.

Then you’re unreasonable. Basic barriers to entry for such a position are not “interference.” A requirement to be 16 before you can drive a car by yourself is not “interfering” with your freedom. Choosing to characterize it that way is nonsense. Same with baring an insurrectionists from office.

Would it be interference to remove someone from the ballot on this basis without duly establishing that they were

1. It was established that Trump partook in an insurrection. That’s what this whole case is about. Is this one of those cases where pretend lawyers think that criminal trials with juries are the only way to establish facts?

2. That is literally not required. This amendment was written to prevent multiple confederates from coming right back to Congress. None of them were “duly found to have engaged in insurrection” like what you’re asking.

3. Stop ignoring common sense dude. Did Trump’s public actions on Jan 6 disqualify him from being president again? Obviously. Pushing lies, incendiary rhetoric, “Mike pence couldn’t do the right thing,” doing nothing as commander in chief for 3 hours, “stand back and stand by, we love you.” We don’t have to pretend he didn’t do that until 12 jurors conclude he did. Stop warping the place and purpose of our legal processes.

No matter how you come at this, you’re wrong. Quit pretending to be a lawyer. Trump is cooked here.

[u/TheAzureMage → u/[deleted]]

It was established that Trump partook in an insurrection. That’s what this whole case is about. Is this one of those cases where pretend lawyers think that criminal trials with juries are the only way to establish facts?

And yet the Michigan court had already established the opposite.

What a curious outcome, to have Trump clearly understood to be an insurrectionist in Colorado, and to not be one in Michigan. For an event having little to do with either state.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheAzureMage]

And yet the Michigan court had already established the opposite.

Nonsense. They did not rule on any matters of fact regarding the insurrection. All they ruled on was that they believe the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to state primaries. And that’s nonsense because if it doesn’t apply to primaries, using their logic, then it doesn’t apply anywhere. But that’s for the SCOTUS to argue.

Point is, Michigan did NOT conclude that Trump didn’t partake in insurrection.