The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    While I think it’s clear the attack on the Capital was an insurrection and Trump led it (he had several opportunities to talk them down or otherwise stop things, and he refused, which speaks to intent), it is indeed quite a bit murkier than a civil war.

    Not doing enough (really anything) to stop it once in motion isn’t the same thing as leading it. That’s kind of part of what I mean - you can readily show that he gave a (definitely 1A protected) speech that got them riled up, you can readily show that he didn’t do enough to try to stop it and that there was a lot more he could have done, but that’s not the same as leading it himself - protected speech and sitting on your hands is almost certainly not what is meant in 14A. Again, he was too much of a pussy to openly do that. It’s possible (frankly very likely) he was leading it from the back - giving marching orders to people directly in charge of it through one or more layers of indirection, but the argument is that you’d have to peel away those layers of indirection to be sure.

    Yes, but I’m also looking down the road. Trump is a present danger, but a bad ruling would be a perpetual problem. If they rule against Trump but also don’t screw up the future, that would be clearly ideal.

    Ideally SCOTUS provides a firm answer to the due process argument Trump is likely to make (probably one that leaves him eligible in the primary), and then we push things along fast enough that he’s ineligible under whatever standard SCOTUS sets before election day.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      that’s not the same as leading it himself - protected speech and sitting on your hands is almost certainly not what is meant in 14A

      I don’t think you have to be a leader, I think you just have to support the insurrection. I don’t know if you can call doing absolutely nothing to stop it aid, but I think you can argue that many of his comments have been in support of them. But that appears to be a semantic point, anyway.

      we push things along fast enough that he’s ineligible under whatever standard SCOTUS sets before election day

      If the process they are looking for is a formal declaration by Congress that Jan 6 was an act of insurrection, I don’t think there is a path to that.