Allegations of Capitol ‘reconnaissance’ tours

[Zara]

And he lost. It seems that the system worked. Imagine that. In 4 to 8 years another vote will happen.

He has already tried to subvert the democratic process and undermined the government and its institutions, resulting on an actual attack on a sitting congress. Choosing not to see the severity of the situation doesn't make it any less severe. One of the reasons there is concern about dealing with his abuses is that his base will be infuriated, not because it isn't the right thing to do but because it could unleash the base. The situation is that disturbed.

[CivilDiscourse]

He has already tried to subvert the democratic process and undermined the government and its institutions, resulting on an actual attack on a sitting congress. Choosing not to see the severity of the situation doesn't make it any less severe. One of the reasons there is concern about dealing with his abuses is that his base will be infuriated, not because it isn't the right thing to do but because it could unleash the base. The situation is that disturbed.

That's fine. You just keep pushing for unconstitutional solutions. You know, there's a thing called the courts, right? The 14th could definitely be pushed there. (What a novel concept).

I just keep pointing out that congress barring someone from office by proclamation is a pretty bad precedent to set. Imagine if Trumpsters were to follow that precedent?

And I would point out that if you count all pro-trump protests of 3+ people, in any size town, then well over 93% of them were peaceful. This has been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement.

[Zara]

That's fine. You just keep pushing for unconstitutional solutions. You know, there's a thing called the courts, right? The 14th could definitely be pushed there. (What a novel concept).

I just keep pointing out that congress barring someone from office by proclamation is a pretty bad precedent to set. Imagine if Trumpsters were to follow that precedent?

And I would point out that if you count all pro-trump protests of 3+ people, in any size town, then well over 93% of them were peaceful. This has been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement.

I'm not pushing the 14th, like I said, "Irrespective of the outcome", and "if it cannot be used", again, I said earlier that it is not my judgement that it can.

Yes, the US has a massive problem because the mechanisms used might infuriate the base, etc.

Unfortunately for you (though I don't actually know), the congress and Trump, he managed to convince people into attempting to overthrow the government. He claimed that the government is illegitimate, justifying revolt. A foreseeable consequence of his claims about a "stolen" election.

[casaba]

That's fine. You just keep pushing for unconstitutional solutions. You know, there's a thing called the courts, right? The 14th could definitely be pushed there. (What a novel concept).

I just keep pointing out that congress barring someone from office by proclamation is a pretty bad precedent to set. Imagine if Trumpsters were to follow that precedent?

And I would point out that if you count all pro-trump protests of 3+ people, in any size town, then well over 93% of them were peaceful. This has been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement.

I'd like to thank you CD for pushing Zara in this discussion. Yes, I understand that you feel that without a Senate conviction, a vote to ban Trump from future office based on the 14th amendment would be a bad precedent. While I agree it would be a precedent, I believe in good precedents as well. What we need to look at here is the evidence. Based on the evidence, should this action be taken.

Zara provided what is for me the clearest explanation of why Trump's actions should be considered insurrection. In particular, here:

Irrespective of the outcome, if he is not prevented from holding office again, it reflects a serious lack of consideration of the danger of false claims by elected officials on their constituents. Trump has manged to convince a large part of the US electorate that the election was stolen from him, not through the states or the courts, but through the use of his authority and office. It is not his role to judge the veracity of the election, there are institutional bodies for that. All of which have declared the election to be without systemic fraud. It is therefore a serious breach of his oaths and duty to the constitution and government to claim that the election was stolen from him. If he cannot be held to account, and if his supporters cannot be convinced without his aid to the contrary of the belief, it will have done significant damage to the US democracy. Since it is willful, it might simply be an incitement of insurrection.

In some jurisdictions elected officials are not allowed to make claims about matters before the courts. If asked if he thought the election was stolen, while the matter was litigated, his response ought to have been, 'no comment', not a tweet storm of how he actually won by a landslide while the courts ejected his claims.

If you can read that and honestly reply with a dismissive that this is "Trump being bad", I would guess I would once again agree with you in one respect. Trump is being bad. Insurrection is bad, and Trump's action rise to the level which is worthy of both conviction and being barred from future office. If a portion of GOP Senators choose not to apply the former, I see no reason not to argue for the latter.

Would this put a future president, be he or she Republican or Democrat, at risk of being similarly barred in the future? Absolutely. If the crimes of that future individual rose the level as described so clearly by Zara, then yes, absolutely.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'd like to thank you CD for pushing Zara in this discussion. Yes, I understand that you feel that without a Senate conviction, a vote to ban Trump from future office based on the 14th amendment would be a bad precedent. While I agree it would be a precedent, I believe in good precedents as well. What we need to look at here is the evidence. Based on the evidence, should this action be taken.

Zara provided what is for me the clearest explanation of why Trump's actions should be considered insurrection. In particular, here:



If you can read that and honestly reply with a dismissive that this is "Trump being bad", I would guess I would once again agree with you in one respect. Trump is being bad. Insurrection is bad, and Trump's action rise to the level which is worthy of both conviction and being barred from future office. If a portion of GOP Senators choose not to apply the former, I see no reason not to argue for the latter.

Would this put a future president, be he or she Republican or Democrat, at risk of being similarly barred in the future? Absolutely. If the crimes of that future individual rose the level as described so clearly by Zara, then yes, absolutely.

The problem is that This boils down to a congressional declaration.

"We declare So and So guilty of insurrection. Therefore We declare that they are ineligible to hold public office due to the 14th Amendment."

The rest is noise. True, false, etc. This is a declaration of congress. Ignoring the fact for a second that it is a Bill of Attainder (US constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3) ask yourself if it's a good idea for congress to simply pass declarations that bar specific people from holding office? Is that a role we want congress to have? Again, Imagine a trump-led congress having this power. They declare that they believe that a person is guilty of insurrection, and by simple majority declare they cannot run for office. They'll put whatever justification into the bill they need to rationalize the declaration, but at the end of the day, it's the declaration that holds the weight, not the justification.

The reason I dismissed "trump is bad" is because it doesn't address that fundamental point being made, instead it continues on to rationalize the declaration, ignoring the actual precedent made.