Allegations of Capitol ‘reconnaissance’ tours

[Zara]

A claim of election fraud is not sufficient, he needs actual evidence that could prove his claims before making outlandish allegations. The courts so far have thrown out his cases as being without standing or without merit, congress writing, "Every single lawsuit was dismissed, with the exception of one in Pennsylvania regarding ballot curing, and, even there, the court ruling did not in any way change the outcome of the election results in that state.2 The President and those associated with him continue to press their increasingly baseless claims long after their factual and legal contentions had been repeatedly dismissed. These frivolous lawsuits were used by President Trump and his allies, not to identify legitimate concerns, but to undermine confidence in the results of the election, spread dangerous disinformation, and stoke false and wild conspiracy theories" source.

[Zara]

Yes. And it's experts have proven their worth by never once passing an unconstitutional law.

You mean, the republican experts that attempted to set a trap for voters?

I can't answer that question. Never once is a weak standard, do you doubt their ability if they make one mistake in a thousand? You appear to be saying that the 14th Amendment's use is unconstitutional, which is a contradiction.

[CivilDiscourse]

You mean, the republican experts that attempted to set a trap for voters?

I can't answer that question. Never once is a weak standard, do you doubt their ability if they make one mistake in a thousand? You appear to be saying that the 14th Amendment's use is unconstitutional, which is a contradiction.

No. I'm saying congress passing a bill of attainder is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment does not give congress the ability to simply make a declaration that bars a specific person from holding office.

[Zara]

No. I'm saying congress passing a bill of attainder is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment does not give congress the ability to simply make a declaration that bars a specific person from holding office.

Are you an expert on constitutional law?

[CivilDiscourse]

Are you an expert on constitutional law?

Apparently more so than you

[Zara]

Apparently more so than y

Sorry, what was that? You missed the bit with the point.

[kccd]

So, then, the GOP could do the same thing to a disliked democratic opponent. Simply declare that they feel that they participated in an insurrection and are therefore ineligible? You support that precedent?

Say, for example, declaring that AOC supported insurrection (aid and comfort) during the summer riots and is therefore ineligible for holding office?

Well, if there were another comparable insurrection with lefties breaking into the Capitol following month long planning involving the POTUS and a POTUS rally right before the event, then yes.

The summer demonstrations were occasionally accompanied by looting and vandalism and fighting, but that is not an insurrection and is not remotely comparable to what happened on 1/6.

[kccd]

The intention was to bar confederates from congress. It was so poorly written and thought out that they had to issue a waiver.

Having said that, congress trying to do this would be a bill of attainder, which is a sticking point.

Those insurrectionists on 1/6 were waving the Confederate flag in the halls of Congress, along with flags naming their modern leader, Trump.

[Zara]

No. I'm saying congress passing a bill of attainder is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment does not give congress the ability to simply make a declaration that bars a specific person from holding office.

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.

[CivilDiscourse]

Those insurrectionists on 1/6 were waving the Confederate flag in the halls of Congress, along with flags naming their modern leader, Trump.

Fairly weak connection you just tried there.

[CivilDiscourse]

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.

None of that wall of text addresses the point, its just a rant about Trump being bad.

[Zara]

None of that wall of text addresses the point, its just a rant about Trump being bad.

The point is that if the 14th cannot be used, and no other mechanisms exist, the lack of a mechanism is a problem for stability of the US government. Which Trump has undermined, to the point of an attack on a sitting congress.

[CivilDiscourse]

The point is that if the 14th cannot be used, and no other mechanisms exist, the lack of a mechanism is a problem for stability of the US government. Which Trump has undermined, to the point of an attack on a sitting congress.

Well the solution would be voters..I know, radical concept, right?

[Zara]

Well the solution would be voters..I know, radical concept, right?

There was a vote, how terrible the moderate other guys won. Trump claimed that the election was stolen. Those claims turned out to be false and frivolous. He continued to claim the election was stolen, convincing his followers that there is an existential threat to their government. You see the problem? What type of government steals an election?

[CivilDiscourse]

There was a vote, how terrible the moderate other guys won. Trump claimed that the election was stolen. Those claims turned out to be false and frivolous. He continued to claim the election was stolen, convincing his followers that there is an existential threat to their government. You see the problem? What type of government steals an election?

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