GA - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 10 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, 14 Aug 2023

[Arkay]

Two conservative legal scholars recently wrote that Trump is indeed disqualified from running for president based on the 14th amendment, section 3.

"They state explicitly that Section Three 'disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.'”

"Every president, regardless of party, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated that oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship."

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

Enforcing the Disqualification Clause against an official who violated their oath is an act of patriotism, not partisanship.

thehill.com

This is now my favored scenario.

Let the words of James Madison, as he framed the Constitution, land now on Trump.

Let the other, legitimate Republican contenders have their fair chance to contend for the primaries without the distraction and destruction caused by Donald Trump.

Let the trials for anyone charged continue as they would with any typical defendant.

Let the juries decide to convict or exonerate.

Let the people vote in 2024.

This is America. This is what’s fair, IMO and the law.

I hope momentum builds in Congress for this, and don’t let the chandelier hit you in your outlandish hair on your way out, Donald.

 

[Inthedetails]

I was trying to remember some events around the 2020 election and found this wikipedia page to be super helpful. The Georgia indictment goes through some events, but only those pertinent to that case, of course, and it's nice to have a comprehensive look.

It's an interesting read/refresher/reference: Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (November 2020–January 2021) - Wikipedia

jmo

 

[Cubby]

IANAL so I can’t be sure, but it would seem to me that he should ALREADY have been disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment, section 3, as of Jan 6th, 2021.

I’m only guessing, but IMO the convictions, if he is convicted, aren’t even necessary to label him unfit to hold office at this present juncture. He disqualified himself by his actions that day and his ongoing actions post-January 6th.


I see it as two distinct issues—-Under the 14th amendment, Trump should be disqualified from running for office. Separately, IMO the trials should all continue, because he is charged with committing crimes.

****************************************************************************

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."


****************************************************************************


Here’s a link to lawyers who know and can reason it out:

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment - FindLaw

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to keep former Confederate officials from gaining power in the reconstructed government following the Civil War. Known as the "disqualification clause," this section was fairly obscure until January 6, 2021, when supporters of...

constitution.findlaw.com

I hear you and agree with you. They should be handled as two separate issues.

My question or concern revolves around the conditions for a vote from Congress. If he has not been convicted, what is the standard to prove he participated in insurrection?
That question remains unanswered per the link you added. Is this something like one shot only if he is 'acquitted'? What's the goal line? A vote before a conviction might not do it. Perhaps with one or more convictions a vote will be more likely to be successful.

 

[Inthedetails]

My question or concern revolves around the conditions for a vote from Congress.

Snipped.

A vote in Congress is not required.

I agree that conviction for his participation in J6 and fake-elector scheme would be helpful!

But, the conservative legal scholars who recently wrote about this argue:

"[T]he Disqualification Clause is 'an enforceable part of the Constitution....The provision is also 'self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress.'”

In other words, it already exists. Congress doesn't need to vote on it. To REMOVE the clause would require a vote from Congress, but not to enforce it.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

Snipped.

A vote in Congress is not required.

I agree that conviction for his participation in J6 and fake-elector scheme would be helpful!

But, the conservative legal scholars who recently wrote about this argue:

"[T]he Disqualification Clause is 'an enforceable part of the Constitution....The provision is also 'self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress.'”

In other words, it already exists. Congress doesn't need to vote on it. To REMOVE the clause would require a vote from Congress, but not to enforce it.

jmo

Replying to myself to say I don't hold much hope this would actually happen, fwiw.

jmo

 

[Cubby]

Snipped.

A vote in Congress is not required.

I agree that conviction for his participation in J6 and fake-elector scheme would be helpful!

But, the conservative legal scholars who recently wrote about this argue:

"[T]he Disqualification Clause is 'an enforceable part of the Constitution....The provision is also 'self-executing … without the need for additional action by Congress.'”

In other words, it already exists. Congress doesn't need to vote on it. To REMOVE the clause would require a vote from Congress, but not to enforce it.

jmo

Ok, thanks. I misunderstood the vote.

 

[JerseyGirl]

The identities behind the 30 unindicted co-conspirators in Trump's Georgia case | CNN Politics

Fulton County’s sweeping indictment against former President Donald Trump and 18 additional co-defendants also includes details involving 30 “unindicted co-conspirators” – people who Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis alleges took part in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020...

amp.cnn.com

Some of the co-conspirators are key Trump advisers, like Boris Epshteyn, while several others are likely Georgia officials who were the state’s fake electors for Donald Trump.

One of the unindicted co-conspirators who appears multiple times in the indictment is Georgia’s Republican Lt. Gov. Burt Jones.

CNN has been able to identify or narrow down nearly all of the unindicted co-conspirators:

 

[JerseyGirl]

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/17/georgia-grand-jurors-threats-trump

The names of the grand jury members are publicly available, as per state law, and are listed in the 98-page indictment. The publicly available document does not include additional information about the jurors, such as address.

Names of the jurors have appeared on pro-Trump extremist forums, The Washington Post reports. Some of those Trump supporters have reportedly compared the benefits of looking into the jurors' lives versus the risks of facing consequences.

Pictures of at least two jurors were also posted to Twitter Tuesday, per WaPo.

Some jurors have since deactivated their social media profiles.

Some forum posters have also listed social media profiles of people who have the same names as the grand jurors — though it's unclear it's actually them, creating more safety risks, per CNN.

Authorities investigating threats to grand jurors who indicted Trump in Georgia

Authorities in Georgia are investigating threats made against the grand jurors who indicted former President Donald Trump and 18 allies.

apnews.com

 

[sds71]

@maggieNYT

We reported the other day that Trump lawyers and advisers have growing concerns about what Trump is saying about his cases and that it was unclear if his promised Monday press conference, on a day his club is supposed to closed, would happen. And it’s not:

 

[JerseyGirl]

Arizona AG investigating 2020 alleged fake electors tied to Trump

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes' office is conducting an ongoing investigation into an alleged fake elector situation.

www.cbsnews.com

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes' office is conducting an ongoing investigation of an alleged attempt to use alternate electors after the 2020 presidential election to benefit former President Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the attorney general confirmed.

The Arizona probe takes place as Trump and 18 of his associates face charges of racketeering, election fraud and other charges in Fulton County, Georgia, over an alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including the alternate elector scheme.

The indictment alleged that some of the defendants solicited legislators to appoint new electors not only in Georgia, but also in states including Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

 

[Inthedetails]

@maggieNYT

We reported the other day that Trump lawyers and advisers have growing concerns about what Trump is saying about his cases and that it was unclear if his promised Monday press conference, on a day his club is supposed to closed, would happen. And it’s not:

Sure, Jan.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

We reported the other day that Trump lawyers and advisers have growing concerns about what Trump is saying about his cases and that it was unclear if his promised Monday press conference, on a day his club is supposed to closed, would happen. And it’s not:

I wonder if the lawyers threatened to resign if he went ahead with it.

This doesn't seem like something Trump would do, on his own.

 

[Leilei]

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/17/georgia-grand-jurors-threats-trump

The names of the grand jury members are publicly available, as per state law, and are listed in the 98-page indictment. The publicly available document does not include additional information about the jurors, such as address.

Names of the jurors have appeared on pro-Trump extremist forums, The Washington Post reports. Some of those Trump supporters have reportedly compared the benefits of looking into the jurors' lives versus the risks of facing consequences.

Pictures of at least two jurors were also posted to Twitter Tuesday, per WaPo.

Some jurors have since deactivated their social media profiles.

Some forum posters have also listed social media profiles of people who have the same names as the grand jurors — though it's unclear it's actually them, creating more safety risks, per CNN.

Authorities investigating threats to grand jurors who indicted Trump in Georgia

Authorities in Georgia are investigating threats made against the grand jurors who indicted former President Donald Trump and 18 allies.

apnews.com

Not a fan of Georgia being okay about listing the names of the jurors in the indictments AT ALL.
Not just because of this particular case, but any case. We WS members know very well how unhinged people can be.
And here we are.

 

[sds71]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692302328999612622

 

[Leilei]

@maggieNYT

We reported the other day that Trump lawyers and advisers have growing concerns about what Trump is saying about his cases and that it was unclear if his promised Monday press conference, on a day his club is supposed to closed, would happen. And it’s not:

Imagining huge stacks of "official looking" blank paper on his not-Twitter/X Monday.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder if the lawyers threatened to resign if he went ahead with it.

This doesn't seem like something Trump would do, on his own.

I think it is possible that he never intended to have a press conference.

It reminds me of him telling the Irish citizens that he needed to return to NY to appear at the defamation case against him. He had no intention of appearing at that trial.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Jeffrey Clark seeks to pause disciplinary case due to Georgia indictment

Jeffrey Clark, one of 19 defendants in the Georgia 2020 election probe, wants to postpone an ethics violation case brought by a licensing authority for attorneys in Washington, D.C.

www.nbcnews.com

A former Justice Department official who served in the Trump administration and is one of 19 defendants in the Georgia 2020 election probe is seeking to pause an ethics case against him, citing the charges he's now facing in the Fulton County indictment.

In a 13-page filing in D.C. federal court, lawyers for Jeffrey Clark on Thursday argued that an ethics violation case brought by a licensing authority for attorneys in the nation's capital should be put on hold until the resolution of the Georgia charges because "they involve substantially the same allegations."

The D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which regulates the conduct of attorneys admitted to the Bar in Washington, began a disciplinary proceedingagainst Clark in July 2022.

 

[crussell821]

@maggieNYT

We reported the other day that Trump lawyers and advisers have growing concerns about what Trump is saying about his cases and that it was unclear if his promised Monday press conference, on a day his club is supposed to closed, would happen. And it’s not:

Oh wow, color me super surprised. I want to see the ‘Irrefutable and Overwhelming’ evidence Donny!

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I wonder how long the list of Trumps lies is now.

There was at least one person making a note of them.

It must have almost been a full time job.

 

[Leilei]

I wonder how long the list of Trumps lies is now.

There was at least one person making a note of them.

It must have almost been a full time job.

I hope that poor person said "I'm so done" and is now enjoying a peaceful retirement lol