Shouldn't this start with acknowledging that he is not eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, and that he cannot lawfully execute *any* powers of the office?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
We all saw what he did. The evidence speaks for itself. We can assert what we know to be true regardless of the procedural hoops opponents would like us to jump through, where they get to set the height.
I absolutely agree—the evidence is there. But the fact that the legal system failed us in that they did not hold him legally accountable, it's a total setback. The evidence was already presented before them and they ruled that his actions are within legal limits. Objectively, however, they were not.
It's either legal or illegal. Guilty or not guilty. They did not find him guilty, therefore, he would not be disqualified. They ruled that a single state cannot determine the eligibility of presidency. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how can we proceed with this?
That's actually not true, by the way. SCOTUS did not say his actions did not constitute insurrection, just that Colorado couldn't make that determination.
I see that I misunderstood and you are correct in that they did not even attempt to prosecute him—my apologies. But I do not foresee them escalating this, especially SCOTUS. He had them in his back pocket.
Democrats should be making clear, as a principle, that regardless of what SCOTUS says, or what Republicans say, Trump *is not eligible* to be President and that everything he would do in office is unconstitutional.
Comments
We all saw what he did. The evidence speaks for itself. We can assert what we know to be true regardless of the procedural hoops opponents would like us to jump through, where they get to set the height.
Doesn't matter what anyone ruled. We can just say they are wrong.
If that reality doesn't match what you believe should be true, you should work to change that reality, not conform to it.