Trump and Disqualification Under the 14th Amendment

1. 78

   Valeantposted 13 months ago

   A Florida attorney has filed suit to disqualify Trump from the ballot in his state under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
   
   Multiple legal scholars have already written articles supporting the theory, including numerous conservatives.
   
   Florida:  https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138421
   Conservative Scholars:  https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-c … rt-1819108
   Tribe and Luttig:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … cy/675048/
   
   According to these guys, all a state's Attorney General needs to do it make the determination and they can remove Trump from the ballot.  Trump would have to sue to get back onto the ballot.  If he gets dropped from Florida, it's over if he's the nominee.
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      My thoughts would mean little to this very complicated issue --- So, here are Alan Dershowitz's thoughts, and what he fears if Florida decides to proceed on this path.  source    https://justthenews.com/government/cour … nstitution
      
      "Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz says the attempt to get former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot is a "grave danger" to the U.S. Constitution.
      
      "That's a grave danger to our Constitution, and if that happens, I think I can be called out of retirement and be counted on to take an active role in preventing that injustice from occurring to all Americans," Dershowitz said on the Tuesday edition of the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show.
      
      There have been reports of activist groups putting together a campaign to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 under the 14th Amendment.
      
      The groups, Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People, cite Section 3 of the Amendment, which bars people from certain offices 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.”
      
      "What I'm worried about most for America and not for Donald Trump or any particular individual, is this extremely dangerous attempt to try to prevent Donald Trump from running under the 14th amendment," Dershowitz explained.
      
      "It would put the decision about who the President is in the hands of local Secretaries of State and Democratic governors, instead of in the hands of the people," he continued. "That's the most dangerous threat currently that Donald Trump faces because it doesn't even require a conviction for some secretaries of state to take them off the ballot."
      
      Trump is currently facing four indictments, with two of them being federal. He has not been convicted in any of those cases."

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Of course Dershowitz leaves out the many conservative voices also making the case.  It's the usual half-truth the far-right gets fed in this country.
         
         So Dershowitz thinks it's dangerous to enforce a provision of the Constitution that protects our democracy?  That says about all we need to know.
         
         And both red and blue states have the same powers, don't they?  But only one candidate has been accused of participating in an insurrection against their own government.  The day the democratic candidate does that, the same actions should also be taken - to protect the country.
         
         And the indictments have no bearing on using the 14th Amendment.  So bringing that up is another distraction to confuse the GOP base.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Just sharing a view from someone's opinion that over the years I have come to respect.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Yes, and I am rebutting the argument with logic to make the alternative case.    As well as noting the parts he left out to try and make it appear that this was only a left-leaning theory - which is false on its face.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I can assure you you have every right to dispute Alan Dershowitz.  Like I said I had hoped to offer another view of a man I respect. Hopefully, some who visit this thread will have a look and consider his opinion. 
                  
                  As I did by reading the links you offered.

                  replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "But only one candidate has been accused of participating in an insurrection against their own government."
            
            Which candidate was that?  Because I haven't heard that either candidate for the last few decades or so has faced insurrection charges.
            
            Or does "insurrection" mean the shrieks of the ignorant yahoo on the street corner that doesn't care what the word means or if it even happened at all?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Your logical fallacies bore me.  Go shift the goalposts from accused and shown in examples, to charged in a court (which is not necessary to apply the 14th Amendment) being the same thing, somewhere else.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  "which is not necessary to apply the 14th Amendment"
                  
                  Well, I have to agree with you there - liberals are not overly concerned with following the Constitution.  Open borders, violating the 2nd amendment, etc.; anything goes if they can just get what they want.  In this case just a claim of violation; no court necessary, right?

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Actually, in this case, it isn't just liberals following the Constitution - it is noted conservative scholars and judges.  Something now two of the three far-right posters have omitted from their claims in the most ridiculously partisan display you can find.
                     
                     Those scholars assert that the 14th Amendment gives Secretaries of State the right to keep those who engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection off the ballot in their state.  In the same manner the Constitution grants other officers, such as a president, the right to appoint ambassadors.
                     
                     Those scholars have laid out their cases in the links I provided, which I am certain you did not read before making your post.
                     
                     I'm sure there would be suits by the displaced candidate to appeal those decisions.  It will be interesting to watch each side present their case to the court.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        I understand all that.  I also understand that not a single person, including Trump, is charged with "insurrection", which you say the Constitution would prohibit him from being President.  The whole comment was about liberals not feeling it necessary to actually have a law broken (insurrection) to bring out the 14th amendment.  A simple claim is sufficient to declare guilt to the liberal mind when it comes to Trump, and you follow that trend to a "T".

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           Not what I say, what legal scholars and judges are saying, including many conservatives.  Again, you fall back to the tired claim that it's 'liberals not feeling it necessary to actually have a law broken' when I keep noting it's conservatives and liberals.
                           
                           And yes, according to the 14th Amendment, giving aid and comfort to those that committed the insurrection - as noted by the multiple people charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the US government - is a qualifying standard to be barred from ever serving in an official capacity ever again.
                           
                           If you had read any of the links, you might have seen that argument from the conservatives that are making the case.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              "If you had read any of the links, you might have seen that argument from the conservatives that are making the casE"
                              
                              No, They are not the real all American conservative, patriot types but are actually RINOs in disguise.
                              
                              You will wait until hell freezes over to get any kind of coherent dialogue from the rightwing types.....

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                 It's just so obvious how these people get programmed to ignore the basics of any argument.
                                 
                                 Them:  'It's Liberals!@!@!@' 
                                 Us:  'Actually, we've just quote three of five conservatives.  But don't let those facts get in your way of your obvious hate of the other.'

                                 replyreport
                              2. 86

                                 Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                 Oh my... I have read many very relevant comments here... I myself posted an article in full with Alan Dershowitz's view on the thread's subject.
                                 
                                 The chip on your shoulder is showing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                    I read your link from Mr. Dershowitz, thanks for providing it. He is just one conservative of many who seem to have opposing views as to Trump culpability in this matter.
                                    
                                    IF Trump and company are convicted of being behind the fake elector scheme, the illegal foraging for votes in Georgia, that in itself is an assualt on the current form of government and the integrity of the process, for which I do not have to reach very far to consider it to be insurrection or rebellion.
                                    
                                    To attempt to change the Constitutional mandated process by fraud and cheat are serious charges that attacks the sanctity of the entire system and cannot be allowed.
                                    
                                    IF he is convicted, Trump should be disqualified under Section 3. There are rules and qualifications established by the Constitution for being president related to age, citizenship, etc. Not to be disqualified under Section 3 is just another requirement.
                                    
                                    No more than the electorate can make a 17 year old or someone born in Kenya President, such would be the case in this instance as well.
                                    
                                    Matter of fact, if John Dillinger were still alive he would have a stronger case for becoming President than Trump, as all he ever did was rob banks.

                                    replyreport
         3. 70

            abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            There was no insurrection, perhaps that has something to do with it.
            IF there had been, a planned insurrection, more people than a Trump -supporter, Ashli Babbitt, would be dead!

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               And that seditious conspiracy charge that multiple people went to jail for?  Care to explain.  That's been proven in a court of law - so take that claim of 'no insurrection' back to that alternate reality.
               
               And you always fall back to that domestic terrorist who made herself into a threat and failed to obey police orders.  Maybe someday we can get you to acknowledge the multiple reports that explained why she died.

               replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Thoughts?
      
      This is how far we descend in today's political milieu, having to even discuss the fact that any man with so many indictments could even be considered as fit for the office whether there is a conviction or not.
      
      Conservatives are going to call Trump's clear attempt to usurp power contrary to what is prescribed in the Constitution as "free speech" .
      
      The requirements of Section 3 is clear. Conservatives are going to dispute as to whether Trump actually violated that provision of Amendment 14.
      
      Considering the affairs of January 6th, the fake electors which point to Trump, the badgering of VP Pence to go beyond his actual designated authority that day along with interference in the final GA vote tally, the answer would be obvious. Including the mob, who would believe that all of these events were unrelated and mere coincidences, not involving Trump?
      
      Fifty years ago, there would have been no question where anyone with the level of the stench of illegality all over him like this would end up. There wouldn't even have been a second thought......

      replyreport
2. 70

   abwilliamsposted 13 months ago

   Scary stuff! But some citizens are actually okay with ALL of this --- which is even scarier! Don't think I have ever been as nervous about the type of future my grandchildren will have, as I am, present day. :`(

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      What is scarier is that some people are accepting of re-electing a person who was involved in an insurrection against our country.  That the will of the people no longer matters if they can take power by force or deception.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Asked and answered already.

         replyreport
3. 61

   Willowarborposted 13 months ago

   Prominent conservative scholars and judges have joined in also.
   J. Michael Luttig,former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Laurence H. Tribe of the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University have also joined this call.
   
   The argument was also made earlier this month when two members of the  Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.
   
   Trump did claim that he would pardon those who breached the capitol.  Sounds like aid and comfort to me.
   
   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-am … =102547316

   replyreport
4. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

   "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
   
   If you can't do that, didn't really mean it when you took that oath, or changed your mind because it didn't fit your circumstances - then your name shouldn't be on any ballot anywhere.
   
   Let anyone who doesn't honor the oath they took face the consequences without anyone making excuses for them.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Are you talking about opening our southern border to anyone wanting in, letting illegal aliens vote, taking actions limited to states, etc. or Trump?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Why should anyone engage with you when you fabricate half the claims in your posts and deflect off topic?

         replyreport
      2. 86

         Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Or weaponizing the DOJ and FBI.

         replyreport
      3. 76

         Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Wilderness: I can only assume you do not understand the difference between an oath of office and policy.
         
         The oath I quoted is taken by every elected official and military member in our country. When it is violated, there should be consequences.

         replyreport
5. 70

   abwilliamsposted 13 months ago

   Um-hum

   replyreport
6. 78

   Valeantposted 13 months ago

   Yeah, we usually get to um-hum when the facts undermine the far-right claims and there are no answers to the hard questions we on the left ask.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with a sentiment is present in such cases. 
      
      Maybe realize we have no interest in repetition. We have no need to answer the same questions over and over. I mean I have literally kept a copy/paste file for this particular forum. Yeah, I too have been using un-hum.  I am not about to answer the same question over and over.  I mean, it shows a real lack of intelligence to do so, does it not?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         I feel the lack of intelligence more stems from sticking to debunked points of view.  Such as 'there was no insurrection' when people went to jail for a charge that is synonymous with insurrection in seditious conspiracy.  Or needing to defend domestic terrorists that attacked our Capitol - something that only certain posters at this site continually bring up in the repetitious way that certainly must irk you.
         
         And you're right, certain topics get discussed frequently here.  In fact, I am aware of one user who spams the site with a new thread every time Fox News puts out one of their propaganda pieces - as if we couldn't choose to go read it if we had an interest.  This user could just add the new story to any one of their current threads, since they usually pertain to each of them, but instead chooses to spam the site with a dozen threads all on the same topic.  It's a pattern with this user - to spam this site with far-right half-truths and gaslighting.  I can understand how some might be frustrated by the repetitiveness of some users.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            um-hum

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               No one person has the market cornered on those thinly veiled insults that have been posted numerous times this week.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I've elaborated on my rationale for choosing to use 'un-hum.' While you might not agree with my reasoning, it's important to recognize my right to hold my own perspective. Only the moderator holds the authority to intervene, and I believe they might value my 'um-hum' expression for insight into my genuine thoughts.
                  
                  Not an insult, a survival tool.
                  
                  Again ---   I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with a sentiment is present in such cases.
                  
                  Maybe realize we have no interest in repetition. We have no need to answer the same questions over and over. I mean I have literally kept a copy/paste file for this particular forum. Yeah, I too have been using un-hum.  I am not about to answer the same question over and over.  I mean, it shows a real lack of intelligence to do so, does it not?

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     The irony of complaining about repetitive posts while repeating the exact same thing you said just a few hours ago is priceless.  And the typical display of hypocrisy we on the left have grown accustomed to.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        I should have given you the last word --- I know that is important for you.  All I care about is making sure my view is shared in the mix of things. Sometimes it takes a couple of copy and pastes.
                        
                        Your bait is really dated.

                        replyreport
      2. 76

         Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         " I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. "'
         
         Generalizations like this are not constructive.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "The chip on your shoulder is showing."
            
            A little snarky - don't you think?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Let me assure you Cred and I are comfortable with such banter.
               
               Creds bit of snark --  You will wait until HELL  freezes over to get any kind of coherent dialogue from the rightwing types.....
               
               My reply --   Oh my... I have read many very relevant comments here... I myself posted an article in full with Alan Dershowitz's view on the thread's subject.
               
               My bit of snark ---   The chip on your shoulder is showing.
               
               On a different note, it seems your irritation might be coming through in your comments. I've noticed a certain demeanor in your words. It's important to point out that I've started to feel somewhat uneasy with the personal nature of your statements; they come across as bordering on trolling.
               
               As you can see, Cred and I both managed to exchange our friendly jabs without any issues. Just as I didn't take offense at his comment, he appeared to handle mine just fine as well.

               replyreport
         2. 86

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I was offering an honest opinion I hold as a view. Maybe you might consider, that others can share their views openly. I certainly intend to.
            
            I have no interest in your critiques of my words. I make every attempt to be polite, and congenial. So, if you find a problem with my comments, simply report them to the moderator.
            
            Perhaps you could comment on the subject of the conversation, otherwise... Your view of my way of conversing does not interest me. I have a right to my view.
            
            This statement is a view I truely do hold.   Plus you took a sentence, perhaps have a look at the entire context of the comment that one sentence came from.  "I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. "
            
            Let me share the full context of the paragraph you plucked the sentence from   
            
            "I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with sentiment is present in such cases. "
            
            As you see it offers my full thoughts and gives my reasoning.

            replyreport
7. 85

   RJ Schwartzposted 13 months ago

   I would think this is a Federal Issue. If he is convicted of insurrection, then yes, take him off the ballot.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      And yet Section 3 also includes giving aid and comfort - so your claim that a charge of insurrection is necessary does not equate to the language of the Constitution.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      This is such a sticky situation, is it not?  I think if he is convicted, and sent to prison, he should let another run. Although he has vowed not to.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         He should.  He won't.
         
         But he is not charged with insurrection that I'm aware of.  Of course, all it takes is some fancy twisting of words to change it into that...

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I have weeded through the indictments, and there are no insurrection charges In December, I do know the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 recommended that the Justice Department charge Mr. Trump with several federal crimes, including inciting insurrection — a count that would have directly placed the blame for the attack on Mr. Trump’s shoulders.  Smith’s prosecutors did not include that charge in the indictments.
            
            I agree, I feel sure the word itself will be used at trial.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Not criminally, but civilly he is being sued by the Sicknick family for his role in contributing to the insurrection.  Having organized the event and then sending the crowd to the Capitol, despite his rally not being permitted for the Capitol, without telling Capitol Police of that plan, certain gives him some culpability.  Do you agree with that or not?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  "for his role in contributing to the insurrection."
                  
                  Is that the wording of the suit, or is that just Valeant adding that last little word?  Changing "riot", or maybe "disturbance" into "insurrection" because you like it better?

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Pretty sure I've established it can be called an insurrection based on the seditious conspiracy charges that sent multiple people to jail.  I'm done arguing that point with you - I believe you'll try to downplay it until your death and neither of us are going to budge - so you call it what you want by omitting facts and I'll call it what I want by including them.
                     
                     As to the suit, here is what it states:
                     "Defendant Trump intentionally riled up the crowd and directed and encouraged a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol and attack those who opposed them," Sicknick's estate claims in the court papers.
                     
                     "The violence that followed, and the injuries that violence caused, including the injuries sustained by Officer Sicknick and his eventual death, were reasonable and foreseeable consequences of Defendant Trump’s words and conduct," the lawsuit alleges.
                     
                     So yeah, the suit argues that Trump's words and actions led to a violent uprising against the Capitol of his own country.

                     replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I was unaware of the case. As of yet no court of law has proved he planned anything. Will be interesting to see where this civil case goes.

                  replyreport
            2. 80

               Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

               No, there has been no specific indictment against Trump accusing him of fomenting insurrection, but the charges do point to the aiding and abetting that comes under the purview of Section 3. This was mentioned by Valeant.
               
               We need to go through the process of a trial to make it clear one way or the other that Trump is either guilty or innocent. If guilty, then we can dispense with the fussing regarding the application of Section 3. It can become clear to all parties that this goes beyond just political witch hunts.
               
               Have been reading articles that seem to indicate that many of those charged along with Trump are using a Nazi style defense of merely following orders. They might Play " let's make a deal" with Fani for a lesser charge if they reveal who and what put them up to the idea of illegally signing off on the fake electors plan or participating in it.
               
               
               https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/p … lence.html

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Cred
                  
                  " No, there has been no specific indictment against Trump accusing him of fomenting insurrection, but the charges do point to the aiding and abetting that comes under the purview of Section 3. This was mentioned by Valeant."
                  
                  I went through the links that Val shared. I can't say I found the points presented to be particularly captivating or convincing. I also included Alan Dershowitz's perspective on the matter in my response. I shared it as an alternative viewpoint that I hold in high regard. In my opinion, his insights are quite pertinent to potential future challenges that could arise if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is employed to remove Trump.
                  
                  Undoubtedly, we must navigate through the multiple trials that lie ahead.
                  
                  What I'm observing is an intricately complex matter – almost like a puzzle. A coherent image will only emerge when all the pieces align. I believe that if accounts don't correspond and fit together seamlessly, an individual might appear to be untruthful. I hope that this puzzle can be reconstructed with the truth: uncovering who took what actions and precisely when they took them.
                  
                  Shar

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Just like Ralph, the twisting is from you in saying he needs to be charged or convicted of insurrection to meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's wording.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Sorry - you're the one that said the 14th amendment could come into play because Trump participated in an insurrection.  Not I.  All I did was question how that could happen if he was not charged - you seem to think that just because the word exists he is guilty of it.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Actually, what I said was this since you often change what people said:  Those scholars assert that the 14th Amendment gives Secretaries of State the right to keep those who engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection off the ballot in their state.  Then those scholars list the many ways Trump's actions fit into the Amendment - which they argue does not require a charge or a conviction.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Again, there was no insurrection!
                     Some seem giddy about the downfall of America, but it will not be this so-called insurrection or the 45th President that takes us there!!
                     
                     It will be the people's complacency and irrational thinking.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        Um-hum.  Again, seditious conspiracy convictions.

                        replyreport
      2. 80

         Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

         That is going to be hard to sell to never Trumper Republicans, independents and moderates.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, it would be hard to sell.

            replyreport
   3. 70

      abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Of course he will be convicted....he is freakin' Donald J.
      Trump - the man who dared.....

      replyreport
8. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

   In once again Sharlee You make up the rules as you go along as long as they do not apply to you.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I adhere to the guidelines set forth by HP, and I also acknowledge that I hold my own perspective when it comes to expressing my opinions. I present my viewpoints without imposing them and respect others' choices in how they receive them. Your willingness to continue to critique my views, and how I choose to share them, while slightly unusual in my view, does not cause me any discomfort. In fact, I have grown accustomed to it with a positive outlook.
      
      I appreciate your recognition of my independent stance and understanding that I follow my own path in these matters.

      replyreport
9. 93

   IslandBitesposted 13 months ago

   Trump’s eligibility for New Hampshire ballot under review
   
   Officials in New Hampshire are looking into whether or not former President Donald Trump is constitutionally qualified to appear on the statewide presidential ballot in 2024.
   
   Attorney General John Formella and Secretary of State David Scanlan issued a joint statement Tuesday saying that their offices have been tracking a legal discussion over Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that Formella's office is "reviewing the legal issues involved" at the request of Scanlan's office.
   
   “The Secretary of State’s Office has requested the Attorney General’s Office to advise the Secretary of State regarding the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the provision’s potential applicability to the upcoming presidential election cycle. The Attorney General’s Office is now carefully reviewing the legal issues involved,” New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Secretary of State David Scanlan said in a joint statement.
   
   “Neither the Secretary of State’s Office nor the Attorney General’s Office has taken any position regarding the potential applicability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the upcoming presidential election cycle,” they wrote.

   replyreport