• blazera
    link
    fedilink
    -36 months ago

    This a lob ball for republicans who just have to point out democrats are the ones taking opposition off the ballots.

    • andyburke
      link
      fedilink
      36 months ago

      How do you mean? The people challenging Trump being on the ballots are Republicans with standing in those jurisdictions.

      I am not offering my opinion on these cases, but I think it’s important to make sure we understand who the plaintiffs are.

      • blazera
        link
        fedilink
        -26 months ago

        the two states that have removed Trump from their ballots are Colorado and Maine, Colorado’s entirely democrat appointed supreme court, and Maine’s democratic secretary of state.

        • andyburke
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          You are saying their rulings go against written law in preference to their party affiliation? If so, I’d be interested in understanding how.

          • blazera
            link
            fedilink
            -26 months ago

            I am saying they are democrats that have removed republican opposition from the next election. This is what republican voters are going to see and its gonna be hard to campaign on democracy itself while setting this precedent.

            • andyburke
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              Do our laws matter or not? The guy has been found by courts to have participated in an insurrection. He lost last time, we all know that. He tried to make it so he stayed in power, we all know that. We are just supposed to pretend that didn’t happen because some people still like him?

              Sorry, not how our county works.

              • blazera
                link
                fedilink
                16 months ago

                The way it’s supposed to go is he gets arrested immediately after the crime by the DoJ and brought to federal trial. But that didnt happen, for several years.

                This is like someone being charged with illegally possessing a firearm as a felon, but without ever being convicted as a felon. No matter how much you believe they committed a felony, they still have to be found guilty first. In this case it’s someone being barred from running for office as an insurrectionist, without ever being convicted as one.

                • Blackbeard
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  46 months ago

                  The way it’s supposed to go is he gets arrested immediately after the crime by the DoJ and brought to federal trial

                  No. The way it’s supposed to go is the DoJ gathers evidence and decides whether there’s enough of it to charge someone with a crime, and then that person is presumed innocent and has a right to an attorney who builds a case for their defense, using a process called “discovery” which grants them access to evidence and witnesses, and then they are entitled to a jury of their peers, which takes time to select from the general population. Where the fuck did you learn how prosecution works? Pyongyang?

                  • blazera
                    link
                    fedilink
                    06 months ago

                    I think you again stopped reading mid sentence. You are describing the federal trial. And you are confusing arresting with sentencing. For many crimes, especially violent ones (which, considering 5 deaths and over a hundred injured, I’d say this qualifies), arresting is actually the first step, to make sure no one else is endangered while the legal process goes on. Again, the DoJ has the authority to arrest, charge, and prosecute for federal crimes. And prosecute does not mean sentencing, it does not mean the DoJ gets to find anyone guilty themselves, they bring them to trial and make the case, they try to prove that the person committed the crime, and it’s up to judge or jury to decide to find them guilty or innocent. That is what prosecution means.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      126 months ago

      It’s so fucking stupid that Jan 6 was a cut-and-dried insurrection, that the 14th amendment should obviously bar Trump from office, and yet it might be better, politically speaking, to let him run anyway. All because there’s a giant segment of the population that receives all their news information from sources that scrub it for anything politically detrimental to their party/ point of view.

      I fucking hate it here. Fuck Nixon and Reagan, giant pieces of shit, for bringing this horrible reality to us.

      • blazera
        link
        fedilink
        -86 months ago

        Problem is its not cut and dried without a conviction. And im blaming Bidens DoJ for that taking this long, they didnt even begin charging him until last august, its 2024 and the trial hasnt even started.

        • Blackbeard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          76 months ago

          And im blaming Bidens DoJ for that taking this long, they didnt even begin charging him until last august, its 2024 and the trial hasnt even started.

          Tell me you have no idea how the criminal justice system works without telling me you have no idea how the criminal justice system works.

          • blazera
            link
            fedilink
            -46 months ago

            The DoJ has the authority to charge, arrest, and prosecute for federal crimes.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                06 months ago

                The due process part comes after the prosecution part.

                “the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge”