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.
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.
You are saying their rulings go against written law in preference to their party affiliation? If so, I’d be interested in understanding how.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
For many crimes, especially violent ones (which, considering 5 deaths and over a hundred injured, I’d say this qualifies)
Yes, and the people directly responsible for that violence were arrested as quickly as they could be identified and located. It’s like you simply refuse to accept that assigning culpability is not so straightforward when it’s several degrees removed. Mens rea in a criminal conspiracy requires an overt act to commit a crime, and the overt act must be verified, else a charge wouldn’t be provable in court. And no DA in the country would arrest someone that high profile in such a complicated case without gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, crossing t’s, and dotting i’s:
I don’t know what world you live in where the DOJ can simply act like John Fucking Wayne whenever it wants, but these are career prosecutors, and thankfully they’re not dumb enough to try to lock up the kingpin before closing the net around the underlings and making sure the case is ironclad.
