He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

      • Moyer1666
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, so he’s essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.

          • Moyer1666
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately, yes. As much as I would hate it he should still be innocent and able to run until he’s convicted. Hopefully at least one of his many cases ends that way…

          • nasser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations. And “innocent until proven guilty” is not a legal construct; it’s simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).

            • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              5th amendment states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

              A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.

              You can’t treat a person as though they’re guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.

              An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It’s the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution’s case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it’s very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it’s just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor’s office wants to charge is indicted.

              Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.

            Move too slowly and you can’t secure a conviction by election day 2024.

            Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal…and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.

            I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out…but not leaving enough time for Trump’s lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.

            Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win…and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.