So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they’re carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.
Man is guilty as sin but just to play devil’s advocate for the press: they are subject to libel laws and cannot make definitive statements of guilt/non guilt or else risk being sued.
So on the one hand it’s dumb that they aren’t telling it like it is but on the other hand I sympathize that they don’t want to put their finances on the line to pay the Donald Trump legal fund if he decides to sue.
deleted by creator
To my knowledge he hasn’t been found guilty in trial court yet, has he? Courts keep kicking the can down the road because the US justice system is a sham. If he was found guilty already, he’d be behind bars.
Basically, there are differences between the recommendations of investigation committees, eligibility to run for office, and a conviction. Just because some determination was made by a court or by a legal body doesn’t necessarily mean he was found guilty of the crime. Not yet at least.
Colorado trial and supreme Court found that he has “engaged in” an insurrection. I’ve got a link to the Supreme Court opinion in this thread.
They can definitively state that he was found guilty for his hand in the insurrection, as per the multiple cases. There’s no room for libel there, it’s a fact. He was found guilty.
Did I miss a case? AFAIK, to date he hasn’t been found guilty of anything because that would imply he’s been through a criminal trial to completion and we should be talking about his sentencing.
To the best of my knowledge he’s been found liable in a couple of civil cases and owes a buttload of damages as a consequence, but still hasn’t been found guilty of any crime, yet.
You would think journalism would be subject to libel laws, but after seeing Fox and company blast lies for decades, I don’t have that confidence.
Yes, Fox finally got hit with one major lawsuit for one massive lie, but given all the lies they’ve run, it shows how far past the line you need to go.
And only because they lied about a massive corporation who then turned around and sued them. Not everyone they lie about has a legal team on retainer ready to defend them. In this case, Trump can’t find lawyers willing to defend him at this point, but Fox News would never paint Trump in a bad light, it would alienate their viewer base
Yes and I would agree if he were before the court for the first time, but multiple judges have already made a determination in those things.
They don’t want to be on the bad side of the possible future dictator of America.
You mean their Republican donors?
alleged role,
Until he’s been criminally convicted for it, it’s “alleged” in order to avoid defamation and libel cases.
He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It’s not alleged.
He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It’s not alleged.
If you want to be safe from libel and defamation cases, it’s “alleged” until you’ve been found guilty/liable at trial, and that hasn’t happened to Trump yet.
I don’t think that’s true. The Colorado state supreme Court says he engaged in an insurrection. Truth is a defense.
The Colorado state supreme Court says he engaged in an insurrection. Truth is a defense
The truth is up to interpretation. You can say what you believe to be the truth, but somebody with a lot of money and access to experienced lawyers can cripple you with a lawsuit regardless.
Do you really want to engage in a trial that could theoretically take years? Spending untold sums of money in order to defend yourself? Even if you will probably win, you’re tying up a lot of capital and manpower to fight it. For what? The difference between an article that has the word “alleged” or not?
The risk-reward just isn’t there.
With that logic couldn’t you basically never tell the truth about anyone sufficiently rich and vindictive enough to pursue you in court? Like Trump could be sitting in jail, and we’d still be saying alleged because he might tie you up in court?
You simply refer to it as “alleged” until found guilty/liable when referencing someone doing something criminal or similar.
They could also get by with quoting that judges opinion, so long as they made it clear what they are quoting.
But a judge presenting an opinion regarding a ballot removal in which the accused was not entitled to a thorough defense and the standard being held was “whatever the judge personally felt best” rather than the more rigorous standards of a criminal trial was probably enough for their legal department to insist on the “alleged”.
and you just basically described why news organizations prefer to use alleged
That’s how these people are taking advantage of our open, democratic system. They’re acting in bad faith, but our system has to play along and treat them “fairly” to avoid giving them any potential out or ammunition for them say they’re being discriminated against or treated improperly. It’s such BS though, we’re having to bend over backwards to treat these people with kid gloves while they run roughshod over our democratic system and they will literally not treat others fairly when they get power. This man and all his enablers in Congress/Scotus need to be in shackles already, they’re a shit stain on history and they’re getting people killed in Ukraine by holding up US aid.
They are just pussies.
Greedy, don’t forget greedy
Just like the Democrats do for israel.
SCotUS: States are free to regulate their elections how they see fit.
States: Republicans are actually subject to the rule of law and responsible for the crimes they commit
SCotUS: No not like that
Here comes a ruling from Trump’s illegitimate SCOTUS in 3…2…
I am less concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that a national party nominee is disqualified from a ballot in a state he’ll almost certainly lose than I am with a ruling that some court in Florida or Arizona or Georgia can pull the same shit on Biden.
Very easy to see this become one more trick one-party states can pull to remove popular opponents from the ballot in close election years. And I would be very concerned if an Alito court authored an opinion in which this kind of thing was normalized.
I’m not afraid of bad faith attempts to ruin democracy as backlash from this decision because bad faith attempts to ruin democracy are coming regardless of the outcome of this particular case
Exactly. This constant handwringing is so tiresome.
They WILL try it, regardless of precedent.
Bush pulled a bullshit card in 2000 and it worked
And were still paying for it. So did Regan, and Nixon. Its just a pattern at this point
I think it’s important to point out that they had a riot in Florida to stop the recount. The RNC paid for it, and they bragged about using the threat of violence to stop the recount. Google Brooks Brothers riot. In the last 30 years Republicans have had more riots to try to ignore the vote than they’ve had popular vote winners. The end of democracy is their only chance going forward, they know it and they’re open about the fact that they’re trying to make it happen.
To rephrase the excellent point made: Its short sighted to think suffering no consequences for crimes will encourage the MAGA criminals to not do more bad faith crimes.
We either legitimize their actions by witholding consequences or we attempt to give them consequences and they claim their next scheme is retaliation for the consequences rather than retaliation for something entirely fabricated (ex: “stolen election” bullshit)
I have no doubt. But I’m not in a rush to open a new can of worms, when there’s no discernible benefit.
Let me know if a court in Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania yanks Trump off the ballot. Then we can talk.
Upholding the constitution is a discernable benefit.
The constitution itself contains no designation, description, or necessary admission of the existence of such a thing as slavery, servitude, or the right of property in man. We are obliged to go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime – records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution – to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it (if at all) only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing.
From “No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority” by Lyndard Spooner, discussing the fundamental failures of the document when confronting the horror of the antebellum South.
And so we decide to let tyrants through so that their party doesn’t have made up and twisted precedent to try to disqualify qualified candidates? It’s not like the GOP need or care about precedent anyway. If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it. Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.
And so we decide to let tyrants through
We don’t decide. A few Ivy League JDs in robes get to decide. The decision on whether to list a particular candidate on the ballot is, inherently, undemocratic.
If they want to try and do it they’ll try and do it.
State governments don’t need any more tools in the chest to decide who can and cannot appear on a ballot.
Booting someone like trump who has done what trump has done is a legitimate implementation of the law and the right thing to do.
I agree. But he’s not the only one who will get booted off under this rule. We both know it.
‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment? The one in the constitution? We should just ignore it so that the bad guys don’t try to use it illegitimately when we know they will anyway?
‘This rule’ being the 14th amendment?
“This rule” being the judicial decision that invokes the 14th amendment.
We should just ignore it
You’re free to do as you please, but it won’t matter unless you’re one of the Big Nine.
What are you doing to do if the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor, other than pounding sand?
What would the argument be for eliminating Biden though? Biden hasn’t committed insurrection. Trump has.
They don’t need facts. They’ll say failing to secure the border is equivalent to an insurrection, or some such bullshit
The point is, I think, to try and falsely equivocate the two things so they appear similar enough that people won’t raise too big of a fuss if Biden is removed for illegitimate reasons, because they somehow believe the same thing happened with trump.
It might be prudent to require an actual conviction of one of a specific lists of crimes, but that leaves Trump in for a bit longer
I don’t know what grounds they used but I don’t think Trump has been convicted yet
deleted by creator
1 ½… 1 ⅓… 1 ¼…
They’re gonna slow walk all the appeals responses so it doesn’t matter which way they rule.
Err - republican primary ballot. This isn’t reddit, I know that’s what the site’s clickbait headline says but can we not adopt their bait tactics?
Damn straight. The unfortunate thing about Lemmy growing is that the click bait fuckwits are appearing every now and then. Hopefully it doesn’t continue or a majority of people just downvote this shit.
deleted by creator
This is another big win, but Illinois was always unlikely to go Trump thanks to Chicago being hella blue and 90% of the state’s population. The interesting moment is going to be when a key battleground state bars him.
Most importantly this contributes to established case law to make it easier to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
Most importantly this contributes to established case law to make it easier to keep insurrectionists off the ballot
This will inevitably be challenged, probably along due process lines. And they’ll have a point: Who determines if a candidate is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, what process of law makes that determination and who is involved? 14A is unfortunately vague on that front.
To date, everyone excluded under 14A Section 3 other than Trump has fallen under one of two groups: They’ve either been a public official of the Confederacy or they’ve been convicted in criminal court of doing something that definitely falls afoul of 14A Section 3 (including one Jan 6 participant, with the last person before that being charged under the Espionage Act about a hundred years ago). Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously by a jury after being given an opportunity to defend himself as well as possible is a much higher bar than has been applied to Trump.
And remember, this isn’t about Trump, specifically - whatever is decided will apply going forward, and the GOP will try to wield it against any Democrat they can make a plausible case for. If the opinion of a judge that a candidate should be disqualified is all it requires, well there are plenty of right wing judges out there.
If it holds up, and it’s a longshot, it probably changes down-ticket races if people can’t turn out for Trump.
If it were only Illinois, they’d come out to write in Trump’s name.
However, I don’t see any way Illinois will fare differently than Colorado.
deleted by creator
Uhg. Why is this even a question? WE ALL SAW WHAT HE DID JAN 6TH
But it was the FBI and ANTIFA and George Soros is the architect of the whole thing. They took a beautiful peaceful walk through the Capital and turned it into violence. Free the J6 hostages, they didn’t do anything wrong.
I’m tired of all the double speak bullshit defending that attack on the Constitution.
A single term president has caused long term harm to the Republic that will likely last for decades until it does crumble under the fist of a fascist.
Narcissistic word salad is how Donnie used to win lawsuits, and he’s hoping it’ll work with the Jan 6th thing.
I’m from IL and it’s always nice to see the system work for a change. Of course he was never gonna win IL anyway so whatever.
Fuck this orange fuckwit forever and always.
How many states till we can stop pretending a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump?
At least 11 but no more than 40
