Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone.
Therefore, removing Trump from the ballot is illegitimate.
His opponents continually claim Trump is a threat to democracy, a threat to the Republic, dangerous for everyone who is part of a minority group in the US, and now even a threat to European nations. But who is the real threat? I say it's the people who, weilding the power of the government and law enforcement, have attempted to sidestep the Bill of Rights, particularly Freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, Redress, Due Process, etc. in part by leveraging their regulatory roles to strongarm companies or paying others to censure their opponents and silence them on many social media platforms. (And the people in Great Britain and Ireland who are creating laws against wrongthink and allowing police to enter homes, search electronic devices, and arrest the occupants for possession of unapproved materials such as anti- transgender or anti-migrant cartoons and essays.) I believe the threats are those who had the FBI investigating traditional Roman Catholics and Parental Rights Advocates as domestic terrorists. I believe it is the people who have urged their followers to harass and chase their political opponents from public places, who condoned rioting, theft, arson, and even murder in the name of "social justice", and who had nothing to say about a section of a US city seceeding from the country. I believe it is the people who supported the Senator who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name if they ruled in a way he disapproved. I believe it is the people who have spoken about unilaterally eliminating the Electoral College, the Senate, the Second Amendment, and making drastic changes to the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights.
Before the 2020 election, Trump did not DO anything that in any way threatened the nation. He did not officially (in an official speech or in official written communication acting in his role as President) say anything that threatened the nation. He unofficially said many rather ridiculous things. He was impeached without being accused of an actual crime. He was hounded, lied about, misrepresented, misquoted, and was even investigated by his own Justice Department on the basis of a document created and supplied by a political opponent.
Trump has unwisely and vociferously maintained that the 2020 elections were "stolen". I have no reason to think he does not believe this. At one point he suggested that, since the Constitution offers no recourse for what he says happened, extra-Constitutional means would need to be used to address it. He did not urge his followers to overthrow the government. He did not attempt to call out the military to "stop the steal" . He did not refuse to leave the Whitehouse.
He has been dragged into court in multiple jurisdictions on charges, some of which are flimsy at best, that are clearly motivated by political considerations. Although he (evidently jokingly) said he would have Hillary arrested for violating the law by having an outside mail server she used for official government business, and for destroying evidence on this server and on cellphones, he never persued that prosecution. In fact, the worst he has done to his "enemies" is to call then enemies of the people, despicable, horrible, and several other names. According to accounts from across the political spectrum, these words left no visible or permanent damage on those who were called names. The same sources have confirmed that Trump has never used "Sticks and Stones" against his political opponents.
Former President Donald Trump is uncultured, egotistical, inarticulate, illinformed, a braggart, an unabashed populist, and I do not like him. But there is no reason for a reasonable, thinking person to honestly consider him a threat to democracy. And there is no legal reason to keep him off the ballot.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. There is a chance of violence breaking out from either side because of their actions or rhetoric. But beyond this election and the immediate aftermath, they are opening the door for reprisals. Tit for Tat. What goes around, comes around. You remove the most popular Republican candidate in this election cycle. Your candidates get removed in the next. Democrats have forgotten that the tables can, and eventually will turn. Eventually they will be out of power. If the Republicans are feeling vengeful, it will be a bad time to be a Democrat.
"Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone."
There were weapons, there were leaders, there was a plan with a range of goals, there were threats by Trump (directed at Mike Pence). There wasn't, at least as far as we know (and I think we would know by now), a typical chain of command with Trump at the top and everyone else carrying out his explicit orders.
If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
Legally there was no insurrection.
Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone.
Therefore, removing Trump from the ballot is illegitimate.
His opponents continually claim Trump is a threat to democracy, a threat to the Republic, dangerous for everyone who is part of a minority group in the US, and now even a threat to European nations. But who is the real threat? I say it's the people who, weilding the power of the government and law enforcement, have attempted to sidestep the Bill of Rights, particularly Freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, Redress, Due Process, etc. in part by leveraging their regulatory roles to strongarm companies or paying others to censure their opponents and silence them on many social media platforms. (And the people in Great Britain and Ireland who are creating laws against wrongthink and allowing police to enter homes, search electronic devices, and arrest the occupants for possession of unapproved materials such as anti- transgender or anti-migrant cartoons and essays.) I believe the threats are those who had the FBI investigating traditional Roman Catholics and Parental Rights Advocates as domestic terrorists. I believe it is the people who have urged their followers to harass and chase their political opponents from public places, who condoned rioting, theft, arson, and even murder in the name of "social justice", and who had nothing to say about a section of a US city seceeding from the country. I believe it is the people who supported the Senator who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name if they ruled in a way he disapproved. I believe it is the people who have spoken about unilaterally eliminating the Electoral College, the Senate, the Second Amendment, and making drastic changes to the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights.
Before the 2020 election, Trump did not DO anything that in any way threatened the nation. He did not officially (in an official speech or in official written communication acting in his role as President) say anything that threatened the nation. He unofficially said many rather ridiculous things. He was impeached without being accused of an actual crime. He was hounded, lied about, misrepresented, misquoted, and was even investigated by his own Justice Department on the basis of a document created and supplied by a political opponent.
Trump has unwisely and vociferously maintained that the 2020 elections were "stolen". I have no reason to think he does not believe this. At one point he suggested that, since the Constitution offers no recourse for what he says happened, extra-Constitutional means would need to be used to address it. He did not urge his followers to overthrow the government. He did not attempt to call out the military to "stop the steal" . He did not refuse to leave the Whitehouse.
He has been dragged into court in multiple jurisdictions on charges, some of which are flimsy at best, that are clearly motivated by political considerations. Although he (evidently jokingly) said he would have Hillary arrested for violating the law by having an outside mail server she used for official government business, and for destroying evidence on this server and on cellphones, he never persued that prosecution. In fact, the worst he has done to his "enemies" is to call then enemies of the people, despicable, horrible, and several other names. According to accounts from across the political spectrum, these words left no visible or permanent damage on those who were called names. The same sources have confirmed that Trump has never used "Sticks and Stones" against his political opponents.
Former President Donald Trump is uncultured, egotistical, inarticulate, illinformed, a braggart, an unabashed populist, and I do not like him. But there is no reason for a reasonable, thinking person to honestly consider him a threat to democracy. And there is no legal reason to keep him off the ballot.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. There is a chance of violence breaking out from either side because of their actions or rhetoric. But beyond this election and the immediate aftermath, they are opening the door for reprisals. Tit for Tat. What goes around, comes around. You remove the most popular Republican candidate in this election cycle. Your candidates get removed in the next. Democrats have forgotten that the tables can, and eventually will turn. Eventually they will be out of power. If the Republicans are feeling vengeful, it will be a bad time to be a Democrat.
"Even if the invasion of the Capitol building on January 6th was officially declared an attempted insurrection (without weapons, without leaders, without a plan to replace the government,without a stated end goal at all), Trump did not tell anyone to break into the building or threaten anyone."
There were weapons, there were leaders, there was a plan with a range of goals, there were threats by Trump (directed at Mike Pence). There wasn't, at least as far as we know (and I think we would know by now), a typical chain of command with Trump at the top and everyone else carrying out his explicit orders.
If there were firearms carried by people storming the Capitol, why were they not confiscated, why were those carrying them not arrested, why are there no reports of gunfire? Why have we not heard of anyone charged with carrying, brandishing, or firing a gun in or around Capitol Hill?
I watched the videos. I saw people wandering around. I saw chaos. I did not see anyone leading, directing, or organizing the crowd. There were not leaders on the ground at the Capitol. I understand that law enforcement have worked hard to weave together a narrative that there was a plot with leaders, a weapons cache, and some nefarious plan. But it was not apparent in the videos of what went down in the Capitol. Those were sheep and goats without a shepherd.
Trump did not instigate the storming of the Capitol. He told his followers to be heard. He did not say, go break in, stop what they are doing, bring Washington to it's knees. He might have wanted or been delighted in the outcome, but under the law he is only guilty of incitement if he actually tells them go there and do this, which he explicitly did not do. He acted shamefully toward Mike Pence, who did his duty under the Constitution and resisted Trump's demands that he not certify the election based on some comic book legal analysis. But my point is that he did not tell his followers to beat up Capitol police, to tar and feather Senators and Representatives, or to stone the Vice President. He did not tell his followers to physically threaten or attack anyone.
I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government. I do not believe it exists. To be an insurrection, there would need to be a plan involving the willing, informed involvement of many people to subvert government control permanently. This rabble managed to delay the ceremonially crucial certification of the election for a short while. It happened in the hallowed halls of Congress. But other than that this was no worse and less violent than many other protests - burning down a police precinct, attacking and attempting to burn down a Federal Courthouse, taking over streets and attacking police, setting fire to police cars, and various other acts of terror, murder, arson, and theft.
As much as I would like to see Trump step away and suspend his campaign, what the Democrats are doing is wrong. The 14th Amendment does not apply. This was not an insurrection and Trump did not tell anyone to commit insurrection.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
Your eagerness to put words in my mouth leads me to think you aren't really here in good faith, so good day to you, sir.