Election Interference

[Ken]

Feel free to provide any evidence or argument you have that anyone involved in the ballot access process in CO or ME did something illegal or unethical. And we Ken will take a look at itdeny it.

Fixed it for you

Don't let me stop you. Go for it.

[ohio jones]

All of this could have been avoided if Republicans had chosen to nominate someone else who isn't an insurrectionist with 91 felony indictments across 3 states and the District of Columbia. Surely there is some Republican who isn't so egregiously tainted.

The Republicans (or the Democrats for that matter) haven't nominated anyone yet this year. Was Trump an insurrectionist when they nominated him in 2016 or 2020?

[ohio jones]

No, insurrection is illegal under Federal law. It simply isn't the jurisdiction of the State Court to criminally try Trump for the Federal crime of insurrection. It is, however, within their jurisdiction to administer State elections. And absent any ruling or clarity at the Federal level they did their job and ruled on his eligibility to be on the STATE ballot in Colorado. Now we actually have a ruling at the Federal level providing clarity on that issue so the issue of ballot access has been resolved. But not the issue of whether he engaged in insurrection. No one has overruled that determination by the Colorado Supreme Court.

If finding that Trump engaged in insurrection isn't Colorado's jurisdiction, why would anyone need to overturn their determination, or even pay any attention to it?

[Ken]

All of this could have been avoided if Republicans had chosen to nominate someone else who isn't an insurrectionist with 91 felony indictments across 3 states and the District of Columbia. Surely there is some Republican who isn't so egregiously tainted.

The Republicans (or the Democrats for that matter) haven't nominated anyone yet this year. Was Trump and insurrectionist when they nominated him in 2016 or 2020?

Well, he is what the press is labeling the "presumptive nominee" since all the other candidates have dropped out and most of them have endorsed Trump. Obviously the actual nomination won't happen until the convention this July in Milwaukee. Do you think he won't be the nominee?

And no, he was not an insurrectionist when he was nominated in 2016 and 2020. And there weren't any challenges to Trump's ballot access in 2016 and 2020 (at least that I remember). The insurrection happened in 2021. But then you already knew that didn't you?

I do recall one argument about ballot access in 2016. Let's see if I can find it.....

My mistake, it wasn't just 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ee-not-me/

A Trump refrain: Disqualification for thee but not for me

Trump on Tuesday night derided the ruling as “eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.” But not only did Trump try to overturn the will of voters after the 2020 election, he has on myriad occasions pushed the idea that candidates should be disqualified irrespective of the voters’ will.

That was basically the thrust of Trump’s rise to political prominence. He built a base in the early 2010s with the ugly and false “birther” campaign, whose entire premise was that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be president. A sampling:

• “The birther issue is an issue that’s very important, because if you’re not born in the United States, you can’t be president,” Trump said in March 2011.
• “You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country,” he said on NBC’s “Today” a week later.
• “I think it’s an important fight because, you know, essentially you’re right down to the basics,” he said on Fox News in 2012. “The answer is if you’re not born here, you can’t be president. So it’s not like, ‘Oh, gee, let’s not discuss it.’ ”

Trump didn’t stop there. During the 2016 GOP primary campaign, he repeatedly pushed the idea that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) might — and even should — be disqualified, both because he was born in Canada and because he purportedly cheated in the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won. And Trump explicitly called for two others to be prohibited from running, including Hillary Clinton — a lot:

• Trump repeatedly pointed to the possibility that lawsuits could disqualify Cruz over his birthplace, adding, “I don’t want to win it on technicalities, but that’s more than a technicality. That is a big, big factor.”
• He added that a constitutional lawyer who questioned Cruz’s eligibility “should go into court and seek a declaratory judgment because the people voting for Ted, for Ted Cruz, those people — I think there’s a real chance that he’s not allowed to run for president.”
• Shortly after Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump tweeted, “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated — a total fraud!” (The thrust was that Cruz allies had promoted the false claim that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, affecting the results.)
• Trump also said in 2011 that then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “should never ever be allowed to run for office” because of his sexting scandal.
• And during the 2016 campaign, on dozens of occasions he said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t “be allowed to run” because of her private email server. “She shouldn’t be allowed to run for president. She shouldn’t be allowed,” Trump said shortly before Election Day 2016. “I’m telling you, she should not be allowed to run for president based on her crimes. She should not be allowed to run for president.”

So there you have it. In Trump world, insurrection and 91 additional felony charges across three states and the district of Columbia are not grounds for disqualification or reconsideration of the candidate.

But using non-government communication channels for government business? Something that all top Trump Administration people did routinely, including Trump? That is grounds for disqualification.

[Josh]

Being accused of a crime isn’t grounds for disqualification from anything, Ken. Trump has yet to be convicted of any crimes.

The lawfare against him does look to be on track to expose ridiculous levels of corruption on the part of the DA in Georgia who tried to prosecute him, though.

[Ken]

Being accused of a crime isn’t grounds for disqualification from anything, Ken. Trump has yet to be convicted of any crimes.

Not according to Trump. He certainly thinks that the mere accusation of a crime is grounds for disqualification as he has said dozens of times.

And in any event, with respect to the 14th Amendment and eligibility for office, the Constitution doesn't say that one must have been CONVICTED of insurrection to be disqualified. It isn't a criminal standard. And being disqualified from holding the office of president is not a criminal penalty. Since the law is pretty ambiguous the Supreme Court says that Congress should tighten up the law and provide more guidance. Because apparently the court is loath to wade in and interpret the 14th Amendment themselves, despite the fact that it is actually their job. But that doesn't mean Congress needs to establish a criminal standard to enforce the 14th Amendment. They can set up any criteria that they want for determining whether or not a candidate who previously swore an oath to the United States has engaged in insurrection against the United States. Since being disqualified from office is not a criminal penalty.

[Josh]

Ken,

I don't think most of us here are really interested in defending Trump's random legal views or opinions. If you want to find ardent Trump promoters, try Twitter or The Blaze or something.

[Bootstrap]

When it is done for me and my beliefs, it is protecting democracy, making our country great again, and ensuring election integrity.

When it is against me and my beliefs, it is destroying democracy, ruining our country, and committing election fraud.

I hope this simple guide was helpful.

I think that's probably accurate for most of the discussion you see on forums, including MennoNet. We don't actually discuss this at the level that the Supreme Court and various State authorities need to discuss and decide on. That's more about us than them. We don't know about or discuss the fundamental legal and policy questions involved. So it winds up being more about sides than anything else.

No, the court doesn't slap hands. And there is actually NOTHING in the Constitution that says determining whether or not one engaged in insurrection is the job of Congress. The Constitution is entirely silent on that. So the Maine Secretary of State read the Constitution and interpreted it correctly. Then the Supreme Court came along and said "It looks like this is an area where we need to add some clarity, and they did"

They didn't overrule the findings of the Maine Secretary of State. Just like in Colorado, they didn't even address them. They just inserted themselves into the issue and that in order to prevent the chaos of different states making different rulings, we are going to determine this is something that Congress needs to do on a national level. Which again, is not a standard found anywhere in the Constitution. Just something they chose to determine.

I think that's 100% accurate. Well, sort of ... I don't think this was mostly based on close reading of the Constitution, I think this was one of those times the Supreme Court decided based on the ramifications of disqualifying Trump, not what the Constitution said. It was important to have a unanimous decision so we could go forward. I accept their ruling. I have some qualms about it. But this is theirs to decide.

The States also had to decide this. If citizens appealed to them, saying Trump was not eligible for the State ballot, they had to decide based on their understanding. They were legally required to do so. I think they did so in good faith. I think the Supreme Court also acted in good faith.

So I agree with both Josh and Ken here ... which is a rarity.

Everyone was doing their job correctly here. No one's hands were slapped. And no court has actually challenged the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection.

This is precisely true. And part of the problem is that it has taken so terribly long for things to filter through the courts - it's SO, SO easy to slow the process down, and Trump is a master at that.

Interesting question: what happens if he is convicted of a felony related to the insurrection before the election? During the election? If he wins and he is convicted before assuming office? I assume he would be shielded once he assumes office, if elected. I assume any impeachment proceeding based on evidence of felonies related to insurrection would be decided strictly along party lines, and he would not be removed from office.

[Ken]

Interesting question: what happens if he is convicted of a felony related to the insurrection before the election? During the election? If he wins and he is convicted before assuming office? I assume he would be shielded once he assumes office, if elected. I assume any impeachment proceeding based on evidence of felonies related to insurrection would be decided strictly along party lines, and he would not be removed from office.

What happens is that the American people will have unwisely chosen a leader who's own personal failings and troubles will distract from the job of effectively running the government and leading the country. And it will be a long four years until that mistake can be remedied.

All of the legal solutions to an out-of-control and amoral president have such a high bar as to be effectively out of reach (impeachment, the 25th Amendment). So there really isn't a political solution other than waiting until the next election.

Elections have consequences.

[temporal1]

OP:

It is, apparently, a serious offense against the constitution to interfere with the elections, including such actions as miscounting votes or attempting to influence others to do so.

One would think that attempts to remove a candidate from the ballot by anyone who is not authorized to do so would fall into this category.

According to news reports, officials in at least three states attempted to remove a presidential candidate from their ballots despite having no Constitutional authority to do so.

How is this not being prosecuted as election interference in the same manner as if these officials had otherwise taken actions exceeding the limits of their authority so as to ensure that a particular candidate would lose the election?

Esp when promoters are well educated, experienced, not ignorant.
They almost certainly weighed the “political theater” aspect, then decided to go for it.

No skin off their backs, eh?