Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[temporal1]

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection.

It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

(i think) it’s irresponsible in-the-extreme for media to throw around allegations as they have+do.
The word, “insurrection” should be high-value, serious, not bantered-about in everyday discussion, on every man-woman-child’s tongue.

There is a price.

[Ken]

If I were the party bosses, I would wait as long as possible and then nominate a sacrificial lamb instead of P. Trump, count off 2024 as a loss and make a stand on principle, hoping for momentum in 2026 midterms to carry into 2028. I like Scott as the non-super rich guy who is least tainted by Trumpness.

It doesn't work like that.

The time for the party bosses (Senators, governors, etc.) to step in was November 2020 when they all could have congratulated Biden and told Trump and the public it was time to move on. Very few of them did so. As I recall, it was just Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and a few other centrists and known anti-Trumpers like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. Trump had the rest of them running scared.

The second time for the party to step in would have been during Trump's second impeachment for 1/6. They could have disqualified him from future elections by convicting him at that point. They chose not to.

Now it is far too late for the party bosses to do anything except watch. The primary schedule is set and the nomination process was decided in the last Republican convention. According to their own bylaws they have no ability or authority to change it now.

I have no idea how private institutions like political parties are organized but if they were inclined, they could press the issue in some way, like proposing a bylaw that felons cannot be nominated, organize all the opposition possible and stand on principle.

Generally speaking party rules are voted on and approved at party conventions. So you have local conventions in each state that nominate delegates to the state conventions where delegates to the national convention are nominated. And then they vote on various proposed rule changes at the big national party conventions where there is a LOT more party business conducted than just nominating president and vice president. They just don’t cover all that mundane party business on TV.

The actual party bosses like RNC chair Ronna McDaniel have very little power to do anything on their own and certainly don’t have the power to change nominating rules. They are more figureheads and spokespeople. The RNC is a smaller group of party bosses that meets separately during off years. But I don’t think they have the power to change major rules. They are more about promoting the party brand and fundraising. That sort of thing.

So no, changing nominating rules at this stage in the game is not going to happen. They were basically set back in 2020 and were very much influenced by the Trump people who basically ran that convention. Incumbency has its privileges. And if you have enough delegates to win the nomination then you have enough delegates to influence the nominating rules for future elections as you see fit.

[barnhart]

violated his oath to defend the Constitution by participating in an insurrection against the US

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection. It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

I'm curious Robert, what is your definition of an insurrection.

[Bootstrap]

"insurrection n

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…"
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definiti ... s%E2%80%A6

[Bootstrap]

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection.

It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

Interesting.

I think insurrection is a well defined legal term that is used in the Constitution.

I think "Democratic talking points" is political jargon use to.shut things down by appealing to political partisanship.

[GaryK]

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection.

It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

Interesting.

I think insurrection is a well defined legal term that is used in the Constitution.

I think "Democratic talking points" is political jargon use to.shut things down by appealing to political partisanship.

Has Trump been charged with the crime of insurrection in any of his indictments?

I was hoping the House Jan 6 report would dissuade right leaning people from supporting Trump, but it appears to have done just the opposite. It appears that all the talk about Trump being responsible for the "insurrection" on Jan 6 and then not being charged with insurrection in any of his indictments is only fueling more support.

[Robert]

Interesting.

I think insurrection is a well defined legal term that is used in the Constitution.

I think "Democratic talking points" is political jargon use to.shut things down by appealing to political partisanship.

If insurrection is used for J6, then it needs to be used for May 29th and all the other times state houses have been taken over by LBGT people and the same legal tactics used against them.

As Gary stated, who has been legally charged with insurrection? No one. The MS media and Democrats, which is basically one in the same, are using that term to justify the political attacks on their opponents. I would have the same issue of the Republicans were doing it to their opponents. The Republicans are not much better, if at all, then the Democrats.

There was no insurrection. There was a riot. It is propagating a lie if we allow the term to be used without any pushback. We should stand for truth. I try. I am not perfect, but I try to be honest with my statements. We all should.

I personally would love to see 99% of Congress kicked out and arrested for illegally accepting campaign funding. Most all do it, on both sides. My issue is signaling one out and totally ignoring the rest.

You are quick to claim no legal cases have proven election interference, but then seem to be fine with using terms that no court has found Trump or others guilty of. Let's be consistent and honest with our words.

[Bootstrap]

Here's how [url=https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... 99&EXT=pdf]these two conservative scholars[url], members of the Federalist Society, evaluate January 6th according to the legal definition of an insurrection.

There are multiple arguments for how Section Three would apply to the events
of 2020-2021, but let us first focus on the events of January 6, 2021. These include
first the cluster of actions taken in assembling, encouraging, charging, and inciting
an armed (in part) mob, producing the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, Con-
gress, and the Vice President. For some, importantly including Trump, these acts
would also include subsequent deliberate inaction against the January 6 attack—by
persons with duties and capacity to act to suppress, halt, or quell the insurrection in
progress—that effectively facilitated, permitted, aided, and encouraged such insur-
rectionary violence

Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading
up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection
within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority
of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.” The large
group of people who descended upon, entered, and occupied the U.S. Capitol building
used force to prevent a key step in the constitutional transfer of power. The group
was in part coordinated, not merely a riot. Some members of the group were
armed, and many used force to breach the Capitol, to overpower law enforcement
there, and to effectuate their unlawful aim.

Furthermore, it seems that, as a whole, the group’s goal—to the extent the
group had a specific objective in mind—was to disrupt the constitutional transfer of
power, by disrupting a necessary formal step in the constitutional process.The in-
vasion of the Capitol on January 6 was not simply a violation of the law (though it
was that of course). It was not merely a protest of a particular legal measure, but a
forcible prevention and disruption of it. And it was not the disruption of just any legal
measure, but of one that was itself central to the allocation of authority under our
Constitution. If this is a fair description of what happened on January 6, then that
day was something quite different from more common acts of protest, even disruptive
protest. January 6 was an insurrection.

[Ken]

There was no insurrection. There was a riot. It is propagating a lie if we allow the term to be used without any pushback. We should stand for truth. I try. I am not perfect, but I try to be honest with my statements. We all should.

The insurrection was not 1/6. That was just one small piece of it. It was actually a much larger conspiracy that stretched across multiple states and involved hundreds of people engaged in a very serious effort to subvert the Constitution and seize (or hold) power by overthrowing the results of an election. Trump was at the center of all of it. Without Trump, absolutely none of it would have happened.

And yes, taken as a whole, these efforts do meet the definition of insurrection. There were plans to use the military to seize voting machines. Plans to deploy Federal troops to put down unrest should 1/6 have been successful. And so forth. The plot just never actually reached fruition due to the actions of a few people like Mike Pence, Brad Raffesenperger, and Brian Kemp and who chose not to go along. Had the plot actually proceeded any further there was the potential for immense violence.

The New York Times recently put together a visual diagram of how many people were involved. With Trump, of course, at the very center of the plot. It is eye-opening. Here is a gift link that should bypass the paywall.: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... =url-share

[RZehr]

There was no insurrection. There was a riot. It is propagating a lie if we allow the term to be used without any pushback. We should stand for truth. I try. I am not perfect, but I try to be honest with my statements. We all should.

The insurrection was not 1/6. That was just one small piece of it. It was actually a much larger conspiracy that stretched across multiple states and involved hundreds of people engaged in a very serious effort to subvert the Constitution and seize (or hold) power by overthrowing the results of an election. Trump was at the center of all of it. Without Trump, absolutely none of it would have happened.

And yes, taken as a whole, these efforts do meet the definition of insurrection. There were plans to use the military to seize voting machines. Plans to deploy Federal troops to put down unrest should 1/6 have been successful. And so forth. The plot just never actually reached fruition due to the actions of a few people like Mike Pence, Brad Raffesenperger, and Brian Kemp and who chose not to go along. Had the plot actually proceeded any further there was the potential for immense violence.

The New York Times recently put together a visual diagram of how many people were involved. With Trump, of course, at the very center of the plot. It is eye-opening. Here is a gift link that should bypass the paywall.: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... =url-share

It’s really easy to tell that Trump was at the center. I mean, just look at the graphic on the NYT article. And there he is, right at the center.

But what is really missing, is the Fox News circle, and good old Tucker Carlson and friends.