albaby: Oh, of course. If he had taken actions that were more inescapably engaging in an insurrection - personally organizing and directing military units to attack government forces and seize control of the government through military encounters like in the Civil War - he certainly would have been tried and convicted of the crime of insurrection by now.

And why would being convicted of that crime disqualify him from running for president again? There are various cases here: he could have been quickly impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate before Jan 20 (that would disqualify him); convicted by the DOJ after Jan 20, but before the primaries; during the primaries; after becoming the GOP nominee; convicted in a state court and disqualified under the 14th. In that last case, assuming Trump appealed it, why would SCOTUS be more likely to rule that Trump is disqualified everywhere? Shouldn't the "voters decide" regardless? They didn't discuss the definition of insurrection much at all during the recent appeal hearing.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.