It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.
He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.
He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
His actions are covered under 14a s3 without a conviction based on this one part:
By refusing to call in the national guard, and then promising to give pardons to all who were convicted fall under that clause
Under aid or comfort, he literally said we love you in a statement on TV… Lol