• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In the case of Maine, that didn’t happen. For what it’s worth I think the CO process is more robust but still somewhat susceptible to exploitation. Particularly odd to me is that a state court is determining what a person did at the Federal level and not within their state and not without a precedent at the Federal court level (yet). Despite this particular instance so happening to fall in line with reality, that seems… pretty abusable to me.

    • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      My understanding is that Maine was able to do what it did BECAUSE of the ruling in CO. A CO judge determined that Trump is an insurrectionist, so he’s an insurrectionist everywhere. Just like how a trial in NY determined Trump is a rapist. He’s a rapist in every state, not just NY.

      It’s also important to note that in the CO trial, Trumps team didn’t deny that he engaged in the behavior he was accused of, they simply said he was exercising his First Ammendment rights. The judge determined that his actions weren’t protected by the First. Hence, he’s an insurrectionist.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        So a couple things here.

        This was a state ruling, not a Federal ruling. As such, what happens in one state legally has no bearing on what occurs in another state. Hence why it’s so important the rulings of Federal trials from Smith go through and set a precedent with a legitimate jury no less. Don’t get me wrong, it’s my personal opinion that Trump and the broader GOP is largely guilty and complicit in this act of insurrection, treason, etc.

        But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go — precedent for every red or worse purple state in the Union. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy if Trump can’t primary let alone be on a general election ballot. But ultimately, I’d feel much better about it if these cases were decided by a Jury based on Federal evidence; and finally, if Americans cannot reject such a person at the ballot… Then there probably is no hope for this country anyway.

        As for the rapist argument, that doesn’t seem to apply here. For one, that was a Federal, and second, that was a civil suit — not a criminal one, whose consequences are lesser and the bar lower. Doesn’t help that the Jury explicitly rejected the rape claim.

        • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go —

          We absolutely need to stop using the “if we hold these criminals accountable for legitimate reasons, they might use it against us for illegitimate reasons” BS.

          These people are thoroughly unscrupulous, and they will use whatever means they want to further their agenda.

          The very fact that you’re scared of them using legitimate laws in illegitimate ways is EXACTLY why they should be stopped.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.

            The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.

            The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.

            • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.

              No, Trump’s absolute incompetence and Dan Quayle helped prevent those things from happening. He has since realized how much more damage he could have done which is why he’s so fucking desperate to win again, because he wants to do that damage.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                For whatever reason Pence realized it was doomed to fail or too much risk to himself. Even if it succeeded, it doesn’t preclude the checks & balances that came from elsewhere, including Congress that already was able to prevent a significant amount of damage during Trump’s term.

                Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that Trump is a threat to the country and should be stopped. I simply take issue with this approach prior to Smith’s Federal trial.