[TiGuy22]

I know they’ll try, but, how can Trump be held liable by any new legislation by congress for Jan6, when he was already acquitted by congress through the impeachment process?

[b4me]

I forget where I saw it first, but it said something like Trump was President and in power on Jan 6th 2020, he cannot insurrect his own position or administration.

He may have wondered his options in light of the questionable stuff about the election but he wasn’t trying to over throw himself or the government of which he was the Executive.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[bray]

does that mean he will have an actual defense attorney and witnesses? That is no Democrat judicial fairness.

[Golden Eagle]

Since President Trump cannot be proven culpable under standards of actual evidence (the left's fallacy of assertion is not evidence of proof, which is why leftists have been obsessed with “intent”), nor can an insurrection itself be defined and proven (versus mere trespass), the entire fraudulent January 6 DNC program is effectively dead.

That's not my understanding of how they ruled, at all. My understanding based on many reports I’ve seen and read is they ruled that ONLY congress can determine 14th amendment qualification, but completely left it up to congress on how to determine the enforcement mechanism it wants to use. Which is why Raskin is already putting out the draft of a potential bill to disqualify Trump.

Congress will decide, in the manner it chooses to decide, whether the evidence is one sided, or even if there is no evidence at all, or not. And their chosen manner of determination, could be very liquid depending on which way the winds are blowing in congress, at any given time. In other words, expect more turbulence.

[atomic_dog]

From the article:
Interestingly, “treason” is the only crime actually defined in the U.S. Constitution

Nice Try, Thanks for Playing!

Article I
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
Clause 6 Counterfeiters
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

[Brooklyn Attitude]

I tend to look gift horses in the mouth so I suspect this unexpected unanimous decision foreshadows an anti-Trump decision in the Presidential immunity case. Roberts is always concerned about the court looking too “partisan” so he may have made a deal with the 3 RAT justices. Vote pro-Trump on the ballot case and he and others will vote anti-Trump on immunity. I hope I’m wrong.

[metmom]

IMO, they didn’t do it for the right reasons, as CO is wrong, but because even some of them realized that the tactic could be used against the democrats by red states.

I admit that’s pure speculation but I’ve become so jaded over the last few years, that I just don’t see ANYONE in any political arena doing something purely for altruistic reasons or moral or ethical considerations.