Donald Trump Barred From Maine’s Primary Ballot
By Ted Johnson
December 28, 2023 4:29pm
https://deadline.com/2023/12/donald-trump-maine-primary-ballot-1235683024/ The secretary of state of Maine has determined that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot, finding that he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment‘s insurrection clause.
Shenna Bellows wrote that Trump “used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent the certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power.”
Read the Maine decision.
The decision follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to hold office. But state Republicans filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, his name will still appear on the ballot unless the high court justices turn the case down or side with the state court.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Chuds seething in 3... 2... 1...
Anonymous
can you just convict him of insurrection first?
Anonymous
>>1251035 He'll die in prison eventually. Which prison and for which crimes is still yet to be decided. Patience.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1250873 Just like how the southern states took Abraham Lincoln off the ballot
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1250873 I'M OUTRAGED!!1 SHE OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!!1
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251037 >He'll die in prison eventually. You have to actually, you know, convict him of something first
i'm very old and dont give an ant's turd anymore
i'm very old and dont give an ant's turd anymore Fri 29 Dec 2023 19:08:38 No. 1251139 Report Quoted By:
>>1250873 tRump will never see a day in jail, not even house arrest, as this will drags in courts for at least 10 yrs, and he'll be dead by then
Anonymous
>>1251035 The amendment has never required a court conviction before. Why do you want him to have special privileges so badly?
Anonymous
>>1251147 insurrection is a criminal offense which requires a conviction.
Anonymous
>>1251037 This is a blue haired liberals wet dream. Too bad men can’t be women and Trump won’t see a second behind bars.
Dilate more.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251298 > Trump won’t see a second behind bars. he's probably too compromised, and too stupid to stay away from windows
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251158 Hey now, court's are saying it's all good. Something, something Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty but courts say otherwise right? It's like that, roll with it cheeto.
Anonymous
>>1251158 >insurrection is a criminal offense which requires a conviction. Qualification for being on the ballot is not a criminal proceeding nor is the purpose of the court to determine whether or not he's guilty of a crime. What is or isn't a criminal offense is irrelevant outside of a criminal court.
Anonymous
>>1251324 There's no legal basis to disqualify someone for a crime they haven't committed.
Anonymous
>>1251343 You keep using the word "crime" but you don't understand why the word isn't applicable here. The constitutional proceeding that determines eligibility under this amendment is not a criminal proceeding. Criminal burdens have no relevance. The purpose of the court is not to determine whether or not he is guilty of a crime. Further more, there is plenty of a legal basis for this practice. Impeachment and removal from political office, for example, have nothing to do with criminal guilt. People are removed and disqualified on ethical grounds in context with their oath of office all of the time. George Santos is a great example - he hasn't been convicted of any crime yet the law allows deference to the house to make these decisions because none of them have any relevance to criminal evidentiary burdens. I think the issue is that, intuitively, what you're saying makes sense - how could someone be held liable for a "crime" without evidentiary standards of said crime? The short and unsatisfying answer is that the law is more complicated than that. Even if it wasn't, no offense, you have no training in constitutional law. I think it makes more sense to defer to the board of supreme court judges on interpretations of the constitution over a random anon on the internet.
Anonymous
>>1251345 The entire basis of the ruling is that he's disqualified by having an engaged in a crime which under the 14th makes him intelligible. He's never been convicted of that crime, therefore the ruling has no basis in law.
Anonymous
>>1251349 wrong, the 14th amendment is enacted through legislature
Anonymous
>>1251355 It's contingent on a crime having been committed. In this case, no one's been convicted of that crime.
Anonymous
>>1251359 Not in the other times it has been used.
History won't dissapear if you actively hide from it.
Anonymous
>>1251360 Give one example of someone being disqualified without a conviction.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251362 are you by chance
>>1250796 ?
Anonymous
>>1251349 >The entire basis of the ruling is that he's disqualified by having an engaged in a crime which under the 14th makes him intelligible Criminal evidentiary standards have absolutely nothing to do with eligibility proceedings. It isn't a criminal court therefore criminal codes and criminal evidentiary standards hold absolutely no relevance. I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
>He's never been convicted of that crime, therefore the ruling has no basis in law. You can think that but you're just wrong.
Anonymous
>>1251359 >It's contingent on a crime having been committed. Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say this. You're just making this up.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251384 If the impetus for disqualification is based on a crime having been committed, evidentiary standards matter in so far as it determines whether the candidate is actually guilty of said crime. In this case, Trump was never convicted of the crime the CO SC alleges of him and therefore their ruling has no real standing.
>>1251385 It implicitly does by virtue of the fact that insurrection is a crime as defined in us code. There is no "non-criminal" interpretation of insurrection that doesn't require a conviction.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1250873 she is a tyrant, no one person should be able to make this decision
Anonymous
>>1251349 the 14th amendment was intended to keep confederate loyalists out of congress and dems are abusing the fuck out of it. Dems are all criminals.
Anonymous
a. I am pretty sure the GOP can just do a caucus and get trump on the ballot, like how the Dems abandoned caucuses after 2016 so they could more easily rig elections because bernie won colorado's caucus in 2016 before colorado went to a normal primary in 2020
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251420 Is this the new /pol/ meme meant to distract from Trump's trial for defrauding the state? That dems are the REAL election stealers?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251420 >Dems abandoned caucuses after 2016 so they could more easily rig elections Truth.
A judge even told them it was legal for them to rig their own caucuses because they are a private organization.
And Dems support this.
Anonymous
ITT deranged leftoids desperately trying to justify the annihilation of due process because ORANGE MAN BaaaAaaAAAD!
Anonymous
>>1252003 >annihilation of due process But Trump is being tried in three jurisdictions on 91 counts. If due process was actually annihilated, wouldn't they just throw him in prison without trial?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252026 Something something political opponents.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252026 oh they are trying i tell you hwat.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1251406 Then why not explicatley state that is was limited to Confederate loyalists?
Such a simple thing they could have done to clarify the scope.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1252003 What is the definition of Due Process?
Gaurenteed it isn't what you want it to be.
