Hearings began is week in Colorado and Minnesota on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from running for president in 2024 because of Jan. 6

Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.

CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” The group’s complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      I mean, I think video evidence is fine. But what specifically did he say? Did he use weasel words? Witnesses are still second hand inference of intent. Good but not as good as Trump saying in his own words, “We need to stop the certification of the election.”

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          I think you are being presumptive about the specific interpretation of words. You aren’t wrong in the way you or I might use language or draw conclusions, but this will have to be held to a much higher bar. Telling Pence to “Do the right thing” isn’t even close to passing that bar. No one here is defending Trump, but lets be honest with ourselves. This is going to rely on a very narrow interpretation of very specific language.

          Best case scenario, this is all rendered moot by the trial going on in GA. Worst case scenario, either mistrial or not guilty in GA, then this one goes to the supreme court, and good fucking luck there.

          I think the prosecution would have a far easier time if they went after the evidence in the GA trial. I don’t think they’ll get there off of words Trump made in public. Not even close to enough to prove intent.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              I think that would. Was that his exact language? Do you have a link? Has Pence testified as much? Were there witnesses or was there documentation (film or audio)?

              I searched for that quote and didn’t find anything.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.

                  Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.

                  States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.

                  Look I value our back and forth but I don’t think you will get specific intent from Wallace based on that. Its not even close in my read. I think the prosecution would be far smarter to go after the GA evidence. Its stronger and much clearer about intent. Link here for the text transcript, and audio here. Also, consider that in GA, Meadows, the other major name in that transcript, has flipped.

                  I just don’t think that the vast majority of trumps words in public are sufficient to show intent. There might be some truth social tweets more recently that do. But the guy really is a pro at managing language like this. He knows how to get away with criminal activity.