I’d say they’re both guilty of the exact same thing, they’re just two halves of the same crime.
Without mooks like this, trump was essentially just a loud angry nuisance, at least as far as the election goes. He could rant about how much the election was stolen until his face went from orange to blue, but at the end of the day he couldn’t have done anything about it.
And without people like trump to rile them up, most of these idiots probably would have just stayed home.
You need both halves of it for something like 1/6 to have taken place.
These judges are playing a long game that people like us are too ignorant to see.
Example; The judge’s ruling in Colorado that kept him on the ballot? Found him factually guilty of insurrection.
No matter the verdict, this was going up the legal food chain. The next court has no choice but to accept that he’s an insurrectionist. Feel me? That is now an established fact that an appellate court cannot disregard or change.
So what? Everyone has known that Trump took part in an insurrection for years and it hasn’t made a bit of difference. Unless you have a specific case in mind where that legal distinction is likely to make a difference then you’re just debating the semantics of “nothing happened to him”.
We already know history will not look favorably on Trump. Solidifying the words future historians will use to describe him doesn’t make his election to a second term any less likely.
Actually no. The appellate hearings don’t have to accept the lower court’s findings and can ignore the opinion entirely to reach their own conclusions. Leaving him on the ballot creates a potential constitutional crisis. Consider the possibility that it doesn’t reach the Supreme Court until Trump has been elected.
The best outcome is Trump is not the GOP nominee. Parties can set their own rules for primaries, but once he’s on the ticket, you’re talking about the courts disenfranchising a bunch of morons. And while we may all prefer that morons don’t vote, the fact is that the legal system that protects their right to vote also protects everyone else’s right to vote.
This was a justice splitting the baby to try to keep both sides from attacking politically and physically.
The little guy getting an actual sentence out of it while cowardly judges refuse to toss trump in jail for worse.
I’d say they’re both guilty of the exact same thing, they’re just two halves of the same crime.
Without mooks like this, trump was essentially just a loud angry nuisance, at least as far as the election goes. He could rant about how much the election was stolen until his face went from orange to blue, but at the end of the day he couldn’t have done anything about it.
And without people like trump to rile them up, most of these idiots probably would have just stayed home.
You need both halves of it for something like 1/6 to have taken place.
These judges are playing a long game that people like us are too ignorant to see.
Example; The judge’s ruling in Colorado that kept him on the ballot? Found him factually guilty of insurrection.
No matter the verdict, this was going up the legal food chain. The next court has no choice but to accept that he’s an insurrectionist. Feel me? That is now an established fact that an appellate court cannot disregard or change.
Fucking brilliant legal maneuvering.
So what? Everyone has known that Trump took part in an insurrection for years and it hasn’t made a bit of difference. Unless you have a specific case in mind where that legal distinction is likely to make a difference then you’re just debating the semantics of “nothing happened to him”.
We already know history will not look favorably on Trump. Solidifying the words future historians will use to describe him doesn’t make his election to a second term any less likely.
Actually no. The appellate hearings don’t have to accept the lower court’s findings and can ignore the opinion entirely to reach their own conclusions. Leaving him on the ballot creates a potential constitutional crisis. Consider the possibility that it doesn’t reach the Supreme Court until Trump has been elected.
The best outcome is Trump is not the GOP nominee. Parties can set their own rules for primaries, but once he’s on the ticket, you’re talking about the courts disenfranchising a bunch of morons. And while we may all prefer that morons don’t vote, the fact is that the legal system that protects their right to vote also protects everyone else’s right to vote.
This was a justice splitting the baby to try to keep both sides from attacking politically and physically.