Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said that while he didn’t want to do it, he had to remind people of how “severe” the situation is.
A top Republican official in Missouri is threatening to remove President Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot as retaliation for the determination in two other states that Donald Trump doesn’t qualify because he “engaged in insurrection.”
“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote on the social media site X on Friday. “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”
Ashcroft’s post came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by Colorado’s high court that found Trump could be barred from the state’s primary ballot because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Neat, I didn’t know Biden also engaged in insurrection. This guy seems very wise!
You don’t, but they are certain of it. It’s clearly been an insurrection all these years, since when the democrats colluded with the lizard people to administer the vaccine and steal the elections. It’s obvious if you think about it.
He should be wise. 44 years old and his entire career has been political appointments to cosplay as a lawyer.
Insurrection doesn’t seem to be very strongly defined.
Maybe simply running against an incumbent president is insurrectionalist.
That’s like if you assaulted someone, and then claiming you didn’t assault them because you think assault isn’t strongly defined.
It’s just a very stupid and slimy way of saying you think laws shouldn’t apply to you.
No, assault is strongly defined with a large amount of case law to back it up. It is also obvious who committed it.
Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)
Incitement to insurrection is lacking in case law, and open to interpretation.
I don’t know why you think this law is applicable to me personally.
That was not your original statement but it’s a lot more correct now, and if we can agree that an obvious insurrection is an insurrection, that’s a very good start.
I don’t see any honest case to be made that this isn’t incitement of insurrection.
Additionally, the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it’s enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists. Of which there are numerous examples, including Trump repeatedly offering to pardon the insurrectionists.
Trump also said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
The phrase “fight like hell” can be used non violently.
Although it sounds like I’m defending Trump, I’m actually attacking future fascist, because…
This can be read in such a way that almost anyone can be struck off the ballot.
I’ll give an hyperbolic example. “Instagram star breaks DC window” = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.
If you shake someone’s hand and also punch them, does the handshake cancel out the punch?
You’re being slimy and dishonest again. Trump is a politician, he talks out both sides of his mouth. Talking out both sides of your mouth does not cancel out.
You can’t tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?
I’m playing devil’s advocate.
I can, but maybe a good lawyer can equate them. Is the law well defined enough to tell the difference?
It’s interesting that you consider a swampy dishonest lawyer to be a “good” lawyer.
The current SCOTUS claims to be using the “common meaning of words” as their interpretation mechanism for the Constitution.
Assuming they have any bit of consistency whatsoever, the common meaning of words gives at least prima facie argument against Trump being able to run with zero argument against Biden being able to run.
And lucky us, the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person. Here’s hoping that sticks around.
I’m more worried about future legitimate candidates being excluded. I’m not defending Trump in particular.
Unfortunately, Republicans don’t need Democrats to invent ways for them to be fascist, they’re quite capable of finding opportunities on their own
Let’s not make it even easier for them in the future.
It won’t. It’s a trick we’ve fallen for. We withhold Justice from the corrupt out of fear they use our justice against us illegitimately. Yet what we miss is that it only works if they have the ammo to do the same without using our justice against us. It’s a game to them to wrap their horrors in our good deeds, but they can’t actually commit more horrors because we do good.
And if we incorrectly apply false justice then it’s likely to come back and bite us in the ass.
The case against Trump must be watertight. The Senate and courts in two states don’t believe this is the case.
I agree 100%
I’m arguing elsewhere in this thread that we need to be careful to dot our I’s and cross our T’s in serving justice, but we’re talking about the Bad Faith argument here, and not whether the case against Trump was watertight. It doesn’t matter if we have a watertight case against Trump, Republicans will try to use this against us. It doesn’t matter if we took this action or not, Republicans will try to do things like this against us anyway.
But to your point (which is a real tangent), there’s no reason or precedent to apply a criminal burden of proof to a non-criminal statutory requirement, despite the fact some judges seem to want to. The Criminal burden of proof is extremely high because the consequences of criminal conviction are dramatic and possibly horrific, far worse than someone simply being left off a federal ballot. People have already been criminally convicted of collaborating with Trump to commit crimes. By even some civil burdens of proof, Trump has already been found liable for his role in the insurrection attempt.
You should actually be more worried that violent insurrection becomes the norm.
Historically, if take away someone’s democratic option to express themselves then they become more likely to turn to violence.
Actually, the far right are more likely to turn to violence every time they lose, period. That’s always been the way of things. You’re conflating the Left’s values with the Right. The Right do not care about Democracy. Have you never sat through one of those fascist fucks “we’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic” defense of minority tyranny? They care about winning at all costs. They’re as likely to turn violent is they lose 90/10 as if they lose because their leader was convicted of a felony or taken off a ballot for legitimate reasons.
If fascist win after having Trump removed from the ballot then it makes it even harder to legitimately argue that a particular candidate should stay on a future ballot.
If fascists take over the US, there will never be another legitimate election whether or not we take the correct legal action prior to that point.
But we’re talking Beer Hall Putsch leniency on Trump, and all that does is empower the actual fascists to take more extreme action knowing they will never face consequences. People are terrified that if they don’t give in to fascists, fascists won’t play fair.
Guess what? Fascists already won’t play fair.
Whose democratic options to express themselves is being taken away?
Statistically it is non-white people, so why is it white people who are turning to violence?
MAGA voters.
Because they are MAGA voters?
How are MAGA voters losing the democratic options to express themselves?