The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

[Jim Mahan]

This is huge. It's what we've been waiting for. It should all now be over but the shouting.

A judge in New Mexico just found a sitting elected official guilty of insurrection. And cited the Constitution's fourteenth amendment section three, which states that an office holder found guilty of insurrection is barred from holding any office of any kind in the US, and is removed immediately from his office. Done and done. You want precedent? This is the one.



Booyah!

[Rich Jones]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Sounds good to me.
Let's hope it holds after appeals.

[Canoez]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

This is huge. It's what we've been waiting for. It should all now be over but the shouting.

A judge in New Mexico just found a sitting elected official guilty of insurrection. And cited the Constitution's fourteenth amendment section three, which states that an office holder found guilty of insurrection is barred from holding any office of any kind in the US, and is removed immediately from his office. Done and done. You want precedent? This is the one.



Booyah!

Aw heck. I want to see the whole Famous Footwear inventory fall.

[David G]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Sounds good to me.
Let's hope it holds after appeals.

^^^^

[Canoez]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Sounds good to me.
Let's hope it holds after appeals.

I'm thinking it might hold because he was found guilty of breaching the Capitol on January 6th. Others that they have tried this approach with other individuals with no success - but those individuals don't have convictions regarding January 6th, yet.

[CWSmith]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

This is a pleasant day. Thank you for sharing that.

[bluedog225]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Population 60,000.

[Reynard38]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

I’m afraid y’all are in for a lot of bitter disappointment. As guilty as trump likely is, nothing is going to happen to him. Nothing.
Personally I’d like to see him lose in the primaries to a viable GOP candidate.

[leikec]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

I’m afraid y’all are in for a lot of bitter disappointment. As guilty as trump likely is, nothing is going to happen to him. Nothing.
Personally I’d like to see him lose in the primaries to a viable GOP candidate.

A viable (as in not a seditionist) GOP candidate couldn’t get the nomination.

Jeff C

[Jim Mahan]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

A viable (as in not a seditionist) GOP candidate couldn’t get the nomination.

Jeff C

For now, but the days of the trmp fever are nearing an end, or are at least peaking. It might take another few election cycles but there will be a sanity and genuine patriotism rebound, and I think trmp's prosecution and inability to do his Svengali rallies will mark his zenith. In another decade he will be reviled generally but for the sort who think Hitler was cheated of his thousand year reich.

[John Smith]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

I'm hesitant to predict, but let's not forget Georgia.

[Tom Montgomery]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

I’m afraid y’all are in for a lot of bitter disappointment. As guilty as trump likely is, nothing is going to happen to him. Nothing.

Two and a half hours ago I might have agreed with you. No longer. Another shoe has dropped. Trump is toast.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

A judge in New Mexico just found a sitting elected official guilty of insurrection . . .

Not exactly. It's better than that.

After his conviction of trespassing a suit was filed by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and New Mexico residents under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar him from office for life for his participation in the Capitol attack.

(emphasis added)

-- wikipedia

I can't find what the 1869 case was about. The next most recent disqualification, of Victor Berger, was by the House of Reps, citing "disloyalty", citing conviction for espionage. The 14th Am doesn't in terms require a conviction for anything. So there was no conviction for "sedition" in either case.

The removal clause of the 14th Amendment is, of course, constitutional. However, the fact that removal extends to state officials, by the state, means that the states don't have to wait around for the Feds to convict for sedition. A state court can find, as a fact, that the defendant (in a civil suit brought by an ordinary citizen of the state) engaged in sedition. That appears to be what happened here. No federal involvement, civil or criminal, from start to finish.

If this weren't the case, only the Feds could remove someone from state office, which would mean that it would bypass any involvement by the state in the removal of one of its own officers, which would go against federalism.

No requirement of conviction means no presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, jury trial any of that criminal stuff. Much quicker. More importantly, conviction requires prosecution, which involves considerations that differ from the need to disqualify.

So it is inaccurate to speak of a "conviction for sedition". If there was one, it was in a different court, and it doesn't matter. That other court could acquit on seditition, and the civil court could still find that the defendant engaged in sedition. A classic case of the meaning of a term varying with the use to which it is put. Sedition as a crime is different from sedition as a ground for disqualification. Similar to, conviction on impeachment is not a conviction of crime.

There's been a lot of Section 3 activity in the Trumper era:

On January 10, 2021, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, formally requested Representatives' input as to whether to pursue Section 3 disqualification of outgoing President Donald Trump because of his role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Unlike impeachment, which requires a supermajority to convict, disqualification under Section 3 would only require a simple majority of each house of Congress.

The Section 3 disqualification could be imposed by Congress passing a law or a nonbinding resolution stating that the January 6 riot was an insurrection, and that anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution and who incited or participated in the riot is disqualified under Section 3. Some legal experts believe a court would then be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3. A state may also make a determination that Trump is disqualified under Section 3 from appearing on that state's ballot. Trump could appeal in court any disqualification by Congress or by a state. In addition to state or federal legislative action, a court action could be brought against Trump seeking his disqualification under Section 3.

On January 11, 2021, Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) and 47 cosponsors introduced a resolution calling for expulsion, under Section 3, of members of Congress who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 US presidential election or incited the January 6 riot. Those named in the resolution included Republican Representatives Mo Brooks of Alabama and Louie Gohmert of Texas, who took part in the rally that preceded the riot, and Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, who objected to counting electoral votes to certify the 2020 presidential election result.

After Representative Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) declared his intent to run for re-election in 2022, a group of North Carolina voters from Cawthorn's district filed a lawsuit alleging that a speech he gave immediately prior to the Capitol attack incited it, and, therefore, Section 3 disqualified him from holding federal office. A federal judge entered a preliminary injunction in favor of Cawthorn, citing the Amnesty Act of 1872; however, on May 24, 2022, an appeals court ruled that this law applied only to people who committed "constitutionally wrongful acts" before 1872. A similar challenge, which a federal court declined to block, was filed against Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and heard in April 2022 in Atlanta. Greene sued to strike down the law that allowed contesting her eligibility as unconstitutional.

-- wikipedia

[Jim Mahan]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Thanks Osborne. I just stoked now.

[Hallam]

Re: The big damn shoe has finally dropped. This is it.

Two and a half hours ago I might have agreed with you. No longer. Another shoe has dropped. Trump is toast.

Details regarding the other shoe??