If you want to split hairs, it’s legal unless the Supreme Court issues an opposite ruling on the merits.

Pence said or testified that the president created a situation so that maga loyal members of the secret service would remove pence from the capital grounds, rendering him unable to certify the election


And then that situation happened and pence said he was pressured by his secret service detail to leave the area and not certify the results

Pence refused, and saved our country. He is a true American hero

It’s pretty funny how few people know that for treason to take place, one must help an enemy we are officially at war with. Look it up

I think your belief in what was legal is flawed:

Prosecutions[edit]
Main articles: Georgia election racketeering prosecution, Michigan prosecution of fake electors, and Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced on July 18, 2023, that she had charged sixteen individuals with eight felony counts each, including forgery and conspiracy, alleging they had knowingly signed certificates of ascertainment falsely claiming they were "duly elected and qualified electors" for Michigan.[96][97] One defendant entered into a cooperation agreement with prosecutors in October 2023 in exchange for charges against him being dropped.[98]

On August 1, 2023, at the request of Jack Smith and the Justice Department, a federal grand jury indicted Trump on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.[99] The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election, and identified the fake electors scheme as part of the conspiracy.[100]

On August 15, 2023, Trump and eighteen others were indicted in Georgia. The defendants, who included Trump, Giuliani, Eastman, Meadows, Chesebro, Sidney Powell, David Shafer and Shawn Still among others,[101] were charged with a variety of offenses, many of which related to involvement in the fake electors plot.[102] On October 20, Chesebro pleaded guilty to conspiring to file a false document and was sentenced to five years of probation; he also agreed to testify against the other defendants.[103] Three other defendants (including Powell) also pleaded guilty to charges not relating to the fake electors.

On December 6, 2023, a Clark County, Nevada grand jury indicted six Republican party officials, including the chair of the Nevada Republican Party, on two felony charges each of submitting fraudulent documents to state and local officials.[104]

By December 2023, 24 fake electors had been criminally charged in three states, and Chesebro was "a witness in all of the cases".[105] However, in January 2024, the Attorney General of New Mexico stated that the fake electors couldn't be prosecuted given the laws of that state.[106]

No, it is definitely fraud for the candidate to call up the GA secretary of state and ask the sec of state to **** with the vote.

It's legal in Colorado (for now, stayed by Colorado itself though), but in Michigan courts declared Trump name admissable for the republican primaries.

And there are cases in like 10 + states.

It's already clear that the legality is unclear.

Thank you for telling me what I should want. It is always useful to have a random Internet stranger dictate to me what it is I should believe.

If you think that strict adherence to all laws, no matter the circumstances, is the only way that we should operate, then you might come to the conclusion that you have in the quoted reply above. I say "might", because regardless of what we may believe, Trump certainly has not been convicted of treason or insurrection, so by your logic, you should want him on the ballot, at least until he is convicted of such crimes.

Secondly, your whole "the laws must be applied no matter what" take is absurd and not grounded in reality. There are many cases where acts that may be technically illegal are justifiably not prosecuted. There are many cases where people are prosecuted according to the letter of the law, and people at large rise up in anger due to the perceived injustice (such as the cases of Cyntoia Brown or Lionel Tate. Why is seeking a pragmatic solution to the Trump question any different?

When people use the word "treason", they are generally not using the legal definition of the term that you are alluding to here. The word is more widely used to state that somebody has betrayed or attacked their own country. It is not incorrect to have the opinion that Trump's acts were treasonous, as they were an attack on the very foundations that this republic was built on hundreds of years ago, even if he was not helping an enemy we are at war with.

The Supreme Court is not required to settle what you seem to believe is an impasse between Colorado and Michigan. Despite the CSC stay, appeal and the opposite Michigan opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is currently the law of the state. The SC only granted the petition to review.

It might surprise you, but the 14a actually doesn't require a formal conviction to be applied.

Ex-confederates were disqualified even if not found guilty of insurrection in court.

As I said I don't want Trump disqualified because I don't think his acts amount to insurrection, but if I thought they did I would want him disqualified.

Prosecution isn't mandate by law in common law systems (it is usually in civil law), and prosecutionary discretion is about following the law, which actually gives prosecutors that power explicitly.

That's different from the application of disqualification clauses that don't give any arbitrary wiggle room.

A more proper example would be not applying mandatory minimum sentences to people found guilty of a crime which has mandatory minimum sentences in the books.

I doubt any prosecutor in the United States would agree with Luciom that fraud or fraudulent conduct is so narrowly at defined either.

You realize there are criminal indictments, including indictments of Trump, relating to attempts to influence state officials in Georgia to violate the law, right? I'm not going to copy lengthy allegations from the indictments into a post. You obviously can read the indictment for yourself.

It's fine for us to disagree about whether Trump in fact encouraged state officials to violate the law, but you are acting as if it is self-evident that he did not.

As for Pence, he was advised by internal Counsel to the Vice President that he would be violating the Electoral Count Act of 1877 if he did what Trump was urging him to do.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-memo-00038996

I would be absolutely shocked if Pence did not get similar advice from private counsel as well, although I have never seen that advice published.

Numerous others, including Michael Luttig and federal judges, have reached more or less the same conclusion as the office of Counsel to the Vice President.

Again, it's fine for you to disagree, but I would be curious to understand your legal basis for doing so.

Supposn has 163 posts over his 2+2 career. He has started 31 threads. In other words, approximately 1 out of every 5 posts he makes is a thread starter. That has to be some sort of 2+2 record.

He is also the only person I've seen here other than Mason who feels the need to sign off with his name in every post.

Lozen, the Democrats are upset by no-labels because it gives voters opposed to Trump another, other than a Democratic candidate to vote for. The Republicans are less upset by no-labels. If they can't have your vote, at least it's not necessarily to the additional benefit of a Democratic candidate.

I'm a proponent of 3d parties. I believe contrary to what we're told by Republicans and Democrats, if you agree with the majority in your congressional district and or the majority in your state, it's likely your vote's inconsequential; if you disagree with those majorities, (unless you reside in a purple congressional district or state, your vote really doesn't count for very much.

If the votes of congressional members were weighed, if a member who was elected by 80% of his district's votes counted as a 0.800 vote in congressional committees or on the floor of their congressional chamber, then your vote would be of more concern to both candidates and elected members of congress. They would have much more consideration for your opinions regarding national issues.

But it wouldn't be right for voters of some districts to have greater, and voters other districts in the same state to have lesser representation in congress, because their district's or their state's representatives' votes weights differed other those of other districts within the same state.

That's why it would be great if losing candidates who were favored by 1% or more of their district's voters, could, until the next election in their district, temporarily assign their weighed vote to any other elected member of congress. If it were done in that manner, almost every voter's vote would have real political consequences. Respectfully, Supposn

It's true that in the general election, your vote is worthless if you live in a district (or stare for POTUS) that is skewed significantly toward one side or the other.

But even in that case primaries can matter a lot.

And if you want to count as much as possible you should vote in the primaries that matter in your district/state, which can be the opposite party ones. Just register properly (depending on the state) to be able to do so

The state should get out of the business of running partisan primaries.

Didace, the purpose of state's election laws regulations and penalties for disobeying those laws, is to conduct equitable elections.
That's why Donald Trump will be tried in Fulton County Georgia's state court and for a similar crime in Washington DC's federal court.

You would prefer that no one shall be held legally accountable?
Politicians and their followers should select nominate and select candidates in any manner that they wish to employ? If they don't like the who's been chosen, anything goes? Bribery, and physical threats, mob violence is to be the norm?
If governments in the United States don't oversee elections, what alternative do you suggest? Respectfully, Supposn

The way you've expressed this doesn't convey impartiality in the process.

How does any of what you wrote here have to do with the state running partisan primaries?

Luciom, I'm unaffiliated, and I've been for many years a poll worker during primary and general elections within the states where I've then resided.

Regarding State's general and primary days' elections: In the states where I've resided, voters are permitted to write-in or choose among the ballot's candidates of the party they're registered as affiliated with.
There's a deadline prior to primary election day for voters to change their registered affiliation. In NJ, and I suppose in some other states, those who are unaffiliated can vote or we among the nominees on the ballots or write-in among the nominees of any party they wish., But by so doing so they've automatically register themselves as affiliated to that political party.
My point is in many states, voters are prohibited from “crossing-over” to participate in the primary of a political party they're not registered as affiliated with. Respectfully, Supposn

Where were we discussing impartiality? Wtf. We weren’t discuss giraffes either.

Didace, you tell us all, If governments in the United States shouldn't oversee primary elections, what alternative do you prefer? Respectfully, Supposn

You are assuming we need primaries for the political parties to chose their candidates. And that the Reps and the Dems should get automatic access to the ballot. The state should not care about the parties.

Didace, what you believe I assume is not germane to the question; what is it that you prefer or advocate?

The states oversee the general elections. How do you suggest they determine what names are printed on those general election ballots? Most states currently allow for a specified number of petition signers.
That's a messy and expensive business and it's substantially very vulnerable to fraud; but that's an alternative. Would eliminating state supervised primary elections and entirely depending on petitions be your preference? What are you advocating? Respectfully, Supposn