630
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

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.

We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore

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.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't see any honest case to be made that this isn't incitement of insurrection.

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...

the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it's enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists.

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.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

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."

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.

I'll give an hyperbolic example. "Instagram star breaks DC window" = followers are insurrectionists. Anyone liking a post is barred from the ballot.

You can't tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You're being slimy and dishonest again.

I'm playing devil's advocate.

You can't tell the difference between double tapping an Instagram post and offering a presidential pardon?

I can, but maybe a good lawyer can equate them. Is the law well defined enough to tell the difference?

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

maybe a good lawyer can equate them

It's interesting that you consider a swampy dishonest lawyer to be a "good" lawyer.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

OK, a lawyer with great arguments, low morals and a love for money. Happier?

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
630 points (96.7% liked)

News

23367 readers
2892 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS