Is Trump going to Prison?

[Mister Agenda]

I think the more interesting question is whether removing Trump is a violation of due process.  The 14th Amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of "life, liberty, or property" without due process.  It's a question of whether due process was adequately observed when the defendant was not given the same tools of defense as a criminal defendant, and whether this constitutes depriving him of liberty.

Not being able to be president doesn't deprive you of life, liberty, or property. The Confederates who weren't allowed to hold office under this amendment weren't convicted of being insurrectionists, it was a fact that they were and therefore not qualifed for the presidency. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before he is uneligible to be president.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the more interesting question is whether removing Trump is a violation of due process.  The 14th Amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of "life, liberty, or property" without due process.  It's a question of whether due process was adequately observed when the defendant was not given the same tools of defense as a criminal defendant, and whether this constitutes depriving him of liberty.

Not being able to be president doesn't deprive you of life, liberty, or property. The Confederates who weren't allowed to hold office under this amendment weren't convicted of being insurrectionists, it was a fact that they were and therefore not qualifed for the presidency. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before he is uneligible to be president.

Right, but one of the concerns is that the public perception of unfairness will almost certainly be aggravated should he be removed without conviction. This is doubly so when Trump wasn't physically present at the insurrection. Again, that's in regard to public perception and not jurisprudence.

[Mister Agenda]

Not being able to be president doesn't deprive you of life, liberty, or property. The Confederates who weren't allowed to hold office under this amendment weren't convicted of being insurrectionists, it was a fact that they were and therefore not qualifed for the presidency. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before he is uneligible to be president.

Right, but one of the concerns is that the public perception of unfairness will almost certainly be aggravated should he be removed without conviction. This is doubly so when Trump wasn't physically present at the insurrection. Again, that's in regard to public perception and not jurisprudence.

That Trump was guilty of insurrection was a finding of fact by the court. That's due process, whether Trumpies like it or not.

[Silver]

Public perception is not an issue, and we should not be concerning ourselves with how conservatives misconceive things.

[Angrboda]

I think the more interesting question is whether removing Trump is a violation of due process.  The 14th Amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of "life, liberty, or property" without due process.  It's a question of whether due process was adequately observed when the defendant was not given the same tools of defense as a criminal defendant, and whether this constitutes depriving him of liberty.

Not being able to be president doesn't deprive you of life, liberty, or property. The Confederates who weren't allowed to hold office under this amendment weren't convicted of being insurrectionists, it was a fact that they were and therefore not qualifed for the presidency. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before he is uneligible to be president.

Afaik, none of those that have been removed previously contested their removal. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, but one of the concerns is that the public perception of unfairness will almost certainly be aggravated should he be removed without conviction. This is doubly so when Trump wasn't physically present at the insurrection. Again, that's in regard to public perception and not jurisprudence.

That Trump was guilty of insurrection was a finding of fact by the court. That's due process, whether Trumpies like it or not.

I agree. Many don't, including folks with far more legal education than I have, because the standard of proof in that case was not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not only a palpable difference from a criminal finding which will no doubt be a basis for appeals, it is also a rhetorical cudgel that will certainly be wielded with abandon.

[Nanny]

The fake electors scheme is what I think should be the smoking gun - a coordinated attempt to interfere with Congressional duties. It was a successful attempt, requiring the evacuation of Congress and the delay of the official elector count. That is insurrection.

I am sensitive to due process, innocent until proven guilty, and executive immunity, but I saw what Trump did. I saw what he attempted to do. I see what he has done to the country. He has disqualified himself, at least by the Court of Nanny.

I just think the GOP and SCOTUS are taking the party over country path.

[Silver]

It is often quite obvious when someone is guilty, but what becomes intensely worrisome is the court system intentionally freeing guilty people due to turning justice into a circus.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m no longer concerned about Trump being convicted or imprisoned or removed from the election. I’ve satisfied myself that he’s one combo meal away from a massive coronary and won’t make it to November.

Boru

[Istvan]

he’s one combo meal away from a massive coronary and won’t make it to November.

You have to hand it to him, he's a pretty tough prick. For decades he's been living on a french-fry diet that would kill me in two weeks. I thought Covid would finish him off, but he came through that with his usual scowl too.

Mala hierba nunca muere, amigo. You can't kill weeds.