Minnesota trial to remove Trump from 2024 election ballot begins
The trial over an effort in Minnesota to keep former President Donald Trump off of the 2024 ballot began Thursday at the state Supreme Court as a similar case continued in Colorado.
The lawsuits in both states allege Trump should be barred from the 2024 ballot for his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. They argue Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says no one who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution can hold office.
A group of Minnesota voters, represented by the election reform group Free Speech for People, sued in September to remove Trump from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment provision. The petitioners include former Minnesota Secretary of State Joan Growe and former state Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.
God I love this state. I couldn't imagine living anywhere else
Minnesota is pretty great. I moved up here from Florida while Rick "Defraud Medicare" Scott was governor, people kinda thought I was nuts but it's become pretty clear that was an excellent decision.
Florida is a wild place where you go to test your immune system it seems. A safe haven for REAL PATRIOTS.
The very fact that we cant throw these particular bank robbers in prison because they stole so much money that they are now too big to jail, is an indictment of our entire system
I wish MN could have a case for Trump beyond this one. The MN Court would have a field day
Say that in February.
MN boy here. I'll take -10 over 100 degrees any day.
Yeah… I’ll take…. 60’s and sunshine….
And when it’s at either extreme… I can easily imagine being somewhere else. Then, reality kicks in and I realize everywhere has its shitty weather.
I live in this state, winter is my second favorite season
so do I winter is my second most hated season. (Okay, I love spring and autumn. 60's and sunshine. for 2 weeks out of the year.)
I would prefer for 40% of the country to not be imbeciles that would cast a ballot for him in the first place . . .
I think it's important to point out that this disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require conviction of a crime. Anyone who has previously taken oath as a member of the US government can be disqualified from holding office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." There is enough of an argument that just providing comfort to insurrectionists is enough to disqualify.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
I'd like to think so, but it really is up to the court to interpret that language.
This will go to the corrupt supreme court, which will determine that this part of the constitution doesn't count
Technically Minnesota doesn't have to allow anyone on its ballots, if they have legal justification to prevent them. And there is precedent for this. Alabama kept Harry Truman off their ballot in 1948, even though he was the incumbent president.
If Trump is convicted in Georgia he would run afoul of Minnesota fair campaign section of the state constitution (211B), or hell, I think he has already been fined for infractions that qualify as legal justification to remove him from the ballot in MN based on both campaign finance laws and the fair campaigns section of the MN state constitution.
As the GOP has been doing for the last decade, they have been eroding the federal ability to monitor and manage states' elections (reducing the voting rights act, etc) current precedent is that the state has the right to handle matters with regard to elections with near impunity.
While the court has its issues, it doesn't seem to care to side particularly with Trump. They've had a few opportunities and have so far mostly sided against or at least failed to side with Trump in matters that either made it that far or tried to make it that far.
And why would they - if you let someone like Trump off the leash, he would disband the SCOTUS. (To say that another way: You can't weild supreme executive power with some watery tart out there having the final say.)
This is the one part about lifetime appointments... They don't need to be loyal to Trump the second after they're appointed. They don't need to be loyal to anyone except their own judgement on the issues and Congress (which can in theory remove them if they have bad behavior).
They really don't have any reason to not throw Trump to the wolves if the legal argument stacks up, unless there's some other kick back going on behind the scenes, or they personally are a huge fan of Trump... Which maybe his own appointments are, at least most of them, but I don't think the entire conservative block will join those guys and may very well side with the liberal block.
Still, I'm not going to hold my breath, and I fear the implications of this trial either way. The cleanest thing to do would be to just not vote for Trump and beat him in the ballot box. This feels both appropriate and underhanded in a way that might result in violence from the right... But maybe that's just where we're at.
Or, even better, that this part of the constitution doesn’t count for this specific person, in this specific case, at this specific time.
But that it counts for anyone else, at any other time.
Coming up with some asinine excuse to let him off, would in fact be providing aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. That person should also be removed from office (if office counts as any public service beyond presidency and congress)
Who will do the removing?
The people
And with each corrupt ruling, the legitimacy of the federal legal system weakens. Recently polls show faith in SCOTUS (by the public) at 15%
The Weird Sisters have flown in from Scotland to watch.
Hmm, does the supreme Court have jurisdiction over how states conduct elections?
Of course, just look at how they dictated how states could hold their elections during covid
Nope
They won't even have to do that. They'll just invoke due process and rights of the accused and argue that there is a significant difference between doing a thing and being accused of a thing and thus it has to wait on the courts to decide whether or not he did what he was accused of (and thus whether or not he is barred from holding office).
Then you all will yell about how they're ignoring that part of the constitution just because he's Trump. While either arguing that anyone accused of that sort of thing should be barred from running (you really don't actually want this) or engage in special pleading regarding Trump.
You see though this 17th century witch burner once wrote a speech that said our laws don't matter.
State Rights!
OHHHHH, he never said support!!!! Get lawyered bitches!!! Oh wait, the courts don’t give a shit about technicalities? Well fuck me!
Except the current Supreme Court who has repeatedly thrown precedent out the window to read the Constitution as intending to be both literal to modern language and assuming it was not intended to be interpreted with modern technology and crises in mind.
Look if the founding fathers wanted to restrict my right to bear thermonuclear arms they shoulda added an addendum to the second amendment. Those "fore"fathers didn't have much foresight. Now let me buy plutonium.
Save y'all sometime: it finds its way to the Supreme Court and Thomas, the rapist, and Roberts shit all over it claiming that they lack standing.
I see real chance that this is Civil War 2 in the making.
let them shit or get off the pot, then. MAGA has been trying to extort us with the threat of civil war for years now.
You don't want civil war or even cession in a country loaded with nukes. That shit tends to spill.
Also, this would inevitably lead to Christian extremists with access to nukes which will lead them to immediately believe that they were chosen by God to use them
How are the Christian extremists in this scenario going to launch the nukes it's not just a button that you press that says "go".
Right? In fact, to the contrary, it's a super complicated and locked down process and the people who are meant to actually execute it are among the most highly-trained and vetted in the US military and are obliged to pass an ongoing series of exams in order to maintain eligibility for service on the nuclear arsenal.
Come now, people here believed Trump had the actual launch "codes" in the papers at MarALago. They aren't going to fall for your complicated explanation.
There was that report that the folks that are stationed at our missile silos sleep on the job and leave shit unlocked. It is not unreasonable to think a concerted group could get ahold of nuclear material if not the actually missiles. A dirty bomb is still scary
Like these guys have the brains they probably irradiate themselves, saving everyone else the trouble.
They've not exactly demonstrated themselves to be capable of high level concepts have they? I mean so far they've essentially wondered around inside a ineffectively guarded building. The hardly military strategists.
But in Modern Warfare 2, all I had to do was go into a Russian sub and hit the launch button! Sarcasm obviously
They will get access to warheads. I'd they get access to codes (could be) they can fire them immediately. If they don't get the codes, they still have the fucking warheads that are "relatively easy" to disassemble and made to explode in an alternate way. Once you have hands on access, that's it.
Gilead demands compliance
I don't want it, no. But the only two possible answers to extortion are to give up all of your power permanently to the person making the threats or to call them on it.
Doubtful too fat, lazy and old and we whooped the racists in the last one anyway. We’ll fucking do it again.
And even before that, none of these wingnuts can even agree with each other within their "own" side. Even the January 6th insurrection attempt was complete disorganized chaos, and that clusterfuck was the closest they ever got to being organized. They'll spend more time bickering and turning on each other for dumbshit reasons ("Look, this guy is wearing elevator shoes!") than accomplishing any actual objectives. I'm sure lone fuckheads can cause localized destruction and chaos here and there if they felt like it, but that'll never amount to an overthrow of anything.
I’m also not convinced most of the people there on Jan 6 expected to actually accomplish anything. Most seemed just like idiot hooligans who wanted to fuck shit up. They didn’t have any clue what they’d do long term.
I think you're right. Most of the Jan 6 seditionists were just there to have a rally. Most. Some legitimately traitorous people planned to do some heinous shit under the cover of the mob. That's why it was allowed to get out of control; it was part of the plan.
They are like the Hitler youth without the charismatic leader. They would be a useful tool for someone to seize power, but they'd have to be organised and no one really seems to exist that can do that. The only person they actually listen to isn't smart enough to think of a whole sentence in one go.
He's definitely not going to be the charismatic leader to organise the unwashed masses.
Who will win in a fight 400 annoying angry rednecks or one tank?
Yeah that's a tough one
Of course, everyone in the military is perfectly stable non-violent person with no extreme views and opinions.
Largely, they obey the chain of command. And for better or worse, the highest ranks of the military have shown to be downright level-headed on the topic of there never being a military coup in the US.
The senior officer corps is dominated by highly-competent and committed individuals who absolutely despise Trump for many very obvious reasons. He may have some popularity among the enlisted ranks, but they aren't the people who know how the machinery operates on a macro scale. Real warfare requires coordination on a massive scale and nobody outside of the Pentagon is in any position to make that happen. Do you know how to command a carrier group or an infantry division? Do I? The only people who do are elite high-ranking officers.
In coventional warfare, the tank probably wins, but modern civil wars are asymmetrical. Just look at Syria and Myanmar, two countries that have tanks and fighter jets.
Yeah, but as long as you are looking at stuff take a gander at the gravy seals who use the 5XL size camo vest and who will give up as soon as they run out of cheetos.
The rednecks if at least one of them knows about explosives.
It's going to take a lot more than a homemade pipe bomb to get through the armour of a tank, assuming they don't blow themselves up in the process of making it they would then have to actually get near the tank, which I don't think they'd be able to do.
Anyway most of them are delusional but they actually have lives back home They're not going to risk their own life. January 6th was different because they essentially got no pushback, most of them just wandered around and yelled things they didn't really contribute in any real way. The moment their lives are at risk I suspect their enthusiasm would rather evaporate.
Could go for the engine, barrel, or the tracks.
I dunno, if that laughably inept shit he pulled on Jan 6 was his beer hall putch I don't think this guy could manage a civil war. You may be giving him too much credit.
Take making?
my bad
It's all good fam, it happens to the best of us. No worries
God I want this so so bad! But I don’t think it will happen since he has yet to be convicted of the crime. Hate to say it but innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Hope that happens sooner rather then later
Conviction might be helpful, but is not actually necessary for this to work.
I'm confused about this as well. Why is this trial happening before one that would bring criminal charges for the insurrection to lock him up? If he lost such a trial, he would be automatically banned from running, right? Or is the required evidence different for this one and that's why they go with it?
I think it's about the burden of proof required.
In the states cases it's just "beyond reasonable doubt" that is required. I.e. would a reasonable person (one with a brain and no particular axe to grind), believe that there is an equal to or greater than 50% possibility that he did commit the crime. If they do then it meets the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".
It doesn't violate his rights because he hasn't actually been accused of the crime, it is just the courts stating that they think it's more likely than not that he did commit the crime.
He will probably double down and demand a criminal case, but that doesn't matter because there's already one in progress anyway. It also won't get his name put back on the ballot.
You're totally correct, but you got a term backwards. You're thinking "preponderance of evidence". That's the one where it's just "better than even odds".
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal cases, and is "if there's any reasonable explanation other than them doing it then they're innocent".
Not guilty. Innocent refers to the fact that a defendant could have in no way committed the crime, where as not guilty does not presume innocence, but states that the prosecution has not met it's burden to prove guilt.
Additionally, for context, the three burdens of proof are:
beyond reasonable doubt - most likely in criminal cases where prosecution has the burden
clear and convincing evidence (typically in custody/family law)
propondedance of evidence - most likely in civil cases where the plaintiff has the burden
And then you can expand to probably cause and reasonable suspicion for warrants or HHS intervention in child abuse cases...
Okay say they’re successful I have a question about write ins, will they count that towards his total? Or is he completely removed from running and being voted for in that state?
In general this would depend on the state... In Minnesota the canvass following the general ballot is used to determine who the states electors are going to be. These individuals represent their districts and are then legally obligated to only vote for candidates that meet eligibility and are on the ballot. So there would need to be a certain threshold of write ins met before he could actually make it to the electors ballots and he would have to submit a proper write in registration form ahead of time.. Because those electors are casting votes in representation for their districts they would not be authorized to write in a candidate of their own choosing as they would basically be going completely against their electoral districts clearly defined intentions.
So it's possible he could even win a fair share of the popular vote but be unable to be even selected as a candidate by the electors as they are legally unable to vote for him unless he is a properly displayed candidate on their ballots.
Super unlikely, but it would depend on how the state's Supreme Court would decide to uphold its write in registration process following the decision... And also it would probably be petitioned to higher courts who would likely overturn it since it's extremely dangerous precedent.
Doesn't the language say they aren't eligible to hold office? Even if they were written in they couldn't technically accept, legally and election officialls would be banned from counting the person's votes.
With maga corrupt officials in some states tho who knows.
How many states' ballot papers can he afford to lose before he is no longer a viable candidate for the GOP?
After Jan 6? All if them.
I'm don't quite understand how US politics works. Can the Republicans actually kick him out of the party and prevent him from representing them?
Because my understanding is that he is polling better than all of the other candidates so if they don't want him in power would they have to remove him from the party and then make him run as an independent or something.
Yes, easily. Democrats actually went to court to establish legally that the nomination process is a process internal to a private organization and therefore not subject to election regulations. The real question is, can they survive kicking him out of the party? There are a lot of people who would absolutely follow Trump out the door if the Reps kicked him out, and they'd end up losing not just the presidency but probably tons of power up and down the ballot.
The real problem. Republicans thought courting the moderate vote could keep them relevant, and then 2016 happened. After that, they realized the only way they stay relevant is if they can get a large number of angry, uneducated, single-issue voters.
Now they're beholden to them. We got to watch as they slowly enacted their little congressional coup in the House.
But don't feel bad for them. Republicans are all-in. All that had to happen was under 10 Republicans break ranks and vote for a Conservative Democrat for House Speaker and the Congressional Soap Opera would have ended. They prefer the extremist to anyone with a "D" next to their name.
You pretty much nailed it. The Republicans can just collectively decide, "he doesn't represent us", and field a different candidate. Strategically though, doing so would be an incredible blunder so they'll never do that.
Well, that's what the primaries are for: The members of the party select one candidate that they all promise to support. Well, theoretically, at least. Trump has not signed that pledge that he would support any other candidate if he loses the primaries.
He's gonna win their primaries, but it would be wonderful to watch him lose and see all of his fellow traitors from 2020 deal with his post-failure tantrums like they forced us to.
So how is the verdict getting picked up by Congress
Huh?
OP is referring to this, and I'm not sure how to interpret it.
If they're already elected and serving then Congress has to decide how they're punished.
This makes sense cuz Congress has its own ethic committees.
They're broke. And ineffective but they're there.
The text of the 14th amendment says Congress gets to take a vote on the issue.
Not exactly.
It says:
The distinction is that congress can- with a 2/3’s vote of both the Senate and Representatives- remove the prohibition, not that they have a say in him being barred.
In any case, good luck getting a 2/3’a majority vote in either body, nevermind both.
Didn't Clinton and Obama lead the charge to override that for McCain back in 2008? If I recall correctly, he was born on a military base or something that technically might not have been the US, so they did the right thing and made it a non-issue. Of course the GOP responded in kind by spending the next 8 years claiming Obama was lying about being born in the US. Stay classy, GOP.
I'm not really sure what the relevance here is?
McCain was a US citizen- but he was born on a US military base in Panama (because his parents were stationed there.) They were both US citizens. There is absolutely no reason to believe McCain was inelligible because he was not a "natural born" citizen. (IIRC, the distinction is that one was always a US citizen, that is, your parents were both citizens and you inherited citizen ship from them, as apposed to having been a citizen of elsewhere and having immigrated to the US.)
it was basically a bullshit excuse. and while you're right, the GOP didn't return the favor with Obama... this is a patently different matter.
The 14th amendment says that 2/3rds of Congress can vote to override citizenship requirements, I pointed to an example where that's actually happened in recent history where some were arguing that a presidential candidate might not be eligible to run (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html), Congress voted to make that a non-issue, and you don't see the relevance? Ok, guess I can't really help ya much more. Have a good day, I guess?
wut??? where? The full text:
Section three says that congress can allow somebody who has engaged in insurrection to be eligible. it says nothing about allowing naturalized citizens to be made eligible by congress.
Further, in point of fact, the McCain thing had everything to do with technicalities of vaguley described definitions. Some idiots were arguing that McCain was inelibible because he wasn't born on US soil. Despite having two parent who were both US citizens- and were in Panama on military orders.
Finally, Congress did not pass a law or do anything that had the force of law to support McCain, or to make him ineligible when he was not. it was a non-binding resolution that basically said, "hey we see this bullshit." McCain was already eligible because he was a citizen by birth... the idiots were trying to argue that he was ineligible because he wasn't born on US soil which... is stupid.
And again, McCain is largely irrelevant.
They don't hold 2/3 vote of both houses. Zero chance congress would overturn the ruling (granted the final ruling would have to come from the US supreme court).
14a3 presumes he's disqualified. Do you have a cite why it would have to come from SCOTUS? That's not in the constitution
Is anything in the SCOTUS does in the Constitution? This is the same court that is letting states fund religious schools.
I suppose it doesn't. They could call a vote on it at any point. But I don't imagine they would unless provoked by a ruling. If they didn't want him to lose in a single state, they could call it now and those state cases would go away. If they are waiting for that, then they know it will be appealed and would likely wait for the SCOTUS. Because why not? Why spend that political capital when it is likely to be unnecessary. MAGA hurt them a lot in the midterms.
But you are right. They can technically call it. I should have been more clear. Given that they haven't yet, they are likely waiting for outcomes if they are going to at all. It's also possible that aside from the MAGA nutjob faithfuls (looking at you MTG) they really want him to be done. And even if they don't, to stop before it had a supreme court ruling would be basically admitting he was part of an insurrection, but you want to support him anyways.
Nope, it says congress can vote to give traitors a pass but that just being a traitor is enough to disqualify you
if a country wants someone to be a president, they should become the president. beat him in the polls, not through copout legal mumbo jumbo that certainly will be challenged and overruled.
The country? I assume you mean the public and not the territory.
In that case we should totally get rid of the Electoral College and go based on popular vote, yes?
As much as I hate Trump, if you think he's the worst the Republicans can come up with you're dead wrong. Him getting the nomination means they won't get someone who is both worse and might actually win. I wish they would stop trying to fuck things up and just let the dumpster fire take its course.
Don't kid yourself, Trump could actually win. He should not be allowed to run, but he won't concede and he won't stop as long as it benefits him to stay in the race.
Now imagine the legal clusterfuck if he is kept off the ballot and wins a write-in campaign.
There isn't a "good" Republican candidate who can challenge him. The ones still in the primary, Christie, DeSantis, the crazy one with zero name recognition, none of them can catch him in the polls. They're just staying in the race hoping Trump is forced to withdraw.
There won't be one because he is disqualified from office (if these suits are successful). Not from running. From office. If Mickey Mouse won we wouldn't have a cartoon for president. Second place would win.
Regardless we might have another insurrection attempt, but this time the authorities will be more prepared. So unless the military decides on a coup, a successful suit here would be the end of it for him.
The state of Minnesota cannot disqualify him from holding federal office. They can keep his name off the ballot in Minnesota, and prevent him from legally campaigning, but electoral college delegates are actually free to vote for whomever they like. This has never happened before, and there is no real precedent. Mickey Mouse has never won the popular vote for president in any state, and even if he did, he's not a real person. Trump is, unfortunately, very real, and his supporters attacked the Capitol building to keep him in power. No shame, no propriety, no precedent will stop him. We don't know what he'll do if he loses this court case, but it's probably not going to be graceful.
Yes, but if Minnesota says he is off the ballot it will be appealed to the supreme court who is the authority on constitutional interpretation. If they side with Minnesota, not even the electoral college can put him in. Likely whichever (if any) case goes against him, all other active trials will be put on hold awaiting a response from the USSC. If they decide the 14th does apply (a big if given the state of the USSC), then it is over. In all 50 states. That's why groups are hitting him in multiple states. They just need 1. It isn't an attempt to take him off the ballot. It is an attempt to end his federal political career entirely.
There's no way the SCOTUS hears the case, regardless. They'll find a way to punt on it. Only way it happens is if Biden packs the court, which he won't do.
If they don't hear it, then it is essentially saying they agree with the lower court ruling. If they want to be against it then they have to hear it.
Bull they will hear it and rule he can be on the ballot.
50 bucks right now to the charity of your choice. If I win donate to Doctors without borders what your financial situation will allow. Deal?
With this SCOTUS, I have little doubt the end result will be the same whether they rule in Trump's favor or find a reason to dismiss, like lack of standing or some bullshit. If the lower court rules in his favor, they'll pass on creating a precedent.
But that would require his fanbase knowing how to write and spell. There is a very good chance they are too lazy to do it too.
Write-in campaigns have different rules in different states. It's a logistical nightmare for him to win this way. Besides, American voters are lazy as fuck. Think 10's of millions will take the time to scratch his name on a ballot?
Maybe you're right. Trump is such an idiot he'll be running independently even if he's banned from half the states which will take votes from whatever other asshat they replace him with.
That would be great for democracy, because it might break up the GOP and create demand for more equitable voting practices, like ranked choice. Plus, they'd lose by an unchallengeable margin.
The GOP breaking up, which won't happen, would be terrible for democracy. No way rank choice is going to be rolled out under single party rule. As bad as two parties are, one party is a nightmare.
Nah, I'm saying that the GOP, in an effort to salvage their own party and relevance, will support ranked choice voting to let voters pick Trump and a second choice. I don't expect the GOP to actually split permanently, but Trump isn't going to bow out. So if they want to run a candidate who hasn't been indicted for nearly 100 different charges, ranked choice would be a boon.
Yep, Trump can't win unless D voters stay home in droves.
No one talks about this, but the man cannot gain supporters, only lose them. After the last 8-years of his horseshit, no one is suddenly going to decide they like the guy.
We shouldn't act like it's a lock, kinda how we did with Clinton. But this is far different. Trump is now a known quantity. No one is going to say, "Hell with it. I'll vote for him and see what happens."