…

Scott Detrow: So how did you define “engaging in insurrection” here?

Shenna Bellows: Well, let’s back up first and make sure that everyone understands that Maine law is, to my knowledge, different from every other state.

Under Maine law, when I qualified Mr. Trump for the ballot, any registered voter had the right to challenge that qualification. Five voters did so, including two former Republican state senators. And then I was required under the statute, under the law, to hold a hearing and issue a decision, and do so within a very compressed timeline. So this wasn’t something I initiated, but it’s something that’s required under Maine election law.

Detrow: So the question came to you, but it puts you in the position of weighing a really serious question with big consequences that’s in front of a lot of state courts right now. And that is this question of whether the attempt to overturn the election and what happened on January 6 was insurrection. How did you think about that key question?

Bellows: So I reviewed very carefully the hearing proceedings and the weight of the evidence presented to me at the hearing. And that evidence made clear, first, that those events of January 6, 2021 — and we all witnessed them — they were unprecedented. They were tragic. But they were an attack not only upon the capital and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law, on the peaceful transfer of power. And the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing president. And the United States Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. And under Maine election law, I was required to act in response.

  • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
    41·
    11 months ago

    I mean, if the SCOTUS doesn’t interfere in the sovereignty of State run elections, granted by the US Constitution… I could absolutely see them refuse to take up the case, and Republican states refusing to permit Biden on trumped up accusations. They don’t need evidence, as we have already seen with the Biden Impeachment Inquiry. They solely started an inquiry without any evidence, in the intent of finding evidence that they didn’t have reason to believe existed, and contrarily had reason to believe didn’t exist.

    Texas decides to not let Biden on their ticket because he’s currently under an Impeachment Inquiry…? Even though that does require Due Process, ‘conviction’ and ‘sentencing’? And their mascot did get ‘convicted’ but wasn’t ’sentenced’? Doesn’t matter for Trump, Biden removed… would he have won a red state, anyway? No.

    • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      It really seems like we’re headed for a Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo scenario, where a chunk of states just won’t even recognize the winner of an election and will ignore the law. I can see Texas and Florida leading the charge on that, regardless of whether a case exists or not, they’ll just make up whatever reasons they want and say they don’t recognize the results of the election, that’s not our President, then SCOTUS will either back them up or not strike it down. All for that fat, orange, incontinent turd.