• Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection.

    I keep seeing this one… Am I missing something, or didn’t Colorado convict him of insurrection as part of their case? I thought that was the whole point.

    But maybe I’m just trying to rationalize a group of people not acting rationally.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      to me this is where it gets interesting. that the constitution left it to the states to ‘remove the burden’ of being labeled an insurrectionist to congress implies maybe they also decide who is an insurrectionist … ie, maybe it only takes one state court to declare it, but congress to remove it?

      in other words, the SC could say, ‘colorados ruling stands becasue they have that right, if you dont like it speak to the congress who can remove the burden’

      • 000@fuck.markets
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, Colorado’s ruling applies solely to Colorado. They didn’t convict him personally of anything, they just said his actions allow them to keep him off the ballot under the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court decides that Colorado misinterpreted the 14th, they could overturn their decision, but the CO decision doesn’t inherently classify Trump as an insurrectionist in other states.

    • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a matter of legal jargon. When people say “convicted” they mean has there been a criminal trial in which trump was found guilty of insurrection.

      This hasn’t happened. But the Colorado supreme court, a court that routinely makes decisions about criminal cases, has decided he committed insurrection.

      The convicted thing is just an excuse to let him off.