421

Historic hearings begin on whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from 2024 race (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hearings began this week on whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 because of his actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Monday morning in Denver, a historic five-day evidentiary hearing began for a lawsuit filed against Trump by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

A similar hearing is set for Thursday in Minneapolis.

CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because "it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future." The group's complaint accuses Trump of inciting and aiding the mob at the Capitol two years ago, which he denies. He was impeached on similar charges but acquitted by Republicans in the Senate.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 60 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think this is the courtroom, it's under Judge Wallace. Anyone know if we can hear it or when it starts?

https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/?streamId=35b1db1b-2ccc-47e8-9f59-33cd656391f9

Edit: Sound just started.

Edit 2: wtf is the defense lawyer doing, trying to get his Etsy paintings sold? I want to support that guy now.

Edit 3: They're on break and will be back, I didn't catch how long the break is.

Edit 4: They're back but it sounds like it will be short and then break for the day.

Edit 5: It is not short, it's still going.

That's a wrap, they'll start at 8:00 tomorrow morning.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago

These updates were gripping

[-] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I know you're being sarcastic, but it was for people who came into the thread to see if they wanted to click the link or not, there are no recordings. Basically, trump's lawyers are unsurprisingly smug, want to block everything the people bringing the suit want, and the judge is being ultra fair. If you watched the impeachment trial or Jan. 6th commission, it was very similar to the police testimony there. Meaning, it was really, really bad for the police. Also, I didn't know about this:

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

[-] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

In case you did want to buy some of his art:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/winstonwatercolors

[-] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago

Those are quite the homoerotic cowboys.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

Don't you go judging Buck and Colt

[-] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

I'm not judging. They look like fine young men. I just didn't expect them.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

fine young men

So very fine..

[-] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Holy shit you're not kidding, I love it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Ram Ranch

[-] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

Just wanted to say thanks for posting that link.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

NP, it's hard to believe it's not an old timey TV show. You got the shitty defense lawyer and the noble policeman and a very dramatic testimony.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

What county to select?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Denver Courtroom 209

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] [email protected] 47 points 11 months ago

Block him. He belongs in jail.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago

Think of all the seditionists who will also be disqualified, once #45 sets the precedent.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

Everyone who provided aid, as well.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago

Which is why getting this conviction right is so important.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The key quote I got from the live stream was the term "specific intent".

[-] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

Similar efforts need to be launched in every battleground state for it to stand a chance of blocking his path through the EC

[-] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Not just battleground states. Every state should do this. The more the better, imo

[-] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

In fairness, thanks to the electoral system all we would need is like 6 specific states and he effectively never win. Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, and Missouri would be 79 electoral votes, there are only 538 total, 241 are already virtually unobtainable by conservatives, losing those 79 would mean the most that trump could get would be 218, meaning he could never get the 270 he would need to win and those aren't even removing states like Florida and Texas because that would never happen.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Neat! I live in Pa, so hopefullyy state won't let me down lol

[-] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Specific intent is what she just said.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Scott Gessler is an absolute asshole here in the Colorado suit.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

A triall to decide if the American justice system works? Aren't they currently cosigning a genocide?

Yeah ok. I'll hold my breath.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023

421 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18928 readers

3105 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News