Due Process Of Law

What is this country of America coming to? Are we to allow someone to be tried and judged and punished without due process of Law? Whether you like Donald Trump or don't like him he deserves Due Process
Bu the states of Maine and Colorado have tried and convicted him without due process of the Law
Even the worst criminal we have ever seen or the worst criminal to come that is obviously guilty without a doubt
is always afforded an attorney and a trial by judge or jury.
If this situation is to stand without push back with the law behind it this United States is on it's way to hell
If it is not there already
Who can stand against what I have just said? If you are against what I have said you are filled with hate
Post Comment

Comments (39)

I Have had my say i'm outta here
Thanks dude.

He do not refer to it as whitchhunt for nothing.

Watch what he said in that video.
It was far from "ok, you boys go up there create hell,
break in and take over the government by force will you,
thanks"
No he said go there and protest peacefully.
Besides.... every thinking soul under the sun knows darn well
that no man in his posision would EVER
think the rule of America can be taken over by a handful hooligans.
I said that before, if Trump was serious about a military takeover
it would have been fronted by 1500 well trained men in riot gear!

So this shit was all for the cameras.
J6 was orchistrated by the dems, just for the sole purpose of getting rid of Donald,
end of story.
How so?



You posted a blog that exercises a very strong opinion and you run away?
Actually, both states are awaiting due process to be completed, the OP is jumping the gun by stating Trump hasn't had due process.

" Bellows said she will wait until courts rule on her decision before removing Trump from the primary ballot. That means Trump will probably appear on the ballot on March 5, USA TODAY reported.

In California, Trump will be on the state primary ballot despite pressure to remove him, Secretary of State Shirley Weber said late Thursday."

Both states will abide by the court's decision, which is yet to be completed.

So why the blog?
@OP said states have neither tried nor convicted nor are they required to do either to exclude him as a candidate under their state laws. You may puff yourself up with legal indignation, but it is all wind and fury signifying nothing. 14 states cases await processing, and I assume they will be 'duly processed' - keep your eyes open for California. Section 3 simply doesn't require a criminal conviction to take effect, so go and kiss the beloved constitution.
you might want to read that section again!
No mention of President or VP!comfort
I agree with the OP wholeheartedly. Democracy means you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Bellows was totally prejudice in her decision in taking Trump off the ballot.

Maine's secretary of state on Thursday ruled former President Trump is disqualified from holding office and appearing on the state's primary ballot under section 3 of the 14th Amendment over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Doesn't matter if her decision is in for review, the damage is done.

This witch hunt against Trump has been going on since 2016, and just proves how 'low-life' Democrats are in real life. Fuelling the Ukraine war and now the Gaza massacre.

The ONLY reason I can think why they are so terrified of Trump is because he opposes their (Democrats) believe in Globalism and War mongering.
@con no need whatsoever! On the other hand you might like to review the long list of cryptic irrelevant and mistaken remarks you drop. Why on earth mention the VP? No need to mention the ex POTUS either, since he is the thread subject, is he not? Check the topic subject matter, I suggest.
Why don't you just go ahead and write his comment FOR him???

Dumb Fck.
These aren't criminal trials, so there is no criminal conviction.

The application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment involves civil litigation which addresses disputes between people, or organisations.

When Trump was found liable for s*xual abuse and defamation against E Jean Carroll and Judge Kaplan affirmed that he did indeed rape Carroll, it was in the context of a civil suit, not a criminal one. It resulted from a jury reaching a verdict based upon the preponderance of the evidence, a much lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction. That's why he was ordered to pay $5M, rather than go to prison for up to a life term.

If Trump had responded to Carroll's allegations without defaming her, he would have got away with raping her scot free.

Likewise, finding that Trump incited an insurrection in a civil court based upon the preponderance of evidence is not enough to criminally convict him. It is, however, due process, i.e. fair treatment through the normal judicial system before an impartial judge in a civil suit.

Whether Trump is disquaified from the primary ballot will depend upon each state's laws, each court's findings and due process through to the appellate courts.

For example, Michigan state law has no provision for disqualifying anyone from the primary ballot: a 23 year old born in Luxembourg could be on the Michian primary ballot. It's only if that candidate wins the primaries can Michigan sue to have them disqualified from running for presidential office according to the 14th Amendment.

Indeed, that is exacty what has happened in Michigan: whilst Trump has not been disqualified from the primary ballot because there is no legal provision for that action, the Michigan courts have recognised that there is recourse for the state applying 3/14 should Trump win the primaries.

Whether Trump is eventually disqualified from being on some primary ballots, or not, it doesn't mean he'll be disqualified from all the states' primary ballots unless there is a federal ruling from the US Supreme Court to do so. Being disqualified from the primary ballot in some states may not affect who wins and Trump may yet become the Republican candidate running for the presdency despite being found to have incited insurrection.

Trump will not be convicted of insurrection based upon these civil cases. If you want to huff about him being criminally convicted on charges related to him inciting insurrection, you're going to have to wait for any positive outcome in the Washington conspiracy and Georgia RICO cases.

Until such a time, or indeed if criminal insurrection charges are brought and proven against Trump in the future (unlikely), you (the OP) are spreading misinformation.
Yea, it's a political unfair game to try make the other guy lose even before folk can begin voting.
If this happened in Venezuala we'd be not in doubt it was stacked against the man.
The people want him, and fundamentally it's them they wanna block.

This is deep state vs the people of the land.
Grand... in YOUR words, what part of the January 6th insurrection did Trump play a part in?
So, you think it would politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?
What do you mean part. None ofcourse.
It was a set up. Planned. By Pelosi and her friends.
They knew it would be a crowd. Now only need to rile them up even more. Lets hire a few for that job. Some can be FBI folk simply, in maga attire.

Listen. First the election was stolen. So any supporter of Trump and Trump himself had the right to be mad as f. That is the first you gotta understand. Second they (DNC) made this happen. Lax security on purpose, infilitrated hooligans for hire and barriers removed and doors half open.

Here is the proof it was not an organzed attemt at nothing from the Trump people: once inside nada of significance happened. Agree? wandering about, sitting in chairs... nothing! taking a few selfies...
dunno
U ppl r just eating it all, line, fish, hook, lead... lol the whole 9er

Just.... rise your view a tad... try, at least try...ok, to get that you been played.
I'd take a catus over Biden representing the corrupt demonrats,
cos it would be simpler for you to see what is going on.

drinking
Do you think it would a politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?
Chat, did he say something wrong?
Interesting that someone should find self-stimulation by abusing me! blushing
Well, all the best for 2024, may your vocabulary and imagination grow along with your tumescent (or is it detumescent?) thingummyjig.
Yes. From 14 months of age I think they should be electable. easter egg

popcorn
In your mind?
~:text=No%20Person%20except%20a%20natural,been%20fourteen%20Years%20a%20Resident

From the constitution...which many people want to walk all over now...

Article II

Section 1 Function and Selection
Clause 5 Qualifications
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ArtII.S1.C5.1 Qualifications for the Presidency
Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury for criminal defendants charged with non-petty offenses.1 Article III of the Constitution also provides for jury trials in criminal cases.2 As such, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution protects the accused’s right to trial by jury twice,3 although the Court has grounded its analysis of the right primarily in the Sixth Amendment.4

By virtue of its incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury applies in both federal and state court.5 A criminal defendant may, however, waive the right and agree to a trial before a judge alone.6 A valid waiver requires the express and intelligent consent of the defendant,7 along with the consent of the court and the prosecution.8 In a similar vein, a defendant may plead guilty in lieu of trial.9 A valid guilty plea requires knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial by jury,10 among other constitutional rights.11

Do you think one person such as yourself should be able to change the constitution and the law in the US?
Trump has not been convicted...

Most legal scholars have said the Supreme Court will allow his name to be on the ballots of all states...

When Rowe vs. Wade was overturned...I was not happy...But, to follow the constitution...it was a state’s right..

In my mind it was not fair to women...

And, I am not happy with how many states have made abortions illegal or lowered the gestation...

Fairness...

Depends on which side you are on in most cases...

But he has not been tried or found guilty...the states are overstepping their rights.
Happy new year Jac.
I suppose we just look at this differently chat.
And that is ok.
Happy new year to you also.

wine
Yes, very different... especially when millions of Americans perceive his words as incitement of a riot, leading to an insurrection.
I'm expecting more states to follow in removing his name in the Republican primary.

Happy New Year!
Perfidious.
I will make a prediction...

Trump will win the Republican nomination...

Not sure who will win the Presidential Election...

But whoever does..will be handing out pardons...

Kinda sucks..when both major candidates are very unethical...
Think you have to ask questios that is a tad less rethorical if you want a proper answer from me here. I know things here, I have an understanding but we never get into the the nitty gritty cos u insist on keeping stricktly to the official narrative. You never seem to wanna discuss what if. What if the democrats and much of the republicans too are corrupt and hiding their real intentions. What if Tulsi is right that even DOJ is being weaponised in a political tug of war.
They weren't rhetorical questions in your case. The stories you make up about anything and everything precludes you from an assumption of rationality.

When you are sarcastic and avoidant, however, it's safe to assume you haven't the courage to admit truth and fact.

I was precisely getting to the nitty gritty of your allegation that it's a politically unfair game to assess whether Trump is disqualifed under the terms of the constitution.

Rational, truthful people will understand that some boundaries with respect to whom may run for president are necessary, or desirable.

Rational, truthful people will understand that the constitution sets out those boundaries and they should be applied by law, or altered by law, not by a unilateral decision, nor a general election vote.

A general election is the democratic due process whereby citizens may vote for the selected candidates for the presidency. It is not the due process to decide if a candidate is eligible for presidential office.

And you do want Trump to have his entitlement to due process, right? Of course not, you want Trump to receive his legal right to due process when it favours him, but for his right to due process to be abandoned when it doesn't. That's your idea of a fair game, right?
@Jac.
Gotta keep it short, cos you know...

Keep in mind its not only me who is insane, 80 mill voting amcars too.
We all feel the same.

And - its a joke to many a trump fan that some talk about not fit
when mr.Biden is less so cos he is corrupt and so is his son.
Only it's hard to prove it, as with the election fraud.
Still, we all believe it including a loads ofhigh ranking folk,
in and out of the US.

So- Like I said to Chat- I suppose we see it differently.
And that is ok.

The nitty gritski you don't wanna touch is the possibility the other side is just as bad.
Or actually much worse.


bartender
I have already pointed out to you the logical fallacy that a lot of people believing something does not automatically confer truth, nor accuracy. A lot of people are Catholics, but that doesn't prove the Buddhists wrong.

Rank does not automatically lead to truth, nor accuracy, either. That's evident from the people who are pleading in Trump's criminal cases, or the Republicans in government who are contradicting themselves depending upon the direction of the wind.

This blog is not about Biden and trying to make it so is a deflection, but saying you think the 'other side' is as bad, or much worse does imply you know that the 'side' is bad.
Not really. But we could meet at "ok then- your guys bad, my guys bad" and nobody sue nobody and let's go to election. And make sure there is plenty observers who don't need to keep covid distance this time.

The actual truth that you don't even wanna look in the direction of is so dirty
that you will most likely never accept any of it cos "it can not be that bad".
Instead you place me firmly in fantasy land, and you know, it's ok.

So based on this a continuation of this chat is rather pointless.
So let's just say you win.

handshake
Create a blog and I'll look at it, but I certainly would not agree and have not ever agreed that politicians have criminal immunity, especially on the grounds that as long as everyone in office is breaking the law it's okay.

Can an argument get more ridiculous than that?

Especially when in the same breath you're harping on about election observers standing closer to make sure other election workers are following the rules.
Jac "Trump may yet become the Republican candidate running for the presdency despite being found to have incited insurrection."

Making statements like this is misleading which can cause confusion. The question of inciting insurrection is not applicable to Trump. It is the unqualified opinion of lots of people (those opposed to Trump) and you it seems.

I'm not familiar with this case (as I said at the time) but based on one of your statements I gave an example of how the President could fit 14/3.

Based on Reality however that example is not relevant to this case.

I gave you the benefit of trust because you said you had done indepth research, looks like my trust was misplaced. I should have known better.
Troll farms are busy doing much the same thing.

Let the people decide who runs and who is elected.
Can you explain why that is misleading rather than just stating it?
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.
Meet the Author of this Blog
Mickeymoose

Mickeymoose

Westerly, Rhode Island, USA

I can't descibe myself as only others can know what I am through their eyes [read more]

About this Blog

created Dec 30
799 Views
Last Viewed: 13 hrs ago
Last Commented: Jan 1
2 Likes
Last Liked: Dec 30
Mickeymoose has 21 other Blogs

Like this Blog?

Do you like this Blog? Why not let the Author know. Click the button to like the Blog. And your like will be added. Likes are anonymous.

Feeling Creative?