•

Pence Says Trump Shouldn’t Be Disqualified Even If CONVICTED — Says ‘That Needs To Be Left To The American People’

https://www.mediaite.com/news/pence-says-trump-shouldnt-be-disqualified-even-if-convicted-says-that-needs-to-be-left-to-the-american-people/

Ex-VP Mike Pence said he wouldn't support disqualifying Trump even if he's convicted of crimes — saying "the American people" should decide.

He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

176 comments

spicytuna62

•

By that logic, we should then remove all barriers to run. If a convicted criminal can run, there's no reason a 28 year old with no criminal background can't.

BanditMcDougal

•

(Getting this out of the way first: I'm not a Trump supporter.)

Convicted felons can and have run for President in the past. Some campaigns have even been run from prison. Disqualifying somebody from running for office because of a conviction is extremely easy to weaponize. It's the next step in removing somebody's right to vote because of a conviction (a thing we do/have done and shouldn't).

I agree with you on the age thing, though. If you can vote, you should be able to hold office.

meco03211

•

I think the charges are pertinent. Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying. Likewise anyone convicted of some voter fraud crimes should have their right to vote revoked. Now I don't mean all crimes in this areas. But there are definitely some that should stick around

newthrowaway20

•

cough cough 14th Amendment, Section 3. cough cough

MrBananaMan

•

For those who don't want to follow the reference:

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

bassomitron

•

This is the correct answer, in my opinion. Someone that went through a tough patch earlier in life and was convicted of stealing a car or something? Largely irrelevant to their ability to govern, if previous crimes were compensated for (i.e. they served their sentence). Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that's a deal breaker.

Regardless, if Trump gets convicted of any of these crimes, that mother fucker will be serving prison time. How can he possibly be president if he's in jail? At least, for this 2024 cycle. Honestly, I don't see him lasting another 10 years anyway, so I feel this whole debate will ultimately serve fruitless beyond the 2024 presidency.

Schadrach

•

Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker.

Sure, now you just need enough evidence to get 12 people (who statistically are going to end up including at least a couple of Republicans and at least one outright Trump supporter) to unanimously agree that he did that and go through the whole process before the election.

How can he possibly be president if he’s in jail?

Can't use the criminal justice system to prevent an elected official from discharging their duties - the most legitimate use of this is to prevent the DC police from being functionally a third house of Congress by detaining people they expect to vote "wrong."

So presumably a Trump convicted of crimes that don't bar him from office (and there are enough different charges in enough courts that he could very well be in prison but not barred from office depending on what sticks) and then elected would be let out for the duration of his term, to the degree required to discharge his duties and put back in the hole at 12:01PM Jan 20, 2029 (like an especially prestigious example of work release). But that's never a bridge we've had to worry about crossing before, so who knows what would actually be done.

Zalack

•

The problem is that government isn't a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.

I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.

We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.

Cabrio

•

Impeachment. Lmfao.

"You irreversibly damaged our society, we're going to have a very stern talk when your term as leader is up, not before. No, we won't undo any of the damage you caused."

Schadrach

•

Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying.

Some of the things he's been charged with are, but there are SO MANY CHARGES and only some of them would disqualify him from holding office, if convicted. And there's no solid grounds to deny him anything other than an opportunity to flee the courts until he's actually convicted of something.

Hexarei

•

The problem is it's not the felony, it's the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony

TheCraiggers

•

If this actually works, the next step will be abolishing the two-term limit. "Leave it to the will of the people to decide if they want a dictatorship."

conditional_soup

•

Well, basically, this is the gist of "a republic, if you can keep it". At the end of the day, my boy Montesquieu's words hang over all government like a spectre. Governments rule only by the consent of the governed. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided we wanted Lenin's mummified goatee to be president, constitution be damned, Biden be damned, it'd be the president.

elscallr

•

There's a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.

Flambo

•

Might as well ditch the citizenship requirement while we're at it.

GreenMario

•

Elon musk starts sweating

Kase

•

oh god, Elon isn't running for president, is he?? (edit: genuine question asked out of concern that Elon may be running)

BanditMcDougal

•

Can't. He was born in South Africa.

GreenMario

•

No thank God but he absolutely would if it wasn't for that pesky "gotta be born here" law.

MetalJewSolid

•

He’s so damn scared of taking a hard stance on trump. Pathetic, sniveling coward

agentsquirrel

•

The "Law and Order" party is now cool with all laws being subject to a popularity contest.

pachrist

•

They were never the law and order party. They were and are the put minorities and poor in prison party.

Remember it's all about hurting the right people.

Dagwood222

•

So, the rules matter when they lose to popular vote but win in the Electoral College, but don't matter when they are arrested?

Archer

•

Now you're getting it!

Dagwood222

•

Just saying the quiet part out loud...

Treczoks

•

What is next on their agenda? Making lynching legal, as it is a decision by the people, for the people, or what?

OhStopYellingAtMe

•

Left to the American people? So he favors a direct popular vote, without an electoral college?

Ok.

Kalkaline

•

agentsquirrel

•

Hey, land is people, too, and land has the right to vote! /s

PunnyName

•

Abusive Relationship 101

Kalkaline

•

whoisearth

•

You don't know him like I do

Kalkaline

•

PoorlyWrittenPapyrus

•

It’s not that he actually believes this, it’s that the party’s base has determined that you can’t oppose Trump, so they need to find a reason why people should vote for them instead of Trump while not taking the position that Trump should be in jail.

It’s the usual mental gymnastics. Desantis is doing the exact same thing.

letsgocrazy

•

This is the best answer.

An assault on Trump is an assault on the idiots who made it their identity to support him.

They can't let him be insulted.

The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.

luciferofastora

•

The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.

You'd think a better solution would be easy to find, but they spent so long indoctrinating their own followers to be loyal to names rather than concepts that they now fear these followers may attach to the Trump name.

Asafum

•

It's sad how quickly they forget the buttery males. Ol' "lock her up" Hillary "basket of deplorables" Clinton was so deserving of jail time because of those emails, but insurrection and election fraud? Nah. Those are locker room felonies.

The GOP is a joke and the rubes that choose to plug their ears and ignore the obvious are clowns 🤡🇺🇸

johnlsullivan2

•

It's probably going to be a new Trump party if he's not nominated so for Republicans they need him. It's the same with right wing media. Trump has such broad support that there's no way anyone on the right can effectively oppose him at this point.

taanegl

•

Funny how convicted felons can have their voting rights taken away, but letting a person who tried to sabotage the voting system to win unfairly run for president again? Suuure!

Not only that, but it's a direct parallel to how the rich have so much more rights than the poor - and the worst part is this guy's fans ARE dirt poor, some may even be felons, who have no right to vote, some of which probably tried to vote illegally because "owning the libs is what matters"... because again, decentralisation, proper vote count, democratic and parliamentary process, this is all bullshit anyways, so let's just game the system!

Like you have to be a special kind of stupid - and I don't mean that in an ableist kind of way, but in a way that this needs to be studied by scientists, because of how absurdly brain-dead it really is.

Like here's a hint: if you set a political precedent where your guy can do it, what's to prevent the other guy from doing it? Does MAGA stand for "make America gullible again"?

sudo

•

I agree with the sentiment that his actions should preclude him from running, but felon disenfranchisement is something that isn't talked about nearly enough and I think it's absolutely insane so many people lose their RIGHT to vote.

DarthBueller

•

Given the surge in felony disenfranchisement laws during the Civil War and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty damn clear that it was to keep black people from voting. And looking at the US map of the 2023 felony disenfranchisement laws, it is pretty damn clear that not much has changed.

taanegl

•

Like US states were originally against state police, because their local sheriff and local "court systems" did just fine. Can you guess why state police and also inter-state police collaboration became a thing?

If you said to catch freemen and return them to slavery for jaywalking or looking at a white woman the wrong way, you'd sadly be correct.

TwoGems

•

The worst part about all this is many who stormed the capital had nice businesses, trucks and income. I agree with the need to study this brain-dead disease though. Either our population is more absurdly stupid than is measurable or they all ate lead paint chips as a child.

PRUSSIA_x86

•

What's scary is just how susceptible people are to cults.

reverendsteveii

•

There is nothing more cowardly than a Republican.

Spike

•

Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?

Nougat

•

14th amendment, section 3.

JackbyDev

•

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Diplomjodler

•

Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn't you know that? Duh.

PoliticalAgitator

•

That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.

Moyer1666

•

Ah, so he's essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.

Schadrach

•

Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.

nasser

•

When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that's more than mere accusations. And "innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal construct; it's simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).

DeepFriedDresden

•

5th amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.

You can't treat a person as though they're guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.

Schadrach

•

When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.

An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It's the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution's case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it's very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it's just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor's office wants to charge is indicted.

Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?

hydrospanner

•

I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.

Move too slowly and you can't secure a conviction by election day 2024.

Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal...and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.

I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out...but not leaving enough time for Trump's lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.

Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win...and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.

Zippy

•

Personally I think anyone should be able to run for president. Regardless of your status. The Constitution is a flawed document. The 2A along with that point should not be in there.

That being said, if the US were to vote in that spot stain again, then they deserve what they get. Just unfair the rest of the world has to deal with it.

snooggums

•

Trump didn't win through the popular vote though, he won in a close contest by taking a few states with massive voter suppression. While that was a technical win, it wasn't the US getting what it deserved when most people did not vote for him and even more people likely to vote against him were uunble to vote.

If he wins again it will be through further attempts to manipulate the vote.

orcrist

•

That is all true.

And I'd go a step further. Many of us have voted in the minority our entire lives. Not one president has represented my views.

Zippy

•

I agree there are some issues with US voting but there also is a reason for their system. It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.

Unless we voted in absolutely every issue, regardless if the size, democracy for practical reasons will never be perfect. That being said, your point is a completely different issue than being discussed. At minimum democracy should allow any person to run regardless of their status or how we feel about them. Ted Bundy should have been able to run but if he won, that would be very telling about the US voter.

Ragnell

•

See, this only works if you think everyone in the state is voting in lockstep. They aren't. Let's assume two choices. In a state with 100 people, 64 vote for A and 36 for B. In another state, with 1000 voters, 466 vote for A, 534 for B. A third state with 100 people, 53 vote for A and 47 for B.

That ends up, with an electoral college system, as 2 votes for A and 1 for B. A wins. HOWEVER, only 583 of 1200 people voted for A. 617 people voted for B. Not only are the wishes of the state with 1000 voters devalued, but the minority votes of the people in the smaller states are also devalued, because it is assumed that the STATE votes rather than the PERSON.

There is no reason to keep this system.

snooggums

•

As someone in a lower populated state, my vote should not have more of an impact on the presidential election as that role represents the entire country like senators represent an entire state. Making each state a winner take all result makes it even worse, since voter suppression is far more effective in winner take all than if the electoral college votes were proportional to the state's vote.

While the concept of each state having equal standing is a reasonable approach, it has skewed so far from the initial implementation that it could be discarded from everything except the Senate and it would be a far better representation of the country as a whole while still giving small states a lot of power and influence.

hydrospanner

•

It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.

Except that "areas" don't vote.

People do.

And the electoral college does nothing but penalize those who live in certain areas while rewarding others who live in different areas with wildly variable power behind their votes.

There's no reason an American living in Wyoming should be able to vote 7 times, but if they move to California they only get one vote...yet that is the system were currently living with...except that instead of describing it as discrete votes, the one single vote is just weighed 7x more, so that the system can deceive people into thinking it's fair and reasonable.

aesthelete

•

It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future.

At the risk of having an extended debate in the finer points of what some wigged weirdos were envisioning hundreds of years ago when they wrote this lauded document, I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily intended that...I think it's unlikely that they knew that some areas of the country would house as many people as multiple states in a single city in the long run.

hydrospanner

•

Wanna know what the wigged weirdos thought?

Slavery.

Half the wigged weirdos had a bunch of people living in their states that they considered property and certainly weren't about to let them vote...but at the same time, they were doing the work of people who would have to live there if not for the slaves.

So they wanted to have their cake and eat it too: they wanted to have their slaves count as population when it came to representation but they weren't remotely considering those same people as population when it came to actual voters.

So you got the 3/5 compromise in it's appalling simplicity, and the electoral college which favored lower population (read: plantation) states by giving them outsized influence over national elections compared to what their actual population would normally warrant.

If that wasn't enough, the EC was also intended as an insurance policy for the elite: if the population ever overwhelmingly elected someone that the elites overwhelmingly opposed, the EC could serve as a last ditch firewall to protect their interests and simply ignore the will of the voters to choose their own leadership.

You'll notice that none of the purposes of the EC are in the interests of the people.

nasser

•

The US Constitution, which outlines many aspects including what the three branches of government are, also outlines disqualifiers for consideration.

You cannot just cherry-pick which few words you like and discard everything else! It's an all-or-nothing thing (as stipulated by the Founding Fathers/signatories and the croonies who've adulterated its intentions/meanings over the years).

InternetTubes

•

YeetPics

•

Does pence know what justice being "left to the people" looks like?

It's fuckin' guillotiney, mate.

FlyingSquid

•

Considering they built a guillotine outside the Capitol for him, you'd think he would.

Fondots

•

In the interest of accuracy, it was a gallows.

FlyingSquid

•

Ok, fair enough. Maybe that's why he isn't scared of a guillotine.

whoisearth

•

Pence knows that you never skip neck day so he was never worried. The gallows would snap before his neck.

jscummy

•

See this is the ridiculous misinformation the left spreads. The rioters were never threatening to kill Pence with a guillotine, it was just a harmless gallows

C0unterfactual

•

Jesus, what an absurd, chickenshit take.

LEDZeppelin

•

Republican Logic (or lack there of)

Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors? “No. That should be left to the people”

Impeachment for treason? “No. That should be left to the people”

Legal repercussions for blatant lawlessness? “No. That should be left to the people”

Losing election because you are a threat to the society? “Lol. That should NOT be left to the people. Find me 11,800 votes right now”

EmptySlime

•

"It should be left to OUR people to decide."

That's what they mean. They know the people that vote for them will largely vote for a fucking Ham Sandwich if it has an R next to its name. So they know that they'll almost certainly never face consequences for anything so long as it's up to the people that vote for them. They can purge voter rolls, strategically close polling places, attack mail in voting. There tons of things they can do which will impact potential Democratic voters more than Republican voters.

aquinteros

•

he definitely has a cuck fetish

axiomaticsquid

•

What is beyond bootlicking?

Hnazant

•

That bit you do in the middle.

Candelestine

•

I mean, of course he said that. He's trying to win a republican primary race right now. Would disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of the primary voting repub electorate be a good strategy for accomplishing that?

FlyingSquid

•

Yeah, but Trump tried to kill him. I mean I know he has no integrity or shame, but to see it on this level still amazes me.

Red_October

•

Seems to the GOP some parts of the Constitution are merely guidelines. Specifically, the parts that are inconvenient to them.

III

•

The cherry picking is their lifeblood.

ramble81

•

They already do it with the Bible, what's one more document.

HawlSera

•

"The card says moops"

hglman

•

It's using any possible angle por gain, cherry picking is just an aspect of that.

newthrowaway20

•

So Republicans are going to just gonna act like the 3rd section of the 14th amendment doesn't exist? And they think this is a winning strategy?

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

aesthelete

•

given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

Saying "We love you" on national TV about seditionists doesn't count as aid or comfort?

Schadrach

•

Gotta convict him first, unfortunately. You aren't disqualified merely for being accused of doing something, no matter how awful.

hydrospanner

•

Which is, honestly, the way it should be.

If it were just on accusation, or a charge, I have zero difficulty imagining a scenario where a Trump administration DoJ forms cases, no matter how flimsy, against any and every opponent of his, just to get a charge on them to get them DQed from elections up and down the ticket, all across the country, from president all the way down to school board treasurer.

CoggyMcFee

•

Yes they will. And based on the past decade I find it really hard to predict what strategies will be winning strategies

MossBear

•

Such a cowardly response. Just like most Republicans right now.

Tigbitties

•

So he won't be able to vote but he can be President. Hilarious.