The Washington Post's Jason Willick and The UnPopulist's Andy Craig discuss if Trump deserves to be convicted for insurrection before being denied ballot access
Thanks for this it was a great exchange and very helpful in better understanding the issues.
I used to have a lot of opinions on this subject but it is several pay grades above my head. I am pretty much inclined to simply accept whatever the Supreme Court decides. Which is big of me since one doesn't really have a choice?
One thing that struck me is that perhaps we need to have a more expansive concept of what an insurrection is. One not tied to a 19th century experience and more aligned with 21st century capabilities. Sure the violence at the Capitol was disturbing but had everything else Trump & Co. done from Election Day to January 6 occurred without storming the Capitol would have been any less of a real insurrection? A coup, is a coup, is a coup. Shouldn't the fake elector scheme and attempts to have election officials change the vote tallies be sufficient evidence?
My greatest hope is that the decision they make is as close to unanimous as possible. A hope that was sparked in the hearing before the court.
I'm glad they first discussed the insurrection bit. It has bothered me since it began to be called that.
I've been in countries twice that had coup d'etats. Both involved lots of armored personnel carriers, army guys, etc. No bloodshed, but lots of arms. Another country had a decades long insurgency with sporadic shootings, banditry, artillery, etc. I don't picture people walking between rope lines and stealing lecterns as an insurrection. Way too much hyperventilating by people who've never seen violence.
Should Trump go scot free? Hell no, he's on tape trying to steal the election in Georgia, a much worse offence to me than causing a riot.
Should he be able to run? At this point yes. He's ahead in the polls, you can't deny people the vote. The time to arrest him would have been Jan 21 of 2021.
Yes, your comment reminded me of this excellent summary by Bulwark's Jonathan Last of the Amars' paper recounting how Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment was written expressly to prevent James Floyd, Buchanan's SOS, who tried to undermine Lincoln before he assumed office by subverting the Northern army and giving the Confederacy a military edge, from returning to power. I enjoyed this discussion and James Willick gave me pause on some of my positions, including the need to convict Trump of insurrection before disqualification so that the disqualification is seen as politically legitimate. But I'm not sure I buy the notion that what Trump did was not an insurrection. Why the definition of insurrection should be limited to instances when a group asserts sovereignty over a portion of the country and erects a parallel government is unclear to me? Why does not subverting the existing one to install another one count as an insurrection? In a sense, that is tantamount to illicitly asserting sovereignty over all of the United States. Naturalized citizens have to swear that they have not engaged in an attempt to subvert the (existing) US government and pledge never to engage in such acts before they are granted citizenship. How can less be expected of someone who wants to be president? That does not compute for me. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-14th-amendment-wasnt-a-creative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=87281&post_id=141209078&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=6jqoy&utm_medium=email
To put it more succinctly, I can be convinced of the notion that whether of not what Trump did should count as an insurrection is in a bit of a grey zone and therefore he needs some due process and be convicted of an insurrection before being disbarred. What I don't buy is that what he did was qualitatively different from what historically has counted as an insurrection and is therefore not formally an insurrection.
That's the case Andy Craig has been making on this site. And it is very persuasive. That said, to me, it is less about giving Trump due process per se and more about maintaining political legitimacy. Disbarring candidates should not look like a partisan, political exercise. It should seem like a pre-existing criteria is being applied in a dispassionate, neutral way. That's easier to do when the issue is the age, citizenship of a candidate and less easy when it relates to their conduct. In those instances, I don't think its unreasonable to expect that some process be followed in order to make a judgement. This is not about convincing Trump's loyal MAGA base which is not open to reason. It is about convincing everyone else. Regardless of how guilty Trump is, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we need a process to assign his guilt before disbarment. (I'm not saying I ultimately buy this, just that it is a reasonable position.)
Thanks for this it was a great exchange and very helpful in better understanding the issues.
I used to have a lot of opinions on this subject but it is several pay grades above my head. I am pretty much inclined to simply accept whatever the Supreme Court decides. Which is big of me since one doesn't really have a choice?
One thing that struck me is that perhaps we need to have a more expansive concept of what an insurrection is. One not tied to a 19th century experience and more aligned with 21st century capabilities. Sure the violence at the Capitol was disturbing but had everything else Trump & Co. done from Election Day to January 6 occurred without storming the Capitol would have been any less of a real insurrection? A coup, is a coup, is a coup. Shouldn't the fake elector scheme and attempts to have election officials change the vote tallies be sufficient evidence?
My greatest hope is that the decision they make is as close to unanimous as possible. A hope that was sparked in the hearing before the court.
I'm glad they first discussed the insurrection bit. It has bothered me since it began to be called that.
I've been in countries twice that had coup d'etats. Both involved lots of armored personnel carriers, army guys, etc. No bloodshed, but lots of arms. Another country had a decades long insurgency with sporadic shootings, banditry, artillery, etc. I don't picture people walking between rope lines and stealing lecterns as an insurrection. Way too much hyperventilating by people who've never seen violence.
Should Trump go scot free? Hell no, he's on tape trying to steal the election in Georgia, a much worse offence to me than causing a riot.
Should he be able to run? At this point yes. He's ahead in the polls, you can't deny people the vote. The time to arrest him would have been Jan 21 of 2021.
Yes, your comment reminded me of this excellent summary by Bulwark's Jonathan Last of the Amars' paper recounting how Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment was written expressly to prevent James Floyd, Buchanan's SOS, who tried to undermine Lincoln before he assumed office by subverting the Northern army and giving the Confederacy a military edge, from returning to power. I enjoyed this discussion and James Willick gave me pause on some of my positions, including the need to convict Trump of insurrection before disqualification so that the disqualification is seen as politically legitimate. But I'm not sure I buy the notion that what Trump did was not an insurrection. Why the definition of insurrection should be limited to instances when a group asserts sovereignty over a portion of the country and erects a parallel government is unclear to me? Why does not subverting the existing one to install another one count as an insurrection? In a sense, that is tantamount to illicitly asserting sovereignty over all of the United States. Naturalized citizens have to swear that they have not engaged in an attempt to subvert the (existing) US government and pledge never to engage in such acts before they are granted citizenship. How can less be expected of someone who wants to be president? That does not compute for me. https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/the-14th-amendment-wasnt-a-creative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=87281&post_id=141209078&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=6jqoy&utm_medium=email
To put it more succinctly, I can be convinced of the notion that whether of not what Trump did should count as an insurrection is in a bit of a grey zone and therefore he needs some due process and be convicted of an insurrection before being disbarred. What I don't buy is that what he did was qualitatively different from what historically has counted as an insurrection and is therefore not formally an insurrection.
That's the case Andy Craig has been making on this site. And it is very persuasive. That said, to me, it is less about giving Trump due process per se and more about maintaining political legitimacy. Disbarring candidates should not look like a partisan, political exercise. It should seem like a pre-existing criteria is being applied in a dispassionate, neutral way. That's easier to do when the issue is the age, citizenship of a candidate and less easy when it relates to their conduct. In those instances, I don't think its unreasonable to expect that some process be followed in order to make a judgement. This is not about convincing Trump's loyal MAGA base which is not open to reason. It is about convincing everyone else. Regardless of how guilty Trump is, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we need a process to assign his guilt before disbarment. (I'm not saying I ultimately buy this, just that it is a reasonable position.)
You and I agree here. Trump's lawyer is completely wrong to call this a mere "riot" and not an insurrection.