Post #10476 by albaby1 on the Macroeconomic Trends and Risks board

Personal Finance Topics / Macroeconomic Trends and Risks

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (60)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 8

Exactly,. Due process has determined that there was not enough evidence to prove the case, ergo, non impeachable, and to not to be removed from ballots etc.

That's completely incorrect.

First, the evidence of specific intent is not necessary to prove that someone engaged in an insurrection in a civil proceeding. That's the point. A criminal determination of insurrection involves an element that isn't present in proving insurrection in a civil case, which is why it is entirely possible to prove that Trump has "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of the 14A even if you can't prove that he committed the crime of insurrection under the relevant federal statute. And second, DOJ's declining to prosecute is not the same as an acquittal - there's no "due process" in determining that there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution, but an administrative decision.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (60)

Prev | Next

Announcements

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.