The problem with that argument is that the 14th amendment doesn’t require any findings of guilt (by a court of law). It only requires that the individual “engaged” in insurrection:
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
A court of law (Colorado Supreme Court) found that Trump did engage in an insurrection against the United States. From the perspective of the 14th amendment, he was found guilty in a court of law.
Even if we ignore those facts entirely… I’d argue that impeachment is an equivalent trial for a sitting President.
The House of Representatives found he did do it and impeached him, the Senate chose not to punish him. That’s not the same as being found innocent or having charges dropped. That’s like eing found guilty and the Judge sentencing someone to time already served.
ok, that is your opinion, right?
As the trial about this Jan 6 event has not even started he is innocent until proven guilty, right?
The problem with that argument is that the 14th amendment doesn’t require any findings of guilt (by a court of law). It only requires that the individual “engaged” in insurrection:
A court of law (Colorado Supreme Court) found that Trump did engage in an insurrection against the United States. From the perspective of the 14th amendment, he was found guilty in a court of law.
deleted by creator
Even if we ignore those facts entirely… I’d argue that impeachment is an equivalent trial for a sitting President.
The House of Representatives found he did do it and impeached him, the Senate chose not to punish him. That’s not the same as being found innocent or having charges dropped. That’s like eing found guilty and the Judge sentencing someone to time already served.