Will Kamala Harris Be Banned from the Ballot in 2024?

lustylad's Avatar
... Smith knows that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply here.

And WHY all the whataboutism here with Trump?
Are we discussing Kamala getting BANNED or not?

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
It's ok, salty. My point in starting this thread was to invite the comparison between trump and kamala.

Dems never get it - what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
lustylad's Avatar
The element of insurrection; any and all including election interference, or inciting a riot, or conspiracy to defraud are the elements. Nobody gets charged with INSURRECTION. They get charged with the elements of the crime. I've posted elsewhere about this prior also. In Trumps case- he's facing a prosecution of exactly that. Originally Posted by eyecu2
Trump has been charged (by Special Counsel Jack Smith) with conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruct an official proceeding. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't even been charged with "insurrection" - an entirely different crime. Where do you come up with the argument they're the same? Please show me a link from a respected legal source instead of just tossing out your "theory".
lustylad's Avatar
If Harris is taken off the ticket, what would be the reason?? Seeing as she faced no charges or any informal or formal accusations... Originally Posted by eyecu2
Go back and re-read my OP. The case for using the 14th Amendment to keep Kamala off the ballot is just as plausible, if not more so, as the rationale to keep trump off.
Go back and re-read my OP. The case for using the 14th Amendment to keep Kamala off the ballot is just as plausible, if not more so, as the rationale to keep trump off. Originally Posted by lustylad

If we are going to use that logic, then anyone who held office and publicly announced something similar to 'make sure you go out there and vote!' can also be charged for inciting a riot.


By your logic, if someone says something that directly, or indirectly results in a riot, even if they specifically do not say to riot, then they are inciting a riot.
That logic doesn't make sense. Harris never rallied a group of people to protest, riot or otherwise try to overthrow the government.


Saying she should be removed if just you saying 'well Trump is off the ballot! Lets take someone ELSE off the ballot so it is even!'
Adulting doesn't work like that.
lustylad's Avatar
If we are going to use that logic, then anyone who held office and publicly announced something similar to 'make sure you go out there and vote!' can also be charged for inciting a riot.

No, now you're just being silly. Urging a big voter turnout is NOT inciting a riot.


By your logic, if someone says something that directly, or indirectly results in a riot, even if they specifically do not say to riot, then they are inciting a riot.

How about if they specifically say "you should peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"?


That logic doesn't make sense. Harris never rallied a group of people to protest, riot or otherwise try to overthrow the government.

"They (rioters) are not going to stop... They're not going to let up, and they should not..."


Saying she should be removed is just you saying 'well Trump is off the ballot! Let's take someone ELSE off the ballot so it is even!'

Do you really think one side can weaponize and subvert the election rules with impunity, and the other side won't follow suit?


Adulting doesn't work like that. Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Adulting? Is that even a word? Hmm... ok.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/adulting#:


You're trying to pick apart my "logic" regarding kamala's bad conduct - even though it's the same "logic" you use to argue trump's bad conduct should get him thrown off the ballot!

You seize on every argument to insist trump was guilty of "insurrection". Then you turn around and dismiss the same arguments when it comes to Kamala.

You assume the role of prosecutor against trump, then you pivot on a dime and act like a defense counsel for harris.

Why don't you just admit it's not cut-and-dried and reasonable people can disagree, ok?

It's not up to you, me or the Maine Secretary of State to decide. It has to be decided in a court of law, where trump (or kamala) are accorded full due process rights to defend themselves. And at the end of the day if you truly believe in democracy, it should be decided at the ballot box.
I'm glad the OP now admits that trump committed insurrection. of course, it also shows much of a hypocrite he has been.
eyecu2's Avatar
Trump has been charged (by Special Counsel Jack Smith) with conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruct an official proceeding. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't even been charged with "insurrection" - an entirely different crime. Where do you come up with the argument they're the same? Please show me a link from a respected legal source instead of just tossing out your "theory". Originally Posted by lustylad
What Is Insurrection and Rebellion?
The term "insurrection" is generally described as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection
Rebellion and insurrection charges can be filed if you destroy property to overthrow the government.
It usually involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede federal law enforcement.

The term "rebellion" is generally described as an organized, armed, violent resistance or opposition to established government authority or its laws.

Rebellion is often a broader and more coordinated effort than insurrection, which is focused on overthrowing the existing governmental structure.

To convict you of violating U.S.C. 2383, federal prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime, including that you did all of the following:

Knowingly incited, engaged. or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection;
The rebellion was against the authority of the United States or its laws;
The illegal actions were willful and intentional.
What Are the Related Federal Laws?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities have several federal statutes that are related to 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection, such as the following:

18 U.S.C. 2381 - Treason;
18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of treason;
18 U.S.C. 2384 - Seditious conspiracy;
18 U.S.C. 2385 - Advocating the overthrow of Government;
18 U.S.C. 2386 - Registration of certain organizations;
18 U.S.C. 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally;
18 U.S.C. 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war;
18 U.S.C. 2389 - Recruiting for service against the United States;
18 U.S.C. 2390 - Enlistment to serve against the United States;
40 U.S.C. 5104 - Unlawful activities.
Notably, 18 U.S. Code 2384 Seditious Conspiracy law says, “If two or more persons in any jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall….”

Related crimes are often more specific to the actions that were observed , vs the overarching crime of rebellion, or insurrection. Hope that clears it up.
lustylad's Avatar
I'm glad the OP now admits that trump committed insurrection. Originally Posted by 1#Ratt
No, I didn't. Please cite where I said that. I'll wait.


of course, it also shows much of a hypocrite he has been. Originally Posted by 1#Ratt
No, the hypocrite is anyone who insists that trump is guilty of insurrection - but Kamala & others who egged on the BLM/antifa rioters are not.
Dr-epg's Avatar
Gentlemen last warning. Back on topic this is not about Trump and the 14th

Kamala is the topic
Gentlemen last warning. Back on topic this is not about Trump and the 14th

Kamala is the topic Originally Posted by Dr-epg
I'm not sure how we are supposed to discuss removing Harris from the ballot without mentioning the 14th, and discussing how other candidates should be removed from the ballot for the same thing. Any advice?
Harris will not be on the ballet because she is an “Incompetent Laughingstock”, simple as that!
Another Obama failure.