No matter what we think of Donald Trump politically, he must be treated fairly by our justice system. Equal treatment before the law not only means that everyone is held accountable, but also that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Trump has not been proven guilty of insurrection in a court of law, and a ruling based on nothing but that opinion is stepping onto a very slippery slope.
1,215
1,588
167
11,459
Lmao what? It's a constitutional provision which a higher court has made a judgement on. We'll see how it goes. Uncommon Marianne L.
154
2
3
165
Replying to @tsgrissom17
That's the point. They made a ruling on someone's guilt although that person had not been proven guilty in a court of law.

Dec 21, 2023 · 7:57 PM UTC

119
51
7
2,148
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
The ruling was made by a court of law.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
The whole "innocent until proven guilty" mantra Trump apologizers and supports like to spew, applies only to criminal prosecutions. That's the ONLY place you will find it codified. It does not apply to an appellate court determining a question of law.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
They absolutely did not "rule on someone's guilt." Are you daft? They specifically ruled on whether he could appear on the ballot under the 14th amendment. It's the FIRST SENTENCE of the ruling. Did you read it? Can't believe I considered you as a viable choice.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
Poor Marianne. Trying to talk to cult members with logic isn't going to help them. They don't understand court trial is still ongoing. But Hunter refuse to testify to Congress because he claims his cases is still ongoing. loll. Cult members can't see the double standard
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
Wrong! A judge in CO ruled that Trump incited a riot to overturn the election… an insurrection! It is a legal ruling! She also then said she did not have the authority to rule on his eligibility. The Supreme Court In CO has that authority to rule based on the evidentiary ruling.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
The court found that Trump "engaged in insurrection" and that's all it needed to find under the 14th Amendment.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
The constitution doesn’t require him to be found guilty in a court of law, only that he participated in an insurrection & there is ample evidence for the judges to reach this conclusion. Trump is EXACTLY the type of person this amendment was designed to protect us from.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
Just like when the law was enacted. Seditionists back then were happy not to find themselves on the end of a rope. Many were banned without charges filed. You don’t have to remain a clueless rube.
Replying to @marwilliamson @tsgrissom17
They didn't determine his guilt criminally because it's not a criminal case. Consider why a court can hold a party civilly liable (e.g., Trump's sexual assault) without criminal conviction.
Load more