I truly think the USSC, (if not the trial/appellate court/s), would have to struggle with the fact that the impeachment articles were specifically “insurrection” for which he was found not guilty. The way I read the 14th amendment on disqualification it requires a conviction. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
> I truly think the USSC, (if not the trial/appellate court/s), would have to struggle with the fact that the impeachment articles were specifically “insurrection” for which he was found not guilty. The way I read the 14th amendment on disqualification it requires a conviction. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
well if the impeachment articles were viewed as dismissed counts I1C1..CN1 and I2C1..CN2, then anything new would become a new count, but would not per the essay originate from a conviction in an impeachment trial. it would presumably originate from a decision from a civil court.
however it seems at least to me that there would need to be a formal legal definition of insurrection within a civil court jurisdiction. they might for example be relying on a lack of formal definition of insurrection in civil jurisdiction, and they would just go ahead and come up with an ad hoc definition which would of course be tailored to nail trump on a technicality (eg a process violation of some sort). in addition all the formal requirements of a complaint would need to be met, and be able to withstand challenges to standing in a preliminary motion. i am not a lawyer and this is probably the deep end of the pool for me, so YMMV as far as any of my suppositions go.