We may be in for , 2024, the idiocratsy movie in real life. D.J. Trump CAN run for Potus if CONVICTED of a felony; no matter how crazy it is. Sick
No Framer of the US Constitution envisioned that a convicted FELON would run for POTUS. Aside from employing the US 14 amendment , as to barring those whom rebelled against the USA government as Trump did, January 6th, 2021, but until Trump is convicted of actual rebellion against the US Government, there is nothing in the Constitution which would forbid Trump from running even if he were convicted of murder. Think I am joking ? Unfortunately, I predict that this mess will be dumped into the US Supreme court , 2023 if Trump declares running for POTUS 2022, which will put our country, America, through pure hell. Unfortunately, there is a subset, one third of the Voters whom think Trump is the new Mahdi, the chosen one or prophet of prophets whom would back Trump even if he were convicted of murder in federal court. We have to wrap our heads about several facts :
A. Quote
"As to the question of why the Constitution does not prohibit those with criminal convictions running for president, part of the rationale may have been to prevent states from criminalizing certain activities as a means of gaming eligibility," Green said.
But the idea that someone indicted or convicted of felonies could hold the highest office in the country is something that may not have been envisioned.
end of quote
B. quote
Legal experts and political scientists have debated whether a separate part of the Constitution,?Section 3?of the 14th Amendment, could keep Trump off the ballot. That section says that no person "shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military" who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." That section was added after the Civil War.
end of quote
I predict this is what will be in front of the US Supreme court, early 2023. It will be if and when Trump demands to run. Bonus points, as Trump is the adored sacred one of 1/3rd of America and that this 1/3rd number will go CRAZY if Trump is not worshiped, we will be in for a rough patch: Their adoration of Trump makes the Stalin Cult in Russia look tame.
Also from military officers, whom DO NOT worship DONALD Trump. They will be at risk for their lives in 2025 if he somehow gets in as POTUS. See this
quote
The president’s dereliction of duty on Jan. 6 tested the integrity of this historic principle as never before, endangering American lives and our democracy.
The lesson of that day is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party — and to their oaths above all.
End of quote
I look forward for Cultural revolution level violence against the US Military leaders in 2025 if for some fluke, Trump was POTUS. I.e. a nightmare
Here though is what may light the match
quote
This will shock many of you, but based just on what little is publicly visible of the DOJ’s Trump probe, the DOJ appears to be?ahead?of the Fulton County DA’s Trump probe in terms of progress. The media just spins things very differently. So what do we know about the DOJ probe?
For starters, the DOJ indicted the entire Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leadership back in January for seditious conspiracy, and has repeatedly cut cooperation deals with a few of them, including Roger Stone’s Oath Keeper driver. Then came the higher level stuff.
end of quote
The messanic worship of Trump in 1/3rd of America will lead to a crisis on the level of the US Civil war.
We need to be ready for it. It will not be pretty as D. J. Trumps followers have become fanatics .
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/mar/07/ask-politifact-can-donald-trump-run-president-if-i/
quote
Ask PolitiFact: Can Donald Trump run for president if indicted or convicted of a crime?
Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Saturday, Feb. 26, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. (AP)
By?Amy Sherman
March 7, 2022
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
Donald Trump has always been confident in his chances of winning over voters, even if he committed crimes.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump said at a 2016 campaign stop in Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."
His comment at the time was seen as a joke. But now that Trump faces an investigation by prosecutors in Georgia and potentially the Justice Department, the idea that an indicted or convicted felon could run for president is no laughing matter.?
A reader recently emailed us and asked if Trump could run for office if he were indicted or convicted of a crime.
This is in the news again since the Jan. 6 committee said in a?March 2 federal court filing?that Trump may have broken the law in his attempts to get himself declared the winner of the 2020 election after he lost to Joe Biden.?
In Georgia, Trump is under investigation by Fulton County prosecutors who are probing whether he violated election laws after he?asked state election officials?to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have."
The short answer is legally, it appears that Trump could still run for president, even if convicted of a crime.
"A criminal conviction does not prevent a person from running for president," said Barbara L. McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Attorney. "The Constitution controls this question, and it makes no prohibition. States can decide their own rules for who is eligible to hold office within their own states, but they cannot disqualify someone from running for president."
What the Constitution says
We’ve explored this topic before in the context of whether a candidate could?run for Congress from jail. We found that the U.S. Constitution upholds the principle that voters decide who shall represent them, and the?qualifications?are citizenship, age and residency.
Legal experts and political scientists have debated whether a separate part of the Constitution,?Section 3?of the 14th Amendment, could keep Trump off the ballot. That section says that no person "shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military" who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." That section was added after the Civil War.
Plaintiffs tried to use that section recently to keep U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn R-N.C., who spoke at a Trump rally just before the Jan. 6 attack, off the ballot for Congress. But a?federal judge?on March 4 blocked that effort. Using the section to block Trump’s candidacy is a long shot, too.?
Convicted felons have run for president in the past.?Lyndon LaRouche?was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times between 1976 and 2004. LaRouche first ran as part of the Labor Party and later as a Democrat.?
Eugene Debs?was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech then ran for president as a socialist from a federal prison in Alabama in 1920. Debs’ supporters handed out?campaign buttons?for "Prisoner 9653." The candidate who beat Debs, William Harding, commuted Debs’ 10-year sentence.?
U.S. Constitution trumps state laws for presidential qualifications
There are provisions in state constitutions and laws that say persons convicted of felonies can’t run for office, but that only applies to local or state candidates.?
When Arkansas tried to enact term limits on federal offices in 1992, for example, the measure was struck down by the courts.?
Arkansas voters had adopted a state constitutional amendment that banned U.S. House or Senate members who had served a certain number of terms from running for re-election. The amendment was challenged, and in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court held in?U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton?that states could not add qualifications for congressional candidates. The qualifications enumerated in the Constitution are exclusive, said Derek Muller, a University of Iowa law professor and expert on election law.?
"There is general agreement that this extends to presidential candidates, too," Muller said. "That means a state cannot prohibit indicted or convicted felons from running for president."
The rationale behind this is to prevent states from driving presidential selection by imposing additional qualifications that would become, potentially, a patchwork few candidates could meet or could be manipulated to enable some states to collude to disqualify candidates, said Rebecca Green, a William and Mary election law professor.?
"As to the question of why the Constitution does not prohibit those with criminal convictions running for president, part of the rationale may have been to prevent states from criminalizing certain activities as a means of gaming eligibility," Green said.
But the idea that someone indicted or convicted of felonies could hold the highest office in the country is something that may not have been envisioned.
"The drafters of the Constitution never imagined that anyone would run for president after a criminal conviction or that anyone would vote for them," McQuade said.
RELATED:?Unpacking the theory that the 14th Amendment could keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office in 2024
end of quote
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/january-6-trump-military.html
领英推荐
quote
We Are Retired Generals and Admirals. Trump’s Actions on Jan. 6 Were a Dereliction of Duty.
July 21, 2022
Credit...
Joseph Prezioso/Getty Images
By?Steve Abbot,?Peter Chiarelli,?John Jumper,?James Loy,?John Nathman,?William Owens?and?Johnnie Wilson
Admirals Abbot, Loy, Nathman and Owens and Generals Chiarelli, Jumper and Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces.
The inquiry by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has produced many startling findings, but none to us more alarming than the fact that while rioters tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump, abdicated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
In the weeks leading up to that terrible day, allies of Mr. Trump also urged him to hold on to power by unlawfully ordering the military to seize voting machines and supervise a do-over of the election. Such an illegal order would have imperiled a foundational precept of American democracy: civilian control of the military.
Americans may take it for granted, but the strength of our democracy rests upon the stability of this arrangement, which requires both civilian and military leaders to have confidence that they have the same goal of supporting and defending the Constitution.
ADVERTISEMENT
We hope that the country will never face such a crisis again. But to safeguard our constitutional order, military leaders must be ready for similar situations in which the?chain of command?appears unclear or the legality of orders uncertain.
The relationship between America’s civilian leadership and its military is structured by an established chain of command: from unit leaders through various commanders and generals and up to the secretary of defense and the president. Civilian authorities have the constitutional and legal right and responsibility to decide whether to use military force. As military officers, we had the duty to provide candid, expert advice on how to use such force and then to obey all lawful orders, whether we agreed or not.
The events of Jan. 6 offer a demonstration on how military and civilian leaders execute this relationship and what happens when it comes under threat. When a mob attacked the Capitol, the commander in chief failed to act to restore order and even encouraged the rioters. As Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to fill the void by calling on the National Guard to intervene.
Given the urgent need to secure the Capitol, Mr. Pence’s request was reasonable. Yet the vice president has no role in the chain of command unless specifically acting under the president’s authority because of illness or incapacitation, and therefore cannot lawfully issue orders to the military. Members of Congress, who also pleaded for military assistance as the mob laid siege to the Capitol, are in the same category. In the end, the National Guard deployed not in response to those pleas but under lawful orders issued by the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller.
Should civilians atop the chain of command again abandon their duties or attempt to abuse their authority, military ranks can and must respond in accordance with their oaths — without a lawful order from appropriate command authority, they cannot unilaterally undertake a mission. Concurrent with a duty to obey all lawful orders is a duty to question and disobey unlawful orders — those a person “of ordinary sense and understanding,” as a Court of Military Review ruling?put?it, would know to be wrong.
Operations on U.S. soil must also specifically comply with the?Standing Rules for the Use of Force, which limit use of force but explicitly authorize it to protect people from imminent threat of death or serious harm, to defend “assets vital to national security” and “to prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.”
These are essential checks on civilian officials who would make unlawful use of U.S. military personnel. Governors, who possess broad command authority over our 54 National Guard organizations, for example, may face political pressure to deploy these forces to illegally interfere with elections or other democratic processes.
To recognize these threats to our democracy, military leaders must continue to develop robust training, guidance and resources for service members in accordance with these safeguards, ensuring the integrity of the chain of command and effective operation of civil-military relations.
But while such preparedness is necessary, it is not sufficient.
We each took an oath as former leaders of the armed forces to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We fulfilled that oath through service to civilian leadership elected by and accountable to the American people. This essential arrangement, however, is not self-executing; it relies on civilian leaders equally committed to protecting and defending the Constitution — including, most important, the commander in chief.
The principle of civilian control of the military predates the founding of the Republic. In 1775, George Washington was commissioned as the military commander of the Continental Army under the civilian command authority of the Second Continental Congress. The next year, among the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence against King George III was his making “the military independent of and superior to the civil power.”
The president’s dereliction of duty on Jan. 6 tested the integrity of this historic principle as never before, endangering American lives and our democracy.
The lesson of that day is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party — and to their oaths above all.
Adm. Steve Abbot, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gen. John Jumper, Adm. James Loy, Adm. John Nathman, Adm. William Owens and Gen. Johnnie Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces.
end of quote
As to what Palmer has to say about it:
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/this-may-shock-you-but-the-dojs-trump-probe-appears-to-be-well-ahead-of-the-fulton-county-trump-probe/46248/
quote
This may shock you, but the DOJ’s Trump probe appears to be further along than the Fulton County Trump probe
Bill Palmer?|?3:00 pm EDT July 21, 2022
This will shock many of you, but based just on what little is publicly visible of the DOJ’s Trump probe, the DOJ appears to be?ahead?of the Fulton County DA’s Trump probe in terms of progress. The media just spins things very differently. So what do we know about the DOJ probe?
For starters, the DOJ indicted the entire Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leadership back in January for seditious conspiracy, and has repeatedly cut cooperation deals with a few of them, including Roger Stone’s Oath Keeper driver. Then came the higher level stuff.
Major news outlets have reported that the DOJ has had a 1/6 grand jury into Trump world since at least January of this year. We only know about this because a few of the subpoena recipients blabbed to the media. The rest of the subpoenaed witnesses’ identities are unknown.
In what may be the same DOJ probe or may be a?separate?DOJ probe, grand jury search and seizure warrants were carried out against Trump co-conspirators John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark on June 22nd of this year. This was reportedly about the fake elector scheme.
On that same day, June 22nd, the DOJ also searched the home of the Nevada GOP Chairman. That same day it also subpoenaed GOP officials and Trump campaign people who were connected to the fake elector schemes in Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. This was all reported by major news outlets.
Just to?obtain?the kind of warrant that includes searching someone’s home and seizing their phone, the DOJ would have already needed to show strong evidence of that person’s guilt to a judge. It’s not clear what that evidence was or how the evidence was obtained. But it means that Eastman, Clark, and the other folks on the wrong end of these warrants were already pretty screwed *before* the warrants were carried out. So June 22nd wasn’t the start of the DOJ investigating Eastman and Clark, it was the?culmination?of that work.
Because the DOJ works in secret, and these isolated details only become public because a target complained to the media or a neighbor saw the raid, we only know a few slivers of what the DOJ has done – but it’s still a?lot.?How can this be classified as being a “lot” of progress for the DOJ? Compare it to the Fulton County probe, where the District Attorney has sent subpoenas and target letters, but is not known to have carried out any search and seizure warrants yet.
Based on what has publicly surfaced, the DOJ appears to be?well ahead?of the Fulton County DA. The DOJ is throwing Trump’s top co-conspirators out of their homes in their underwear in the middle of the night and taking things from their homes. The DA appears to still be in the subpoena stage, not the “people in their underwear” stage.
None of this is a knock on the Fulton County DA, who appears to be doing a fantastic job. She’s just a local DA with comparatively limited resources, yet she’s managed to get this far already, which is amazing. But all the available evidence points to the DOJ being further along, which makes sense given DOJ’s more vast resources.
To put the DOJ’s search and seizure warrants against Eastman and Clark in proper context: the equivalent would be the Fulton County DA carrying out search and seizure warrants at the homes of the top Georgia GOP officials who allegedly conspired with Trump in the election plot. Nothing of that sort has been reported anywhere.
The irony is that it’s possible the Fulton County DA?has?carried out search and seizure warrants in secret, and that it simply hasn’t become public yet. In such case, the DA would be as far along as the DOJ is. But again, we don’t know most of what’s going on in either probe.
And if you think it’s wrong to assume the DA is behind the DOJ just because there’s no publicly visible?indication?she’s carried out seizure warrants, then wouldn’t it also be wrong to assume the DOJ isn’t doing certain things just because there’s no publicly visible indication of those things?
Put another way: the most powerful tool in this kind of hierarchal criminal probe is flipping a key co-conspirator against a higher level co-conspirator. We know the DOJ has flipped Oath Keeper and Proud Boys leaders, but we don’t know if the DOJ has flipped Trump world people against Donald Trump. Nor do we know if the Fulton County DA has flipped anyone in Trump world against Donald Trump. Nor would we expect such information to surface this early on. In other words, we know very little when it comes to the arguably single biggest criteria for judging a hierarchal criminal probe’s progress.
“But the DOJ hasn’t indicted anybody in Trump world yet!” Actually, they’ve indicted Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, and Bannon is on criminal trial right now. But you’ll probably say that doesn’t count because it was for contempt, and not for election fraud. Okay, but to be fair, the Fulton County DA hasn’t indicted anyone yet at all – and no one is holding that up as supposed evidence of timidity.
Believe it or not, indictments are?not?the biggest sign of progress. When you’re trying to get to the top of a criminal conspiracy, it’s a?true win?when you can flip someone upward. If you can’t flip them, you settle for indicting them, and you try to flip someone else.
Consider that even as the DOJ and the DA have each carried out subpoenas, warrants, and target letters against numerous people in Trump’s orbit, they’ve each skipped over Mark Meadows. Have they both flipped him, or are they saving him for the end because they view him as a top level criminal target alongside Trump? We have no way to know. They’re not going to tell us that yet.
The bottom line: there are various ways to measure a hierarchal criminal probe’s progress, but most of the information that could be used to measure that progress remains secret, and it’s often a random crapshoot as to what does or doesn’t leak out in real time. But if you want to measure progress based on what is publicly known from reports by major news outlets, then the DOJ?appears?to be significantly ahead of the Fulton County DA in terms of getting to Trump. And that is not in any way a knock on the Fulton County DA.
So why are you so certain that it’s the opposite, and the the DA is ahead of the DOJ? One answer: media coverage. The media routinely (and accurately) offers praise for the DA’s work, while the media spends every day chasing ratings by falsely insisting the DOJ isn’t even investigating Trump. It really is that simple.
One other thing: the only reason many of you felt “comforted” by Merrick Garland’s statement yesterday is that you’ve allowed the media to build up baseless fear in you every day. The media doesn’t know what the DOJ is doing behind the scenes, and no one wants to admit to being clueless, so most of the media just pretends to definitively know that?nothing?is happening.
end of quote