The Constitution and Elections

[just-jim]

.
…….and none of it, Ken, has ANY bearing one way or another on guilty donnies culpability or guilt in any of the cases he’s facing. NOT what you think of Biden or his son….or what they did or didn’t do. Zero.

It is just more ‘what-about-ism’ from you. ‘Buh, buh, buh, whad about her e-mails!!!’
.

[Rideback]

Yes, Trump's profiteering is illegal. Yes Jared's billions he made while in the WH and shortly thereafter is being investigated, as it should be.

Comer, Jordan and Weiss have failed to connect any dots to Joe Biden, in fact they have failed so many times that Comer is now on camera with his head in his hands.

[dorankj]

So his profiteering is innocent? You’re a dipshit!

[just-jim]

.
Shhhhhh, Ken, the adults are talking.

They know the difference between fact, reality, laws and logic - and that stupid, baseless, drivel you parrot from Faux nooz.

(btw - guilty donnie’s kids DID profit in the WH….THEY held positions there and abused them. Hunter never did hold a position there)

[dorankj]

Nothing screams democracy like throwing your opponent in jail with your weaponized ‘justice’ department ( who’s also protecting your son, who would take your presidency down!). I’m sure if Trump (and his kids) were doing these same things while in office you’d have the same perspective! Oh how you beclown yourselves.

[mister_coffee]

We can sort out the many special cases where a President is arguably immune from prosecution later, after Trump and his minions are safely behind bars and no longer a threat to society.

Yes, there will be some issues to sort out. That's why we have a judiciary.

Has anyone thought about what else this means? Like for the pardon power, and in particular the hypothetical power that the President has to pardon himself? A lot of those bad scenarios being discussed could happen if the President immediately pardoned herself.

[Rideback]

The Right wing talking points you use Ken fall apart pretty quickly. Yes, Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen in the field of war who was fighting with ISIS and putting American troops and alies in harm's way. When Trump's lawyer used that argument it was quickly shot down by the panel of judges.

The situation at the southern border that you refer to would definitely be eased substantially if the Rep Congress stopped refusing to fund the border patrol to the tune of billions that Biden has asked for. But the Rep Congress instead views the southern border as a great political talking point so they have no interest in actually resolving it while a Democrat is in office.

This last year was the least productive for decades for Congress. If the Rep majority was interested in actually governing they could have passed multiple Bills for the Senate to sign onto and Biden to sign. But they chose not to. Biden is not the problem. Trump's Republicans are.

[dorankj]

How fast you freaks rile yourself up to assassination! Should Obama be arrested for killing Americans with drones? No due process given. Should Biden be shot for letting millions across the border? That’s illegal.

[PAL]

Anyone up for hunting?

[Rideback]

or as a comment I read this morning, 'As Doug Gilbert noted in the comments to yesterday’s substack letter, a rogue president could avoid impeachment by simply imprisoning members of Congress who’d otherwise vote to impeach him.

In effect, John Sauer was arguing for the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Law in Germany.'

[mister_coffee]

So basically this immunity argument means a President could, I don't know, steal the entirety of the Social Security Trust Fund (2.83 trillion dollars as of the end of 2023), resign, and be 100% immune from any civil or criminal liability? So they couldn't even sue to get the money back.

If Trump is elected president please delete this post, we don't want to be giving him any ideas...

It is so obviously absurd.

[just-jim]

.
H.C. Richardson had a piece about this, today….

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... ary-9-2024

“A quick reminder: Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. A president could be impeached simply for watching TV all day, which is not a crime but which would make it impossible to do the job. Another reminder: as NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard documented today, in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

A number of Republican Senators—including then Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—agreed, saying they would acquit Trump but expected him to answer to the law rather than the political system. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

Interestingly, Trump’s argument that he cannot now be charged with crimes makes the Republican senators who voted to acquit him complicit. It’s an acknowledgement of what was clear all along: they could have stopped him at any point, but they repeatedly chose not to. Now he is explicitly suggesting that their behavior shields him from answering to the law.“
.

[Rideback]

There's the question of whether a president acts under the umbrella of his official duties; begs the question are all presidential acts official? Answer is no. The question from one of the judges yesterday was if a president orders Seal Team 6 to shoot and kill a political enemy can he be prosecuted? Trump's attorney pushed the premise that he must first be impeached before he could be arrested and prosecuted. The judges didn't buy it noting that under that logic a president who gave the order but then wasn't impeached could never be prosecuted. And of course that leads to the next point which is, because it takes 2/3 vote to impeach a President all a president would need was 35 Senators to hold out - for political reasons - and he would be scot free.

[PAL]

So if they determine that Trump does have immunity as a former president, does that mean that Joe Biden could do anything he wants, like shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and get away with it? I'm thinking he could shoot a certain someone and all our problems would be solved, huh.

[Rideback]

Well, he's already said that he will not accept the '24 election results if he doesn't win. And he's already said he will be a dictator on Day1.

Snyder's point is so much larger than we're accustomed to wrapping our heads around when it comes to politics. I suspect that's because not only have we never experienced a president who was so hell bent on breaking laws, on making money for his own personal gain while in office, and who relishes the idea of causing so much chaos that people are now fearful that our institutions are not up to the task of holding him accountable. What Trump has done to this country is beyond politics and that's what Synder is so artfully describing. It no longer matters whether you carry the beliefs from the Right or the Left because the beliefs of both sides have been shattered. Trump does not represent any of the values of the GOP, nor does he share the strength of those values. He just doesn't.

Snyder has done a whole series in the last couple of weeks that are powerful and make the case better than anyone I've read that this country is teetering closer to the destruction of our democracy. He's calling for the courage to step away from tribalism and join together to protect the Constitution.

[mister_coffee]

This is more a case about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The voters decided in 2020. Trump was rejected. He and his lackeys attempted to orchestrate the overthrow of our system of government through both questionable legal machinations and mob violence.

Does anyone seriously think that if Trump loses in 2024, he will concede gracefully and retire to Mar-A-Lago?

[just-jim]

.
Historian Timothy Snyder weighs in on why the idea of “just allow trump to run and let the voters decide”, is not the right course of action.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/constitutional-courage



“If we ignore the Constitution now, it will not protect our rights later. We are ignoring it now, because we are afraid.

The Constitution is meant to handle our emotions, to “address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals,” in Alexander Hamilton’s words.

But there is one fear it cannot address: fear of the Constitution itself. Too many of us, right now, are running in fear of the Constitution.

How did it come to this? An insurrectionist, Donald Trump, purports to be running for president, although the Constitution forbids this. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment frankly disqualifies anyone who has taken part in an insurrection, or given aid and comfort to insurrectionists. Trump has done both, and boasts of having done both.

The authors of Section Three anticipated just such a frightful situation. An insurrectionist who swears an oath and violates it has done something terrible. He will have allies who have tasted tyranny and liked it. By mandating just how to deal with such a person, Section Three lends us strength we might not otherwise have. The Constitution defends itself by guiding us towards our better selves.”

And…..

“The exceptionalism reeks of fear. In no other case do we wish away the qualifications for office. There will be thousands and thousands of contested elections in the United States in November 2024. With respect to only one of them are people saying that legal qualifications for office do not matter.

The slogan “let the voters decide” makes no sense within our Constitutional order. We only have voters because we have elections, and we only have elections as organized under the Constitution. Claiming that voters (and electoral systems) can disregard the Constitution is senseless, because people become citizens and thus voters in ways defined by the Constitution. No Constitution, no citizens, no voters.

The real issue, though, is elsewhere. “Let the voters decide” appeals not to law or logic but to conformism and fear. It evades critique from within our Constitutional order because it rejects that order. Rather than following Constitutional procedures meant to handle fear, it redirects fear against those Constitutional procedures.

When we are ourselves afraid to defend the Constitution, we indulge in a kind of victim-blaming. Trump tried to overthrow the Constitution; when we say “let the voters decide,” we suggest that the Constitution deserved it. In ignoring Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, we refuse, as it were, to hear the Constitution's side of the story.

We are attacking the Constitution because we lack the courage to defend it. And so we begin to unwind the constitutional order.”

And…….

“The Constitution can defend itself in general, and even against the specific threat of an insurrectionist candidate -- but not on its own, not as a piece of paper, not without defenders who read it and affirm it. When we ignore what the Constitution says, and blame the Constitution for our own cowardice, we join in Trump's attack upon it.

It takes a little courage to admit that we are afraid, rather than to project our fears. It takes a little more courage to act, rather than dissemble and delay. If we want constitutional rule, right now is the easiest moment to mount its defense, in the way marked out by the Constitution itself.

It only gets harder from here.”
.