Posted on 08/09/2022 9:35:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The better question: Are they trying to hand Donald Trump the nomination in 2024? After news of the raid broke and leaks about its purpose began circulating yesterday evening, speculation about an attempt to disqualify Trump started circulating on social media. Attorney Marc Elias called it “a potential blockbuster”:
Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since qualifications are set in Constitution). But the idea that a candidate would have to litigate this is during a campaign is in my view a "blockbuster in American politics."
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) August 9, 2022
Say … didn’t we have this debate six years ago, when the Department of Justice refused to charge or even “raid” Hillary Clinton for the same crime and others related to mishandling classified material? Indeed we did, Charlie Savage recounted almost immediately in the New York Times, and that legal theory was discredited:
On its face, then, if Mr. Trump were to be charged and convicted of removing, concealing or destroying government records under that law, he would seem to be ineligible to become president again.
But there was reason for caution: The law briefly received a close look in 2015, after it came to light that Hillary Clinton, then widely anticipated to be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, had used a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state.
Some Republicans were briefly entranced with whether the law could keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House, including Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general in the administration of George W. Bush. So was at least one conservative think tank.
But in considering that situation, several legal scholars — including Seth B. Tillman of Maynooth University in Ireland and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles — noted that the Constitution sets eligibility criteria for who can be president, and argued that Supreme Court rulings suggest Congress cannot alter them. The Constitution allows Congress to disqualify people from holding office in impeachment proceedings, but grants no such power for ordinary criminal law.
Mr. Volokh later reported on his blog that Mr. Mukasey — who is also a former federal judge — wrote that “upon reflection,” Mr. Mukasey had been mistaken and Mr. Tillman’s analysis was “spot on.” (Mrs. Clinton was never charged with any crime related to her use of the server.)
That deserves more than a parenthetical. As I wrote in my earlier post on the subject, the Department of Justice — run at the time by Loretta Lynch, appointed by Clinton’s ally and president Barack Obama — refused to charge Clinton with any crime. Clinton not only had retained and transmitted thousands of classified digital documents through her private, unsecured, and unauthorized server, she also destroyed half of its records before reluctantly handing the server over to the FBI.
The DoJ’s purpose in the raid has not yet been made clear, of course, which makes it difficult to calculate whether this unprecedented step is justified. If it’s just to retrieve documents and pursue a criminal case that the DoJ refused to press against Clinton, it’s going to blow up in Merrick Garland’s face and perhaps Democrats as a whole. Even Andrew Yang, who ran for the Democratic nomination to oppose Trump in 2020, warns that the potential for backfire is enormous:
“If they raided his home just to find classified documents he took from The White House,” one legal expert noted, “he will be re-elected president in 2024, hands down. It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in history.” https://t.co/xMznFPn0UG
— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) August 9, 2022
The Politico playbook link has lots of coverage about the fallout in Washington, where no one seems able to explain how the raid benefits … anyone. In fact, they quote the Miami Herald in noting that Trump had actually been cooperating to some extent before the raid:
Trump suggested that he was continuing to work with FARA and DOJ on the matter, and was thus dumbfounded by the swarm of FBI agents that spent hours combing through materials Monday in Mar-a-Lago while Trump was away in Manhattan. “After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” his statement said.
But that cooperation by Trump gave agents the justification they needed to obtain their warrant, according to the Miami Herald:
“Federal agents were able to establish probable cause for the warrant because Trump and his lawyers had already turned over some classified documents that had been sought by the National Archives and Records Administration, the source said. Agents suspected that Trump was unlawfully holding other classified documents from his presidency in his private club and residence at Mar-a-Lago, which is the crux of the investigation led by the FBI and Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
“During Monday’s raid, FBI agents worked in ‘taint’ teams while gathering and separating the alleged classified materials to ensure that none was privileged correspondence between Trump and his lawyers, which would be off limits to investigators and prosecutors.”
That still leaves us with Donald Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns and unknown unknowns.” However, it further undermines the idea that the warrant was necessitated by an outright refusal of Trump to cooperate on the document dispute. Either something else is going on, or Merrick Garland really screwed the political pooch here — especially just as Democrats thought they were ringing up a legislative win with their plan to double the size of the IRS. Do you think Republicans won’t connect that to the raid on Mar-a-Lago in the midterms?
So no, this isn’t going to DQ Trump. It might end up electing him again as Yang and the unnamed Politico source argue, although that’s almost as facile in August 2022 as the DQ argument. After the midterms, Republican voters will take a deep breath and still be faced with the prospects of nominating a younger candidate eligible for two terms and without the baggage of the last six years, or a 78-year-old candidate who can only serve one more term and whose unpopularity might weigh down the entire 2024 ballot.
By the way, Yang isn’t the only former Trump opponent questioning the raid. Strange bedfellows, yada yada yada …
DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations.
— Andrew Cuomo (@andrewcuomo) August 9, 2022
Federal law is not superior to the Constitution. The qualifications for the presidency are clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution, and federal law cannot amend that.
The only bar to holding the office of President is impeachment and removal, the 14th amendment prohibition via a finding of insurrection, or the 25th amendment finding of incapacitation.
This will go nowhere.
-PJ
Andrew McCarthy has a good piece on this,Trump cannot be prevented from running for President as this article claims,chechck the Constitution,there are no such clauses as presented here,those are laws passed by CONGRESS,the Framers have no such tenets in the Constitution,the only rules are you must be a natural born citizen,a certain age,they did not want any law passed by Congress to prevent a Candidate from seeking The presidency,for just such incidents as we are seeing now
RE: there are no such clauses as presented here,those are laws passed by CONGRESS
Well, if it is a law and has been passed by Congress, why does it not apply to the President?
This is a straw man.
The US Constitution provides for the qualifications for President.
The Congress cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution.
Is the DoJ trying to disqualify Trump for 2024?
FOR SURE!
Not in the context of federal elected offices.
Article VI Clause 2 says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The supremacy clause makes it clear that a law created by Congress is inferior to the Constitution itself and cannot add extra conditions on the qualifications for President or other Constitutional offices.
What this law refers to is this:
Article II Section 2 Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.The Constitution refers to (but does not define) "inferior offices" and offices "whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." Those are the offices that come under the law referenced in the OP.
-PJ
The RNC need to find someone who can play this raid for the benefit of the Republicans. Ronna McDaniels isn’t up to it.
Isn't that the body area between the woohoo and the a hole?
"The woowoo. Perhaps the most significant psychological feminine component known to mankind."
The Left is afraid that if he becomes President again, he will expose their TREASON to the extent that many of their so-called "leaders" will end up with life sentences, or even better, EXECUTION!
I see you are familiar with transportation industry jargon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLfPjtqIulQ
Starting at 3:44 in the above video, Jonathan Turley seems to agree with what you say here.
FBI agents worked in ‘taint’ teams
/\
Taint,
the common ground beteeen
dicks, pussies and assholes,
ya that sounds about right.
SPIT.
They will use this alleged disqualification to intimidate state officials throughout the country to keep Trump off the ballot. It matters not if he can legally run, if his name isn’t on the ballot. Or maybe their goal is to have the head of the Republican Party refuse to verify that Trump’s eligible to be on the ballot.
The qualifications for the office of the President are spelled out in the Constitution. I wonder if SCOTUS would rule that they are overridden by the US Code.
Deem State commie thugs will do anything to stop Trump.
That bit of U.S. code does not overrule the U.S. Constitution, where the eligibility requirements for President and Vice President are clearly spelled out.
Repukes were behind this, the Rats just went along with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.