Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Too good to check: In Raiding Mar-A-Lago, Is the DoJ trying to disqualify Trump for 2024?
Hotair ^ | 08/09/2022 | Ed Morrissey

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



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; fbi; hotgas; maralago; raid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: SeekAndFind
That law cannot bar someone from running for and holding the office of the President of the United States. It can keep someone from being nominated to lesser offices.

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

21 posted on 08/09/2022 10:03:45 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


22 posted on 08/09/2022 10:05:31 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
RE: That law cannot bar someone from running for and holding the office of the President of the United States. It can keep someone from being nominated to lesser offices.

Well, apparently this law states otherwise:



The Presidency qualifies as "any office under the United States" is it not?
23 posted on 08/09/2022 10:05:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

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?


24 posted on 08/09/2022 10:06:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is a straw man.

The US Constitution provides for the qualifications for President.

The Congress cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution.


25 posted on 08/09/2022 10:07:54 AM PDT by nesnah (Infringe - act so as to limit or undermine [something]; encroach on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is the DoJ trying to disqualify Trump for 2024?

FOR SURE!


26 posted on 08/09/2022 10:13:42 AM PDT by SMARTY (“Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Presidency qualifies as "any office under the United States" is it not?

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

27 posted on 08/09/2022 10:25:54 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Without some very specific items of sufficient severity listed in the DOJ’s request for the warrant, Garland and Reinhart might be facing impeachment and removal from office in 2023. And perhaps some jail time...
28 posted on 08/09/2022 10:26:38 AM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground. - Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The RNC need to find someone who can play this raid for the benefit of the Republicans. Ronna McDaniels isn’t up to it.


29 posted on 08/09/2022 10:37:07 AM PDT by chopperk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
taint

Isn't that the body area between the woohoo and the a hole?

30 posted on 08/09/2022 10:39:43 AM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Rush, we're missing your take on all of this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

"The woowoo. Perhaps the most significant psychological feminine component known to mankind."

31 posted on 08/09/2022 10:41:26 AM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Too good to check: In Raiding Mar-A-Lago, Is the DoJ trying to disqualify Trump for 2024?

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!

32 posted on 08/09/2022 10:41:51 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Ultra MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

I see you are familiar with transportation industry jargon.


33 posted on 08/09/2022 11:14:58 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (THE ISSUE IS NEVER THE ISSUE. THE REVOLUTION IS THE ISSUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nesnah

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.


34 posted on 08/09/2022 11:23:50 AM PDT by oneandfinished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

FBI agents worked in ‘taint’ teams

/\

Taint,
the common ground beteeen
dicks, pussies and assholes,
ya that sounds about right.

SPIT.


35 posted on 08/09/2022 11:24:52 AM PDT by cuz1961 (USCGR Veteran )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nesnah

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.


36 posted on 08/09/2022 11:49:31 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


37 posted on 08/09/2022 12:03:49 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Deem State commie thugs will do anything to stop Trump.


38 posted on 08/09/2022 12:06:29 PM PDT by GOPJ (Wealthy men keep secrets in safes - that's what FBI thugs were fishing for.totalitarians tactics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Presidency qualifies as "any office under the United States" is it not?

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.

39 posted on 08/09/2022 12:08:12 PM PDT by Drew68 (Ron DeSantis for President 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Repukes were behind this, the Rats just went along with it.


40 posted on 08/09/2022 12:09:39 PM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson