FBI raids Trumps home

[Magyars]

 

[KG1]

I don't think you understand how this works. The Constitution is a framework. A foundation. It is not the entire body of law.

The requirements to be President are irrelevant. The question of the day is whether or not the laws cited above apply to the President, and if so, does violation of those laws prevent someone for running for President upon conviction.

If it comes to it, the Supreme Court will decide. THAT is certainly in the Constitution.

I don't think you quite understand. The Constitutional requirements to be President are most certainly relevant. Congress cannot pass a law adding anything to those those requirements or any other prohibition thereof without amending the Constitution So those particular laws are not applicable to prevent anyone from running for the office of the Presidency. They might be applicable for other public office but not the Presidency.

Now that doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute Trump or convict him of something now to try and politically discredit him, which is exactly what they've been trying to do for a long time regardless, but they cannot disbar him from running for the Presidency. This is all political in nature and an extension of what's been going on for the past 6 years.

Trump has obviously met the relevant Constitutional requirements because he previously ran and was elected as POTUS and that's all that matters.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Route 45]

I don't think you quite understand. The Constitutional requirements to be President are most certainly relevant. Congress cannot pass a law adding anything to those those requirements or any other prohibition thereof without amending the Constitution So those particular laws are not applicable to prevent anyone from running for the office of the Presidency. They might be applicable for other public office but not the Presidency.

Now that doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute Trump or convict him of something now to try and politically discredit him, which is exactly what they've been trying to do for a long time regardless, but they cannot disbar him from running for the Presidency. This is all political in nature and an extension of what's been going on for the past 6 years.

Trump has obviously met the relevant Constitutional requirements because he previously ran and was elected as POTUS and that's all that matters.

No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.

Congress can't pass a law that violates "shall not be infringed" either, can they? How's that working out for us?

There's a reason why they say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

"They can't do that" has never stopped any of these bastards.

 

[KG1]

No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.

Congress can't pass a law that violates "shall not be infringed" either, can they? How's that working out for us?

There's a reason why they say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

"They can't do that" has never stopped any of these bastards.

I'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.

Show me where in the Constitution that it bars criminals from running for POTUS. I'll wait. tick.... tick... tick.... I'll tell you what. If it comes down to Congress trying to bar Trump from running with their law and it is upheld under a SCOTUS challenge I will leave Ingo never to return.

The Constitution sets the exclusive qualifications for President which the list of criteria to run for president mentions only age, citizenship and residency — there is no mention of criminal charges or convictions. The reality is Congress cannot add to that list without an amendment. They can try but they can't make their law a Constitutional requirement without an amendment to make it so.

As a matter of fact:

Convicted felons have run for president and lost. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times between 1976 and 2004. Eugene Debs, convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, was in a federal prison when he ran for president as a socialist in 1920. Debs’ supporters handed out campaign buttons for “Prisoner 9653.”

Try giving this a read.

Can Donald Trump run for president if charged and convicted of removing official records? - Poynter

Fifteen boxes of presidential records including classified material were moved from Mar-a-Lago to the National Archives earlier this year.

www.poynter.org

If you don't like that source, try reading this one from The Hill.

Can Trump be disqualified from running for president?

Can Trump really be disqualified if convicted? Only in the court of public opinion.

thehill.com

 

[jamil]

No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.

Congress can't pass a law that violates "shall not be infringed" either, can they? How's that working out for us?

There's a reason why they say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

"They can't do that" has never stopped any of these bastards.

There’s a difference between is and ought. In reality TPTB will do what the **** they want, even though they should be restrained by rule of law. They should not have been able to change election rules right before the election that favored democrats. But they did.

 

[KG1]

There’s a difference between is and ought. In reality TPTB will do what the **** they want, even though they should be restrained by rule of law. They should not have been able to change election rules right before the election that favored democrats. But they did.

Do you think Congress will be successful in barring Trump from running in 2024?

 

[jamil]

Do you think Congress will be successful in barring Trump from running in 2024?

I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.

 

[edwea]

On a positive note this raid violates the fourth thereby making any evidence obtained by it inadmissible in court…

Not sure that getting into court is the end goal. Keeping documents that implicate fbi/dod/etc OUT of court more likely.

 

[Keith_Indy]

OK, next time someone tells you it wasn't a raid, say, ok, it wasn't a raid, it was a fishing expedition...

 

[KG1]

I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.

I've agreed with this point in a previous post. They can certainly try to prosecute Trump and convict him in order to try to pull off yet another politically motivated **** move to discredit him in the court of public opinion like they've been trying to do for the better part of 6 years now and make it more difficult for him to campaign successfully, but my contention is they cannot outrightly try to bar him from running and expect it to get past a SCOTUS challenge which is what they think that they can do with a statute they passed that doesn't have a Constitutional founding for the requirement to run for POTUS.

This is not just my own opinion.

 

[bwframe]

 

[dlandersson]

I'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.

Um, wadr, all that needs to happen is the they "run out the clock" on the legal aspects untill it's too late (like the 2020 election). SC Justice Roberts is trying to avoid anything election-related. Perhaps of interest

 

[KG1]

Um, wadr, all that needs to happen is the they "run out the clock" on the legal aspects untill it's too late (like the 2020 election). SC Justice Roberts is trying to avoid anything election-related. Perhaps of interest

i would think something as monumental as trying to bar a presidential candidate from running because of a criminal conviction outside the scope of Constitutional requirements that already exists would be fast tracked for review. if SCOTUS tried to avoid something like that before the clock ran out then they are playing politics. I truly believe all hell would break loose.

 

[Route 45]

i would think something as monumental as trying to bar a presidential candidate from running would be fast tracked for review.

Undoubtedly. I remember Bush v. Gore.

 

[KG1]

Undoubtedly. I remember Bush v. Gore.

I don't believe anyone was barred from running in that election. That is what we are talking about.

 

[PRasko]

 

[KG1]

View attachment 217865

This was certainly a big deal and an example in uneven treatment. As much as I loathe HRC in the interest of constancy I will say if she were convicted of anything I don't believe it should've barred her from running for the presidency.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.

We are one Supreme Court justice being smothered dying unexpectedly on vacation from that no longer being true. Given the handling of the election fraud cases, I'm not even sure that is true with the current nine

The Trey Gowdy video is correct, once political corruption infects an institution, bitter experience tells us that you burn it down and start again - whether it is the FBI and DoJ or the Republican Party and CoC

Reform just becomes a band aid mostly useful to put the gangrene out of sight/out of mind

 

[BugI02]

I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.

I would look to attempts to keep him off the ballot in as many states as possible via court challenges within that state, and I would look for them to start only a few months before Nov 2024 to allow as little time as possible to respond in order to achieve fait accompli like they did with election law changes in 2020

I think the only reason they went after Trump now instead of 2 years from now was they can see their ability to launch ANY investigation will soon come to an end, so they need to get one up and running so it is harder to kill. If enough incoming Republicans in 2022 have not learned to take no prisoners and the urge to be seen as nice guys takes the fore, we are still ****ed even after a red wave