When the indictments were piling up, I was torn on Trump. Like most, I wanted a revenge tour. A Trump win in 2024 would cause the Left to suffer an aneurysm, but the trials and legal baggage were a general election worry. With the FBI begrudgingly releasing the FD-1023 report from their confidential information about the Biden bribery scheme with Burisma and IRS whistleblowers Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley delivering credible and irrefutable testimony about Justice Department interference in their investigations, the tide has turned.
With the Georgia indictment out of the way, there are months upon months for the media to revisit these Biden allegations that aren’t going away. House Democrats had their shot to discredit these two agents during the whistleblower hearings but made things worse, leading to the appointment of US Attorney David Weiss as special counsel tasked with investigating the Hunter Biden deals, though it’s a fixed inquiry. Weiss already tried to charge Hunter and was blocked while allowing some of the most serious tax violations to lapse under the statute of limitations. He’s Harvey Two-Face, and there’s a reason why half the country feels like this probe is a political stunt.
CNN’s election number crunchers are saying to drop the fiction that Trump can’t win in 2024. Biden is unpopular, with a record of failure and glaring physical and mental defects. Trump is unpopular, though his policies are not. One potentially faces four trials, while the other might face impeachment proceedings. It’s the election we deserve. But New Hampshire is also looking into potentially barring Trump from the ballot during their primary. They haven’t established an official position on the subject, but they’re seeking legal advice, citing the shoddy 14th Amendment argument, which some legal scholars say disqualifies Trump from being president over January 6 (via Boston Globe):
A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.
Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.
Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.
[…]
A spokesperson for the New Hampshire Department of Justice said the attorney general hasn’t taken a position on these matters but will review the relevant legal issues and provide guidance as Scanlan requested.
Why are you doing this, New Hampshire? It’s a crock legal theory; a non-lawyer could see this opinion as anti-Trump garbage. It relates to Section III of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies persons from public office if they have engaged in rebellion or insurrection. Oh, and these folks say a conviction isn't required to enforce this measure. So, due process can be applied in some areas and not others—isn’t that the definition of unconstitutional? Law professor Jonathan Turley took a blowtorch to this argument:
This 14th Amendment theory is something that good liberals will read to their children at night. It goes something like this: Donald Trump can never be president again, because the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took federal oaths from assuming office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion. With that, and a kiss on the forehead, a progressive’s child can sleep peacefully through the night.
But don’t look under the bed. For as scary as it might sound to some, Trump can indeed take office if he is elected…even if he is convicted. Indeed, he can serve as president even in the unlikely scenario that he is sentenced to jail.
Democrats have long pushed this theory about the 14th Amendment as a way of disqualifying not only Trump but also dozens of Republican members of Congress. For some, it is the ultimate Hail Mary pass if four indictments, roughly 100 criminal charges and more than a dozen opposing candidates fail to get the job done.
I have strongly rejected this interpretation for years, so it is too late to pretend that I view this as a plausible argument. However, some serious and smart people take an equally strong position in support of the theory. Indeed, conservative scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen have argued for the interpretation and insist in a recent law review article that “the case is not even close. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”
But some of us like to believe that we are committed to the Constitution and, for that same reason, we say no.
While I have great respect for these academics, I simply fail to see how the text, history or purpose of the 14th Amendment even remotely favors this view. Despite the extensive research of Baude and Paulsen, their analysis ends where it began: Was January 6 an insurrection or rebellion?
[…]
Special Counsel Jack Smith notably did not charge him with any such crime.
The reason is obvious. The evidence and constitutional standards would not have supported a charge of incitement or insurrection.
Yet these experts still believe that Trump can be barred from office without any such charge even being brought, let alone a conviction. Just judicial fiat that certain challenges were made in bad faith or were rebellious in character.
There is no limiting principle to avoid a slippery slope of partisan disqualifications.
[…]
If Trump supported a rebellion or insurrection, what was the plan? Not only did Smith not charge him with any such crime, but there was little evidence that even the most radical defendants charged were planning to overthrow the nation’s government or were part of a broader conspiracy. There were no troops standing by, no plan for a post-democratic takeover by Trump or his alleged minions. The courts had already ruled against the President and would likely continue to do so. Many congressional Republicans had already joined Democrats in supporting certification and would continue to do so. Military leaders had already said that they would support the transition and would continue to do so.
Shoddy legal opinions like this might show that liberals are more than aware of Biden’s weaknesses and fear a Trump return more than anything. It would break their minds irreparably, which is why they’re so gung-ho about shredding the Constitution to save it from Trump. The lack of principle exhibited by liberals when mulling this path to stop Trump shouldn’t be lost on anyone. It’s who they are at their core—rotten.
