Couldn’t it also be said that NOT bringing the case interferes with the 2024 election? Don’t the people deserve to hear the evidence and factor that into their voting decesion?
I would say that the 2024 election interferes with this case.
The case itself is about interference in the 2016 election.
Makes a person’s head spin.
Having a criminal running for office interferes with the 2024 election.
Don’t behave in a manner that gets your ass dragged into court, and you to can run for office unhindered.
It only interferes with the 2024 election if you believe the accused is being bigly persecuted with fake accusations by people who hate America, and want to make him look bad, bigly.
By itself? No.
If Trump was ordered to, say, not attend the GOP convention, it would interfere.
If he was jailed without internet access, that would interfere.
If he was convicted of treason, that would interfere.
None of that is happening.
Only in our dreams.
If he was convicted of treason that would not interfere with the election in any way. People convicted of treason aren’t eligible to be President. So Trump would be sitting out the election.
They aren’t eligible to serve, but aren’t they eligible to run?
Maybe I’m wrong about that, but if I am correct, then there is no reason (beyond decency) for Trump to sit out the election. The five undisputed Federalist Society members on our Supreme Court would likely let him back in for a self-pardon. Or maybe Kevin McCarthy would be a position to do the pardon before they had a chance to rule.
This might not be exactly how it would go down, but is an example of what a terrible idea it would be to substantially interfere with our electorate’s freedom to elect the President they wish. I’m reasonably confident that prosecutors will sense this and act accordingly.
The way the Constitution already substantially interferes with the electorate’s “freedom to elect the President they wish”?
I thought the only way for someone to be prevented from running for President is if they were successfully impeached? And since TFG’s 2nd impeachment after his behavior on Jan 6 was not successful, thanks to Republican willingness to look the other way, it’s still game-on, right? He could be sitting in a prison cell and still run for President, AIUI.
Seems to me the only interference in the 2024 election is Trump (probably) preventing an actual qualified sane non-traitorous non-felonious Republican from occupying the R spot on the ballot.
Now that’s interference with a bite.
The Fourteenth Amendment has a clause that nobody who swore an oath to the United States and then engaged in sedition against it would be eligible to any office. It was, of course, intended for those who did so in the 1860s, but there’s no expiration date on it.
There’s no mention of how one determines whether a person engaged in sedition, but presumably it would require a conviction by a court.
And just to complete that thought, some 1/6 rioters have been convicted of sedition. One of the many cases slowly creeping forward against Trump involves his complicity in 1/6. A sedition conviction could be an outcome. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely and just as unlikely to be reached before the 2024 election.
In larger terms, anything done to, about, against, or in the vicinity of Trump interferes with the 2024 election in some ways, most of which he brought upon himself. All legal processes need to move forward exactly as they would were he not a candidate, as they would against any other person. Any other reasoning is contrary to our notion and practice of democracy.
Exactly. No one has a constitutional right to run for office unencumbered by legal challenges. That’s why I can’t understand all this “customary” not charging (or even publicly investigating) people leading up to an election. It sure as hell didn’t stop Comey in November 2016, and it shouldn’t stop anyone now.
And it would be absurd if a person could avoid (or delay, perhaps forever) legal liability by simply declaring themselves a candidate for office.
Trump has been indicted in a year in which no national election is taking place. How, exactly, does that become election interference? Just because he “says” he’s running?
If that works, wonderful! Because the homeless guy in the park also says he’s running for president, and the public defender just got the thankless job of trying to avoid a conviction for the meth pipe cops pulled out of his pocket.
So much of life is a matter of degree.
Being indicted reduces some of the time he could spend coming up with new insults for his opponents. But it doesn’t substantially stop him from campaigning.
Absurd or otherwise, prosecutors and judges will be sensitive to how great is the interference, and try to keep it to a minimum.
Is that a thing?