# Hypothetical: Trump ineligible, who emerges? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [December 21, 2023, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954 "2023-12-21T22:54:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/21 "2023-12-22T00:44:29Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > But I also think he’d do a lot worse than Trump in an election. He’s like Trump without the followers or charisma or, well, anything that Trump has that makes him electable. I reject the idea that his age alone will allow him to beat Biden. I think he’d lose in a landslide. Oh, sure, he’d lose the general. But I think he’d still win the primary. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/22 "2023-12-22T00:54:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But I think he’d still win the primary. On reflection, you might be right. I wasn’t thinking of the situation where Trump is suddenly gone and people are looking for a replacement. Ron is most likely. I was more thinking of the fact that Haley is gaining ground as DeSantis falls back, but I don’t think any of that would matter in a post-Trump primary. But when I said there’s no way he’d get elected, I still mean that. I don’t say there’s no way he’d get nominated. I’d be more worried about Haley in the general election, myself. I don’t know that she’d beat Biden but I think she matches up much better against him. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/23 "2023-12-22T01:17:36Z")
I thought the current case(s) were about whether a state can keep Trump off its ballots. That’s a different question from the SC declaring that Trump is flatly banned from holding office due to insurrectionism. Is the latter situation coming before the courts? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/24 "2023-12-22T01:20:52Z")
Yes…sort of. Jack Smith, the US federal prosecutor, has asked the SCOTUS to make an immediate (as these things go) ruling on whether Trump can be prosecuted. If they say yes, and Smith succeeds, then Trump will be guilty of insurrection and easy(ish) to take off ballots. > **[US supreme court urged to make ‘immediate, definitive decision’ on Trump’s...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/21/jack-smith-supreme-court-trump-immunity-decision)** > > Jack Smith says court should make decision on whether former president is immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/25 "2023-12-22T01:21:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Jack Smith, the US federal prosecutor, has asked the SCOTUS to make an immediate (as these things go) ruling on whether Trump can be prosecuted. This is not the same case. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/26 "2023-12-22T01:22:09Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > This is not the same case. Huh? > Jack Smith has urged speed for the supreme court to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump is, as the [former president claims](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/11/trump-immunity-supreme-court-2020-election-trial), immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/27 "2023-12-22T01:22:31Z")
Never mind. Wrong thread. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/28 "2023-12-22T01:24:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? That’s Trump’s appeal claiming presidential immunity in the DC case. No appeal has yet been filed by Trump against the Colorado ruling, although it surely will be. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/29 "2023-12-22T01:25:42Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > This is not the same case. You are correct. The case that Jack Smith brought before SCOTUS is to determine whether Trump has immunity from prosecution. In theory, the court could rule in Trump’s favor (which would be bonkers) but that still wouldn’t satisfy the question of whether or not he’s eligible. There is nothing in the statute that says Trump must be convicted of anything. If somehow SCOTUS said that the POTUS can do anything he wants while in office and can’t be prosecuted, he could still be deemed ineligible, because you could still say that he engaged in insurrection despite being immune to prosecution. Determining eligibility is not prosecution. You don’t need to be found “guilty” in a court of law to be deemed too young to serve office, or to not be a natural-born citizen, and those are also disqualifiers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/30 "2023-12-22T01:25:51Z")
By extension if the SCOTUS says Trump can be prosecuted, and Smith succeeds, it makes it much harder for Trump to win on appeal or argue he shouldn’t be removed from all ballots. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/31 "2023-12-22T01:26:33Z")
Oh, okay, I see what you’re saying. But in the DC case he is not charged specifically with insurrection, as noted in the other thread. Even if the SC ruled in the Colorado case that a criminal conviction for insurrection would disqualify Trump under 14A, none of the upcoming cases against Trump charge him with that. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/32 "2023-12-22T01:29:04Z")
Yes, correct, but that’s not anywhere near a direct cause and effect. It just means that the prosecution can proceed. There is a long way to go between that and a conviction. I agree with you that if Trump is convicted of crimes that involve seditious activity, it’s difficult to argue that he didn’t engage in the behavior that is discussed in the 14th Amendment as a disqualifier. At that point the only argument I can see is that the office of President is not meant to be included. (Which **is** an argument some scholars have put forth, it’s not totally crazy, though it seems like it should be.) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/33 "2023-12-22T01:30:32Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > none of the upcoming cases against Trump charge him with that. Huh? I just quoted it (bolding mine): > Jack Smith has urged speed for the supreme court to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump is, as the [former president claims](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/11/trump-immunity-supreme-court-2020-election-trial), **immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.** - [SOURCE](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/21/jack-smith-supreme-court-trump-immunity-decision) ---
**Author:** ![TeroSunbear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terosunbear/32/14748_2.png) [@TeroSunbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeroSunbear)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/34 "2023-12-22T01:30:52Z")
Haley. Though she talks the usual BS that is the party line, I think she is the most presentable to the media. She largely resembles a human. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/35 "2023-12-22T01:32:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? I just quoted it (bolding mine): He is charged with crimes centering on his efforts to overturn the election, but he is not charged with insurrection. See here: > [@Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump Is Disqualified From Holding Office (Dec 19, 2023)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-supreme-court-rules-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office-dec-19-2023/988412/618): > > So… insurrection is defined in criminal law under [18 U.S. Code § 2383](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383). But I think he hasn’t been charged in any of the cases under that statute, right? Certainly not in the DC case. So if the SC sets criminal conviction for insurrection as the standard, it would appear that even if he’s convicted in the DC case he remains eligible for office. I think Smith charged 4 specific crimes that are well defined and will be easy to convict. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/36 "2023-12-22T01:35:19Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But in the DC case he is not charged specifically with insurrection, as noted in the other thread. Obstructing an official proceeding to elect the POTUS, a conspiracy against the rights of the people of the US in being able to vote, and attempting to defraud the US all fall under acts of sedition. Trump isn’t specifically charged with sedition itself because it’s such a tightrope between it and First Amendment rights. People are rarely charged with it. But look at how legal scholars define it: > **[sedition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition)** > Sedition is language intended to incite insurrection against the governing authority. Edward Jenks, in [The Book of English Law](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-362995.pdf), contends that sedition is “perhaps the very vaguest of all offences,” and attempted to define it as “the speaking or writing of words calculated to excite disaffection against the Constitution as by law established, to procure the alteration of it by other than lawful means, or to incite any person to commit a crime to the disturbance of the peace. . .” I don’t think it would be too difficult to argue that what he did falls under that umbrella. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/37 "2023-12-22T01:38:31Z")
If you like you can pretend instead that Trump suddenly drops dead from too many hamberders and covfefe. But I like the aspect of Trump being around to howl about it and what effect that might have. The hypothetical might not be terribly plausible. I really doubt SCOTUS is going to rule that Trump is definitively ineligible, but pretend they were visited by Three Ghosts… ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/38 "2023-12-22T01:38:51Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > I don’t think it would be too difficult to argue that what he did falls under that umbrella. Then I think the SC would need to rule that conviction on any one of various crimes, including at least one that Trump is actually charged with, constitutes insurrection for the purposes of 14A. It can’t be decided by reference to a dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/39 "2023-12-22T01:43:58Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Then I think the SC would need to rule that conviction on any one of various crimes, including at least one that Trump is actually charged with, constitutes insurrection for the purposes of 14A. It can’t be decided by reference to a dictionary. Actually, yes, that is the _only_ way it can be decided. As I previously pointed out, insurrection as coded into law is literally “the act of committing insurrection”. You have to use a combination of what the definition of the word “insurrection” is, combined with prior insurrection cases for precedent. The actual law itself does nothing to define what insurrection is. Note that a crime that “Trump is actually charged with” is attempting the defraud the US with election lies. > **[The charges facing Trump in the Jan. 6 investigation, explained](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts)** > > Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. > **one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States** applies to Trump’s repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment. That points directly to seditious behavior. There’s a straight line between that charge and insurrection. The others can be argued to apply as well. Everything he is being charged with was an attempt to illegally seize control of the US. Please tell me how illegally trying to take over the country can’t be called insurrection. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2023, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954/40 "2023-12-22T01:44:50Z")
A lot of picks so far for Haley. I tend to agree that it would be between DeSantis and Haley. However, somebody mention Don Jr., and that’s an interesting thought. Trump will certainly target anybody that isn’t him except maybe family. He might be able to get behind a Don. Jr run. He’d probably prefer Ivanka, but I don’t see her doing it. She seems to be trying to distance herself from this whole fiasco and keep her fortune intact. Which proves she is the smartest Trump. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-trump-ineligible-who-emerges/994954.md?page=3)