Because the Republicans are likely to take the House. If they do Speaker McCarthy will either dissolve the commission or change it’s focus to such a degree that it might as well no longer exist. They’d focus on something like investigating the FBI raid on Mar A Lago, but not on anything that could shed light on Trump’s role in 1/6.
I think you are being too generous. As soon as the Republicans have the opportunity, they will dissolve the committee, toot sweet: “It was nothing. Just some tourists. Some real Americans exercising their right to demonstrate. This committee is un-needed. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along…”
I am sure the hearings have been painful for the GOP to watch, especially for those that have been publicly mocked and humiliated by them (the Josh Hawley types), so I suspect this pain will ensure dissolving this committee will be top of their agenda.
You stopped short. For starters they will open hearings into Hunter Biden regarding his laptop, drug use and Burisma, as well as hearings for the impeachments of Biden, Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland and Pete Buttegieg. Probably issue subpoenas to HRC about her emails. Maybe also to Jill Biden since she uses the honorific “Dr.”. And possibly for Lizzo as well.
Did you really say “Trump” and “humiliation” in the same sentence?
mmm
It will be DeSantis. He’s been running ever since 2020. DJT will be a convicted felon by then. There is nobody else that the party likes- nobody likes Paul, even fewer like Cruz.
This pretty much how I see it. Trump wants to run again to vindicate his 2020 loss. And he wants the money his MAGA supporters will send him in a presidential campaign. He will run and he’ll have no problem sacrificing any other Republican’s chance of a victory to do so. Trump cares more about himself than he cares about the Republican party.
Trump’s problem is the Republican party leadership feels the same way; they care more about the Republican party than they care about Donald Trump. And Trump by himself has negligible campaigning skills; he needs the GOP organization to run his campaign for him. So Trump needs to win over the Republican party leadership if he’s going to run a serious campaign.
And I don’t think Trump has the cards in his hand to do that. The party’s leaders see him as more of a liability than an asset. They’d rather have DeSantis or some other party regular.
This is an interesting possibility I hadn’t thought of. It’s the only scenario I’ve seen in which Trump would be motivated to support a candidate other than himself.
Using the law to throw a major party front-runner off the ballot would not be as anti-democratic as Trump’s desire to be president for life, but goes in that direction.
Would Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson really go along with having the likely winner of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary (scheduled just 15 months from now) bared from the presidency? I hope it isn’t only the Supreme Court Republicans keeping us a democracy.
Am I ignoring the danger to democracy of a second term for someone who sees a free press as the enemy of the people? No, but what goes around comes around. And the Eugene Debs precedent suggests that jailing trailors isn’t helpful to progressives.
Woodrow Wilson said that socialist leader Eugene Debs was a trailor. And Debs was convicted of sedition. He was bared for life for voting. None of that was fair. But yet, back in that terrible time, the American system respected democracy enough to allow him to run for president from his prison cell.
Even if Trump’s not a convicted felon by 2024, DeSantis is in a much better position to stimulate the right wing ID than Trump is. Trump can keep harping on his beautiful wall and the stolen election, but the right wing hate machine has moved on to transgenders and CRT. Trump can try to pivot his message in that direction (although he is unlikely to ever spend less than half of any speech whining about how unfair everyone is to him) but being out of office he can’t take direct action to confront it the way DeSantis can as governor. By the time 2024 rolls around the Right will have moved on to hating, I don’t know, let’s say child services workers. Trump can whine a bit about how you can’t beat your kids any more, but only DeSantis would be in a position to actually legalize child abuse.
It’s the “what do Trump voters like better: Trump or Trumpism” argument again. One good thing about the coming primary season is that we may finally get more data, if not an outright answer.
The Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to those who have “previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State”. That does not describe Debs. It does describe Dolt45, no matter how tightly he had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time.
Precisely. The law does apply to Trump.
I’ll also remind people that we’ve already had one politician removed from office, and barred from holding office in the future, because of his involvement with January 6.
It’s not just theoretical.
It’s not clear if or how the Disqualification Clause could be used to prevent Trump from reassuming office as President. Notably, the clause provides a mechanism for Congress to “remove such disability” but does not state how it is to be determined that a person “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Is it a judicial determination? Does it require an act of Congress?
He could also argue that the Presidency is not covered by the clause. It’s interesting that the clause does not name the President or VP specifically, but does name Senators, Representatives and electors. There’s an argument that he qualifies as an “officer of the United States” but there’s a counter argument to be made that in the context of the Constitution “officers” refers to appointed positions – e.g. Cabinet Secretaries, ambassadors, etc.
I put TFG because I think he really wants to run again. He’s likely just biding his time until he thinks the moment is just right to announce to magically deflect any legal issues.
The Republican Party leadership’s problem is that the rank and file voters care more about Donald Trump than about the Republican Party, especially the leadership. IMHO that’s why Trump will win the nomination. RINO has essentially come to mean anyone who calls themselves a Republican but doesn’t support Trump.
ETA: If Republican Party leadership had the kind of pull Trump has, Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker wouldn’t be running in the general election and more likely than not ready to hand Mitch McConnell another term as minority leader.
Is the process automatic, or is Congress involved? If it is the latter then I am afraid that, with Republicans in charge, it will not apply to Trump in anything but theory.
I stand by what I said; Trump’s more of a liability than an asset to the Republican party. Yes, he does have a large group of supporters. But there’s an even larger group of people who will vote against Trump.
The Republican party is placating Trump in 2022 because he’ll be useful to them in the off-year elections. The situation in 2024 will be very different. The Republican party will want to neutralize him then.
And Trump will be easy to neutralize. All the Republican party needs to do is withdraw its protection from him. Trump will suddenly find that the judges that have been ruling in his favor aren’t doing so. The pundits on Fox will start expressing grave concerns about the charges made against Trump. The Republicans in office that have been supporting him will all be saying how they believe nobody is above the law. And the sheep will all run off and join a new flock. The Republican party has a lot more assets, experience, and skills than Trump has.
The story I linked to where the guy was removed from office was a judicial determination, so yes.
Trump argues a lot of things that are wrong. He also thinks he can declassify stuff with his mind. It doesn’t make it true. In fact, something is less likely to be true if Trump argues it. The Constitution specifically says you can hold no civil or military office either for a state or the United States. It absolutely applies to the POTUS.
Congress would have to vote 2/3 in each house to overrule it, they don’t determine if it applies.
Trump hasn’t been getting much protection from judges. Judge Cannon gave him a little of what he wanted, but it won’t protect him.
That’s a ruling by one New Mexico state judge. It will have no relevance to how the federal judiciary – which is disproportionately stacked with Trump appointees – will decide should this become an issue during the 2024 Presidential campaign.
Sorry, it’s just not that clear no matter how strongly you feel about it. The Appointments Clause gives the President authority to appoint “all officers of the United States” – which clearly does not include himself. And again, any controversy over how to interpret the Constitution will be settled by the federal judiciary.
Yes it is. It shows how that amendment can and has been used to remove a person from office. No, it doesn’t mean that the POTUS will clearly be removed the same way. I never suggested it. But it shows that the law can be used in court to remove a person from office, no legislature involved.
I think the fact that Trump appointees keep ruling against him doesn’t bode well for his chances if it ever came in front of them, and if his only hope is that they feel obligated toward him.
That’s exactly what I said, it would be a matter for the judiciary to decide. You even quoted me saying as much in your post. 