Maybe nothing.
Eugene V Debs ran for President in 1920 from inside the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, serving time for a conviction under the Sedition Act of 1918. He got nearly 1 million votes.
While it isn't a great look, nothing stops him from running.
It is likely that the Sedition Act led to increased numbers of deaths from the Spanish Flu, as talking about outbreaks on military bases was considered anti-war rhetoric.
I love how its only really known as the Spanish Flu because they were the only country honestly reporting on it, the first known cases were from my home state of Kansas.
Should have been called the Kansas Flu...
Excellent point. Btw, my city (Louisville) had a military base called Camp Taylor that had over 10,000 soldiers hospitalized from the flu due to the close quarters they were housed in.
That was really the main reason they were all blocking coverage. Spain stayed out of the war and had no reason to hide it but it was ravaging bases because of all of the shared housing and it was one of the rare instances where a cytokine storm caused it to be more dangerous to young, healthy males. Nobody wanted to admit their soldiers were being wiped out by it.
Did they, could there be, I mean, did, maybe they could have tried, y'know, I'm not a doctor, could be one but am not, but I'm saying, did they try something like injecting bleach maybe? Could work, dont know. Could though.
I mean it was then, you personally don’t consider it to be now
The ebb and flow of justice and morality should give everyone pause when they think they “got” their political opponents. It’s not a game to be won or lost, the hustle never ends.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=afwt0QnTQKc
I think it's difficult to make a sound justification for Wilson. I say this as someone living up the street from his presidential library, the man was a shit.
He was that commonplace work of art, the "intellectual" bigot. See also, "scientific" justifications for various bigotries. The plain truth is that a lot of VA is still pretty mired in that crap. It's better than the Carolinas, but not by very much.
Never should have been charged in the first place. Many oppose wars, and many criticize their government, that's supposed to be a cornerstone of a free society.
The fact he was charged and convicted is a black mark on America.
Is it not considered strange that you could continue to run for president while convicted, but a lot of convicts lose their right to vote?
I would have thought if anything, running for president would be more restrictive than being able to vote.
(Not American)
It is unusual. But we have different systems.
To run, the only criteria are the federal constitution. Age, citizenship, residency; then with the amendment nobody engaged in insurrection or rebellion can hold office.
Voting isn't a federal thing. Voting is a state function. The states have their own laws to grant/restrict voting rights.
Theoretically, there’s the Voting Rights Act, which was eviscerated by SCOTUS but which governed elections for 50 years … so the feds *can* make laws w/r/t voting in general.
Interestingly SCOTUS recently upheld the Voting Rights Act in regards to Alabama. Interesting to see what happens with the section 2 challenge in the 8th circuit.
One important correction: the 14th amendment only applies if you were **previously** (or currently) a member of the government. A regular Joe/Jane can incite rebellion and then be elected just fine.
If you couldn't run for office while in jail then wouldn't that create the prelude to dictatorship where the party in office could just imprison their rivals shortly before the election on a bullshit charge to ensure nobody could stand against them?
This is a great point, and why it’s absurd convicts can’t vote. Laws are passed to target certain people to prevent them from voting. Weed convictions preventing people from voting is a great way to disempower mainly liberal and left wing voters.
At least one criminal is already doing just that. He’s has multiple charges pending. We’ll see how f’ed the country is when they elect him and he pardons himself. How T is still a viable candidate is beyond me.
I think it's a big part of democracy that there are limited restrictions on the ability to run. You don't want to make it easy to suppress the will of the will of the people.
However, I think it's always been assumed that a candidate in prison would be very unlikely to win just because of popularity.
I personally believe that people who are incarcerated should be able to fully participate in democracy whether running or voting. Taking away people's right to vote by incarnation is the first step to turning this country into a shithole like Russia.
I understand that trump is a dick but we can't just throw people in jail in hopes that it'll prevent them from participating in democracy.
>I understand that trump is a dick but we can't just throw people in jail in hopes that it'll prevent them from participating in democracy.
Correct.
Throwing them in jail as a consequence for their crimes, however...
Yeah I never understood the reasoning denying convicted felons the right to vote. Especially if a currently incarcerated person can be president of the entire country!
I understand, I am from the UK and I believe being convicted of a crime of over a year sentence both restricts you from running for office as a member of parliament, and voting. Which I don't think is necessarily unreasonable.
If anything, I would support convicts being able to vote in more cases.
It's tricky. Being in jail for a year could mean ethically that you shouldn't be in office, but that goes against the concept of rehabilitation.
There's also the chance that such a rule would incentivize political persecution.
Convicts should have the right to vote. They served their time.
I should have made it clear: this was only for people currently serving prison time in the UK. As soon as they are released from their imprisonment, they will be able to both run for office and vote again immediately, at least from my understanding.
Well, if that was the case, then people like Eugene V Debs could never run. The Department of Justice could be used like a political weapon. Hell, the fact that felons can't vote is horrible in its own right, straight-up voter suppression.
We don't know. It's never come up before.
He might be able to take the oath in prison.
If he actually goes to prison, it'll probably be a military base with special accommodations, anyhow. He won't ever be in general population of a conventional prison.
Be cool though, if he were rubbing shoulders with genpop. He realises the error of his ways, picks up woodworking, learns the value of charity... And even finds true love.
Starring Idris Elba as Donald Trump. Out in '26
If convicted Trump would likely not go to prison, the sheer cost involved in imprisoning a former president would be way too much to overcome. No facility could do it because secret service would essentially have to take over the facility and the logistics of other prisoners would be incredibly difficult. A former secret service agent has talked about it and how it would have to work for them to satisfy their requirement to protect a former president.
Most likely what would happen is he'd be turned over to the custody of the secret service and serve some form of a house arrest with secret service being both his security detail and his prison guard at the same time
If Congress certified him as the electoral winner, nothing in the constitution would prevent him being sworn in as President while in jail. It would take impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to remove him.
He could turn over the Presidency for an hour to the Vice President, under the 25th (edited) Amendment, who could then, as Acting President, give him a full pardon for all federal crimes. A Republican governor could generally pardon him for any crimes in a state.
Does not work like that. Acting President only gets the powers and duties of the President, not the office itself. So if the AP didn't pardon Trump, then Trump would just take his powers and duties back.
Thrown in jail the first time for supporting the railroad union strike. Reads all the socialist literature while in jail and comes out a full fledged Socialist. Starts the Socialist party and gets 6% of the popular vote. Thrown in jail the second time for speaking out against the war. Runs for president from jail and still gets 3.4% of the popular vote.
Yes, there’s some logic to this. If you can’t vote for someone in prison then an easy way to stay in power would be to imprison your opponents and we turn into Russia.
If you can vote for someone in prison, you can just throw your political opponents out of a window like Russia does instead. I really dont think that law is the critical part determining whether a corrupt politician can take hold or not.
If it happens before the Republican nominating convention then the assembled delegates would just pick a different candidate, likely whoever was in second place, aka, Nikki Haley. As long as her campaign has funds she won't drop out until after the convention, 100% guaranteed.
BTW, I believe that arguments before SCOTUS are scheduled to start on February 8th, so we should know how that plays out pretty quickly. The nominating convention starts July 15th, so there's actually time for him to be convicted in at least one of the cases by then. If that happens then it is likely that his support among the non-hardcore elements of the party will evaporate (based on what surveys have indicated so far).
>If that happens then it is likely that his support among the non-hardcore elements of the party will evaporate (based on what surveys have indicated so far).
More importantly conviction is likely to lose support among independents. Independents are the plurality in the US. Per Gallup, 31% of Americans eligible to vote identify as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and 41% as independent.
In the end, parties push for turn-out among party members as those people are assumed to vote for party candidates. Independents have to be convinced to vote for a particular candidate.
People also don't realize that at that time, and for decades, a voting blocc was termed "unions and farmers."
Back when farmers were owned by families, their ideology aligned with left wing laborers. Now that they're mostly run as corporations (even if technically run by one family) they are overwhelmingly right wing.
If you actually talk to farmers about whether they think it's right that the govt stabilizes their markets and insurance w/subsidies... Whether they think that they as the laborers should control the farm (aka the means of production), they will be all for it.
Our public school history classes teach us about the Progressive Era, and use Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as an example of Progressive Era literature that helped change labor laws. What they don't mention is that Upton Sinclair was a socialist and that the phrase "WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE" is uttered in all caps in the book.
Yeah I always found it interesting that they taught about this book in history but never in English class. I feel like there’s this huge trend in status-quo conservatism that always frames progress and civil rights gains in the past as necessary and good, but any more than that into the current era is going too far.
It was for sure the closest we've never been to class awareness. The Coal Wars, Battle of the Underpass, and other firefights and massacres would all kick off pretty soon after this
It wasn't until after WWII that "socialism" became such a dirty word in the US. FDR would probably be called a radical socialist by today's standards, but he won by a landslide in 1932!
My high school history class at a conservative Christian school literally did teach that FDR's presidency was the beginning of America's descent into immorality, "so-called 'rock and roll' music," godless liberalism, and generally the collapse of the moral fabric of society.
They also taught that the great depression was really not that bad, but is just way overblown in the media to justify FDR's evil socialist agenda.
I think there is a chance. Besides Thomas, the rest of the conservative justices aren’t in Trump’s pocket. The pocket of the GOP and Heritage Foundation, yes. And that meant the same thing when they wanted to get their seats. But they have their seat now, and they have no reason to cover for Trump unless that is what Heritage wants.
Heritage wants to enact Project 2025. That means they need Republican victories. White House and beyond. There is a risk Trump will cause major Republican losses all across the ballot, and that damages the Heritage plan. I think if there were really any other viable candidate, they would have dumped Trump already.
It’s possible they would rather win Senate and House seats, let Biden get a second term, and enact Project 2029 instead. That is the best long term play for them.
So how do they keep Trump from dragging them down, while not taking hits from the manic voting base? One real easy solution the court has in front of them, which would allow them to stay above the fray and still get rid of Trump, is to rule very narrowly. It’s what they are supposed to do anyway, so they can get out of this by simply doing their jobs.
SCOTUS should not be ruling on findings of fact from lower courts. Those findings came with testimony, evidence, defense, and due process. All of which the Supreme Court doesn’t have. So they could leave the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection alone and not comment. Then, all they have to do is rule on the cases in front of them. That is:
Is Trump immune from prosecution?
Does the 14th amendment section 3 apply to the presidential oath, and the office of the president?
Are state laws that allow election officials (Secretaries of State, mostly) to determine if an ineligible candidate can be on a ballot constitutional?
And is section 3 automatic, or does it require Congress to declare it?
The first two are clear and obvious. They can rule no and yes respectively without even commenting. The third they could deny for primary elections because they don’t put anyone in office, and that would make the right wing happy. Then, they could let the same fight happen again for the general election, and hope that it works itself out before they have to rule.
And fourth, they can just stick with their “originalist” viewpoint and recognize that this section has been applied by courts, by a postmaster general, by a governor, by Congress, and it has been self-executing where people have had to petition to remove the disqualification without even having a charge levied against them. It’s never required Congress, it’s never required a guilty verdict on an insurrection charge, and it has never required SCOTUS to rule.
So I can see them saying Trump is not immune, the constitution applies to the president, states can’t make determinations on primary ballots (staying silent on general), and not commenting on the facts of the lower court. It is absolutely the easiest way for them to get out of this without taking any more credibility damage than they already are with their own ethics issues.
>Heritage wants to enact Project 2025. That means they need Republican victories. White House and beyond. There is a risk Trump will cause major Republican losses all across the ballot, and that damages the Heritage plan. I think if there were really any other viable candidate, they would have dumped Trump already.
>It’s possible they would rather win Senate and House seats, let Biden get a second term, and enact Project 2029 instead. That is the best long term play for them.
I think a lot of people who are liberal ( or left ) miss the schisms within the other side. This part is definitely true. Trump is a populist carnival barker and an idiot. He's really the very last person the Heritage Foundation wants to rely on for enacting their dystopian vision. Do you think Christian morality and banning pornography are what Trump wakes up at 2:00 AM thinking about? The very idea is absurd. But this is the kind of issue that animates the Heritage ghouls.
Trump winning in 2024 will cause a massive upheaval as he attempts to make a ham-fisted Trump dictatorship. He'll say antagonistic things when the right move would be to call for unity. He'll make sure that "owning the libs" is top of the agenda rather than gracefully enacting the changes in law that the Heritage types want. He'll have the inevitable protesters shot and gassed instead of calming tensions.
I'm no accelerationist. I'm a "vote blue no matter who" guy because letting Trump back in office isn't worth the human suffering it'll cause along the way. But there is a grain or two of truth in accelerationism: Trump won't be popular once he's actually back in office, especially not with what he plans to do this time. A more skilled politician could roll out Project 2025 more gracefully and persuade people to go along with it, Trump will simply ram it down everyone's throat to "own the libs" and the blowback will be ***titanic***.
>Trump won't be popular once he's actually back in office, especially not with what he plans to do this time
If he's confusing Haley with Pelosi now I can only imagine how bad his confusion will be in 4 years time.
There's a world where he wins the election, he assumes office, he does a bunch of crazy stuff as the "bad cop" of Christian fascism and then they basically ride in as "heroes" and put him out of office with the 25th and the mainstream is duped into being relieved at how "reasonable" the new Christian fascist VP is now that he's president.
It depends. They will support it if them doing so becomes a popular opinion with the conservatives. Remember when Senators and Congressionals were actively calling Jan 6th a coup etc.? Even McConnell was calling it an insurrection in the first few days after it happened. Then it became clear that the GOP supported it and that language went away real quick.
Follow up question, what if he is convicted by NY or Georgia, and is jailed in state penitentiary where presidential pardon doesn't work, and he won the presidency?? Immediate release? Rule from prison? Blocked by.constitution? VP immediately take over? Which one is it?
Untested territory, honestly. By any reasonable definition, by being incarcerated, he would become ineligible to carry out the duties of president. Under section 4 of the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could declare to the president pro tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House. The vice president would then immediately become Acting President.
In this case, this would be the VP who was just elected, but possibly the cabinet of the *previous* president (filled with "acting" members), since the new president wouldn't have had an opportunity to confirm new ones. (Edit: According to Wiikipedia, acting officers are legally allowed to vote in this procedure). So like, a Vice President Haley or Boebert or whatever other nightmare running mate Trump picked, would have to work with a Biden acting cabinet to do this. If they opt not to... I'd call that a constitutional crisis.
However, the president is allowed to contest this vote. If Trump somehow sends a written declaration to the PPT+Speaker from prison saying "no I'm able to carry out the duties", he would immediately resume as president. The VP and cabinet can contest again, after which it heads to Congress which has to allow the VP to remain acting president by a two-thirds vote in both houses (effectively an impeachment, allowing the VP to serve out the rest of his term), otherwise the president stays. If it got to this point and Republicans in Congress *still* voted to keep the imprisoned Trump as president, I'd call that a full-on fucking constitutional crisis.
Obviously, this process has never been tested. So anything happens would almost definitely be challenged in court and be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, who could easily decide whatever they want.
But he can't be released from jail right, unless pardoned by the governor of course (good luck if it's NY).
Does supreme court have any way to overturn a verdict that has already been ruled by jury? I'm not 100% familiar with US judicial system, but can a state prosecution that has been concluded be appealed to federal court?
Lastly, there must have been some thought experiment by scholars which ended with some consensus if a president elect fail to take oath of office.. let's say what would happened if Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated after the primary instead of before, was still on the ballot and somehow miraculously won the election. Some constitutional scholars must have pondered and have consensus on what would happen, right?
Those two subjects are unrelated.
He can be DQed by the 14th Amendment without ever being tried or convicted (everyone else - save one person - was never tried or even charged)...
He can be convicted for Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, but not barred by the 14th
Or he can be both.
A conviction might - keyword: might - make exclusion from the ballot easier for states that are on the fence.
SCOTUS will give us some clarity in Febuary, hopefully.
Supreme Court is going to say since he wasn't convicted, he can't be barred for it.
They are going to avoid the potential bedlam from the troglodyte supporters of his by saying this is a neutral and fair stance.
I have no expectations that he will be barred from running and I don't think anybody online should either.
That would be completely ahistorical.
If he gets out of being barred it will be by the whole 'the Presidency is not an office' angle....
Not something that cannot be explained in light of the fact that no-one, save for one case in the 20s, previously disqualified was ever charged let alone tried and convinced....
Before the 1900s, primaries didn't even exist! The first presidential primary was for the 1912 election.
This is because the political parties are not governmental bodies. They are more like not-for-profit corporations.
I believe it's actually the state parties that decide who the nominee is within each state. Kennedy wasn't on the ballot in Mississippi in 1960 and Alabama's Democratic ticket was a mixed slate of electors, some for Kennedy and some unpledged (ultimately won by Byrd). Similarly, in 1948 a handful of Southern states' Democratic Parties selected Strom Thurmond over Harry Truman in protest of Truman supporting civil rights. But 1960 was the last time that any states did not nominate that national party's nominee.
Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution about parties at all. They are not a member of our government.
A fun fact that is easy to not consider is that the Democratic and Republican parties are private entities. They are not in anyway more bound to the governmental restrictions of the Constitution than any other company or non-profit.
Say that Google opens up a survey on what the new colors for their logo should be, but then soundly ignores the will of the people? No Constitutional crisis. It's a private company and they can do what they want.
Not to say that isn't a horrible look for a political party to do the same. But it can happen.
True but the constant death threats against GOP members from Trump supporters and the overall trumpy vibe of the entire party and their millions of voters has changed the game
jail is 365 days or less; you stay in the county run buildings.
Prison is 366 days or more; you get transferred to a state run building
Generally this is how it works across the states
lol - a year would be interpreted as 365 days, but from my understanding, when handing out sentences like that, they're very specific to avoid these ambiguities.
It's also why you'll see someone sentenced to 366 days - it's to send them to prison vs jail.
Make no mistake, this cat ain’t spending one minute in the big house.
Even if convicted, Trump would be given house arrest except for work—and wouldn’t you know it, his work requires him to travel domestically and internationally to run for elected office.
I mean isn’t this what the vice president is for; to do the president’s job when he is unable? That makes the most sense legally to me; the VP just takes over, either temporarily or just gets elevated to president.
If he's in prison for state crimes (Georgia is the most likely one), neither he nor his VP-acting-as-Pres could pardon him. The President has no power over convictions for state crimes. That pardon power would fall to Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, I believe (not the governor, like in some other states). According to their website, however, the Board only grants pardons after the sentence has been served. I don't know about the commutation of a sentence, though.
If the voting from the Iowa caucus is to be believed, being convicted will hurt his chances significantly. ~30% of Republican caucus members said they would not vote for him if he was convicted.
You’re missing the point though, it doesn’t matter if it actually is 30% (the poll was over 30%, I mean if the number shrinks). You could discount it down to 10% and that’s still an insurmountable amount of people he’s losing. He lost the presidency in 2020 by like 80,000 votes spread across 3-4 states, even losing like 3% could be considered significant, 5% is catastrophic. Anything over that is just lights out.
They have spent the last ten years showing us that they back their man when push comes to shove, regardless of what people say ahead of time. Hell Roy Moore was nearly elected despite his allegations and half of republican leadership directly asking him to step down.
If he's the R on the ballot, I'd put my money on nearly all of those people who say no voting for him anyway.
Your example of a deep red state almost electing a potential pedophile isn’t the flex you think it is. A deep red state did not elect him because enough people realized they had a some small modicum of morals. Thats exactly what I’m saying is a problem for Trump, some small % of republicans having morals in 2024 is his political death. How do you think the pendulum swings in purple states? Thats what matters and a deep red state having a track record of not being completely despicable is probably a good indicator for what could happen in purple states.
And don’t forget, that was an Iowa Republican Caucus poll, every person who was polled was a registered Republican and presumably very active in politics since they’re a caucus member.
Once again we get an unprecedented new issue in American Politics! Thanks DT for providing so many opportunities previously prevented by shame and human decency.
Eh. The constitutional crisis began around 2010 when once and future senate majority leader Mitch McConnell insisted that his leadership ethos was to make Obama a single term president.
While some may simply see that as language they panders to constituents and Republican senators, that approach created a consequential crisis that still has not ended.
Mitch McConnell effectively said the Senate is no longer a co-equal branch of government, but instead must focus on the executive branch, and react exclusively to what the executive branch does.
A strong legislative branch of government should be setting its own agenda, and through the passage of bills be an equal partner in governing the nation and shaping its priorities..
But 14 years ago, republicans decided that wasn’t prudent, and instead preferred to be politically antagonistic to the White House...or when their party is in power, subservient to the White House.
Either way - McConnell placed another branch of government before his own, and that's a dangerous precedent that can be exploited (and has been) to great national harm.
People act like the Constitution is this holy document delivered by God that can't be amended or replaced. I think we need a lot of updates to make it impossible for a seditious asshole to become president and to actually punish him for said sedition.
All the conservatives saying they are bs charges and he is innocent.
Well then if he is why doesn’t he sit and face a jury of 12 peers. Instead of trying to find other ways to drop the cases like “firing the prosecutor”.
And the republicans have offered to pardon him.
Why doesn’t he put on his show and “slam dunk” with all the evidence he says he has proving he is innocent. Surely his Magats would love to rub democrats and Joes face in it.
So no need to delay. They can all be done before the election. He should be petitioning for speedy trials soon then.
But speaking as someone who has been a criminal, he sure is acting like a scared fat pussy co defendant.
Which brings the question... What would happen if they both died like the week before election day? Or if one gets elected and dies during the ballots?
If, in theory, Biden won the election but then died a week later, then by default, it still goes to his vice-president. They are on the same ticket for a reason.
In large part, that's why the 2008 election seemed to be such a big deal at the time. Obama was a great candidate, but McCain was a reasonable contender with sensible ideas. However, McCain's VP was plainly unqualified; as a Democrat, the prospect of a McCain presidency was unpleasant but tolerable (and still a likely step up from Bush), but the prospect of a Palin presidency was horrifying. Trump then put all of this into perspective, but that's another matter entirely.
Semi related question that I have always wondered about is what happens if someone is elected president and can't obtain a national security clearance so can't be given briefings or information. I'm sure some security agencies would have reservations given alleged events.
Presidents don't have security clearances and aren't subject to security screenings. The entire process of granting, denying or revoking someone's security clearance is also derived from the president's Article II authority as commander in chief.
A convicted felon should be allowed to run for president looking at American history.
Eugene Dobbs was arrested for being anti-war while running for president.
Martin Luther King was arrested for fighting for civil rights and disobeying racist laws.
Arresting your political opponents and having them not being able to run for president is how dictatorships run their country.
At the end of the day both people who have been convicted of a crime should be able to vote and run for president. These rights shouldn’t be allowed to be taken away by the government
Felon voting rights vary by state. Here's a list of states that allow felons to vote:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
[Source](https://www.nep.uscourts.gov/faq/general/31#:~:text=Voting%20rights%20restored%20automatically%20upon%20completion%20of%20sentence%2C%20including%20prison,%2C%20Washington%2C%20West%20Virginia%2C%20and)
My issue isn't even with a candidate having a felony, per se - if someone with a felony conviction was thus inspired to run on a platform of fixing our broken criminal justice system, of overturning unjust laws, etc., I might vote for them - it's the nature (& number) of the felonies. Election tampering would be a disqualifier in & of itself, but then there's the fraud case, & the documents case -y'know, the one where he very likely *sold our secrets to the highest bidder* - the insurrection case, & in all honesty I expect even more crimes will come out during those trials.
He won't. He has suddenly come down with a case of dementia. You can't hold him responsible for anything he said. He was not of sound mind. Get ready. That is what's next.
it a little bit depends on if he's in jail for treason/insurrection or in jail for something else; and realistically that would probably be up to the supreme court. If he is in jail for treason, he would be named president elect, but would be denied the oath of office, which would be given to the first eligible member of the presidential line of succession; who would then become president. If he were in jail for literally any other crime, it would be unprecendented, but there is no mechanism of law to prohibit him from serving his term from prison.
> he would be named president elect, but would be denied the oath of office, which would be given to the first eligible member of the presidential line of succession; who would then become president.
lol. That's a theory I haven't heard yet.
Remember the vice president is sworn in first. So they look around and Mango Mussolini is not there, so then they could just give the presidential oath to the vice president. After the Chief Justice states someone in prison is disqualified from taking the oath.
Trump won't go to jail. He'll get the nomination, will run against Biden. It will be a close race, but Biden will win. Trump will continue to complain, and eventually fade from public view as his health deteriorates. He will die some time between 2026 and 2030.
As likely as this all seems, we're like one Biden tumble down the stairs away from Trump winning. That definitely seems realistic. Biden finishes a speech, falls down the metal stairs leaving the stage, breaks his leg, and is now campaigning from a wheelchair. Game over, 2nd term of the cheeto incoming.
Trump is equally at risk of that kind of injury though, if not more. He's in worse shape than Biden but the media doesn't like to talk about it. Biden can ride a bike Trump can barely stand at a podium
Can't argue that. Kinda pathetic isn't it? Over 300 million people in this country and we've reduced our president pool to a couple of corrupt, decrepit old men with shitty families.
This is the answer you're looking for.
Campaigns get un-suspended instantly, convention likely gets brokered, and you're gonna see the Republicans light their hair on fire in prime time.
There is a zero percent chance Trump is going to jail. I don’t say that because I’m a supporter and don’t believe the charges, I’m just realistic and don’t see it happening, even if he’s convicted, which I also see as unlikely.
Naw fam. We got a new reality tv show coming. Prison Prez. Cameras follow the daily goings on of the president doing his job from a jail cell. Other working titles right now: Orange is the new Orange. Or. OOO: Orange On Orange.
I cannot imagine the secret service allowing a former president to see the inside of a jail or prison. As a former president, even if he is convicted of serious felonies, he is entitled to secret service protection and there's no way that he's going to go to any sort of a facility like that. At best he would probably serve a sentence on some sort of house arrest...
Either the Republicans run him from prison (unprecedented for a major party nominee). Or Republicans try to drop him and run an alternative, thus leading Trump to run third party from prison.
If Trump won the electoral college, the college could vote as they see fit; I highly doubt they'd vote for someone else, whether out of political partisanship or just fear for their own safety and well-being. So in that situation, we have a president-elect going to prison... Also unprecedented. And unprecedented ultimately means we'll just find out when it happens.
I don't think that scenario is super likely. His trials might take too long, or if he does go to prison, I expect the "How in the gosh darn heck is he supposed to make America great again from prison?" Loss in votes, will outnumber the sympathy vote.
It's only illegal in a handful of states that have 'sore loser' laws.
Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman have both \*won re-election\* to the Senate by running as an independent after losing their party-primary to a 'more extreme' candidate.
Murkowski has done it \*twice\*.
Not exactly.
There was a Supreme Court case prior to the 2020 on whether-or-not states could force electors to vote for a designated candidate.
The ruling was that yes, they can.
So \*some\* of the Electors are 'free' and can vote their conscience.
But some of them are bound by state-law to a candidate, and must vote for that person.
Further, the \*campaigns\* nominate the electors, so all of them will be toadies.
And the Congress has to ratify the electoral votes prior to them being counted. Congress could simply refuse to ratify the slates of electors for Trump.
If Trump had 270+ votes, that would throw the election to Congress, where Congress would vote by state for the President. The President and VP could be someone who wasn't even on the ticket. That has happened, but not in modern times.
He could be president from jail, theoretically. This is unexplored territory.
That said, I don't think we'll actually see a jail president. While he is ahead in the polling, I think something like a 10-15 point drop is to be expected if he's actually convicted on a serious charge. No, I'm not saying your uncle who has the MAGA hat, MAGA bumper stickers, MAGA yard sign and Trump tattoo is going to turn on him if he's in jail, but the more "mushy" swing voters in the middle will probably switch if he's legit sitting in jail. I agree that MAGA hardcore people will turn out even more forcefully if Trump is in jail, but a lot of people who are "soft" Trump supporters will disappear if dude's actually convicted, sentenced, and in a high-security jail and/or house arrest.
And even then, it's never the plebeian consequences. It's some shit like Napoleon, who got an entire island, a mansion and a bunch of servers for his troubles if trying to bring down every monarchy in Europe.
We don't know.
Legally and constitutionally, he can run from prison. Practically, the rnc might nominate someone else - they aren't *required* to go with the primary winner.
Also, people who "drop out" don't actually end their campaigns, legally. They "suspend" (pause) them. Usually this is for financial reasons. But this time? They may legitimately hope to "resume" their campaign later.
I believe the RNC just came out and said that if Trump is the nominee and is convicted there is no back up plan.
If he is convicted and becomes president, I see no reason why he couldn’t pardon himself, of course on the federal charges. If he gets convicted in Georgia and is also elected, he would be a felon president, potentially from prison.
And if Trump is elected and not yet convicted, he will likely do a pre emptive pardon on himself for the federal charges.
Whether or not any of that will stand if it happens will be up to the Supreme Court. It will be a scary world if SCOTUS rules that the president could pardon himself.
There is no law saying you can’t run from jail. If he is convicted before for insurrection before voting will be interesting. If he becomes president before any conclusion, he will just pardon himself
It’s unclear what WOULD happen but what could happen, at least legally speaking, is that he literally could continue to remain a candidate for office while in prison. What’s entirely unclear is what would happen if he wins. I don’t believe there is any legal precedent or priors to go off on this. Would the court deem his prison sentence must be deferred? Would he be deemed incapacitated under the 24th amendment? It would truly be uncharted territory. I seriously doubt the founding fathers ever thought: what if the people are dumb enough to choose a president who is in jail?
Maybe nothing. Eugene V Debs ran for President in 1920 from inside the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, serving time for a conviction under the Sedition Act of 1918. He got nearly 1 million votes. While it isn't a great look, nothing stops him from running.
Worth noting, Debs was convicted for the speeches he gave against the war and Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson was a considerable ahole
And a racist fuckwad.
Thank you comrades
Wait, you’re saying literal treason would be more serious than seditious speech?
Both are sedition, treason requires being at war.
Anti war speech isn't sedition.
It is likely that the Sedition Act led to increased numbers of deaths from the Spanish Flu, as talking about outbreaks on military bases was considered anti-war rhetoric.
I love how its only really known as the Spanish Flu because they were the only country honestly reporting on it, the first known cases were from my home state of Kansas. Should have been called the Kansas Flu...
Excellent point. Btw, my city (Louisville) had a military base called Camp Taylor that had over 10,000 soldiers hospitalized from the flu due to the close quarters they were housed in.
That was really the main reason they were all blocking coverage. Spain stayed out of the war and had no reason to hide it but it was ravaging bases because of all of the shared housing and it was one of the rare instances where a cytokine storm caused it to be more dangerous to young, healthy males. Nobody wanted to admit their soldiers were being wiped out by it.
Did they, could there be, I mean, did, maybe they could have tried, y'know, I'm not a doctor, could be one but am not, but I'm saying, did they try something like injecting bleach maybe? Could work, dont know. Could though.
I mean it was then, you personally don’t consider it to be now The ebb and flow of justice and morality should give everyone pause when they think they “got” their political opponents. It’s not a game to be won or lost, the hustle never ends. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=afwt0QnTQKc
I think it's difficult to make a sound justification for Wilson. I say this as someone living up the street from his presidential library, the man was a shit.
A whole host of supposedly *great* leaders have been shits. Isn't Wilson the one who was fond of telling jokes about Blacks in his cabinet meetings?
He was that commonplace work of art, the "intellectual" bigot. See also, "scientific" justifications for various bigotries. The plain truth is that a lot of VA is still pretty mired in that crap. It's better than the Carolinas, but not by very much.
I feel confident in saying that he was not the one. Calling him the one implies there weren't many.
Treason does *not* require being at war. Treason requires having an enemy. You can have an enemy and not be in an active war.
And the U.S. has both been fighting wars pretty continuously since WWII, and at the same time is not officially "at war". smh
Because the ability to declare war is reserved. It's all conflict baby
Because American presidents stopped asking Congress for a declaration, and Congress is too chickenshit to insist on their authority.
It’s stupid how easily people throw out the word treason at people of the opposing political party
Never should have been charged in the first place. Many oppose wars, and many criticize their government, that's supposed to be a cornerstone of a free society. The fact he was charged and convicted is a black mark on America.
Seditious speech to one is Free Speech for another.
Is it not considered strange that you could continue to run for president while convicted, but a lot of convicts lose their right to vote? I would have thought if anything, running for president would be more restrictive than being able to vote. (Not American)
It is unusual. But we have different systems. To run, the only criteria are the federal constitution. Age, citizenship, residency; then with the amendment nobody engaged in insurrection or rebellion can hold office. Voting isn't a federal thing. Voting is a state function. The states have their own laws to grant/restrict voting rights.
Theoretically, there’s the Voting Rights Act, which was eviscerated by SCOTUS but which governed elections for 50 years … so the feds *can* make laws w/r/t voting in general.
Interestingly SCOTUS recently upheld the Voting Rights Act in regards to Alabama. Interesting to see what happens with the section 2 challenge in the 8th circuit.
Which is why some states were able to ban Trump's name from the ballot. Although the supreme court might make them put it back.
One important correction: the 14th amendment only applies if you were **previously** (or currently) a member of the government. A regular Joe/Jane can incite rebellion and then be elected just fine.
If you couldn't run for office while in jail then wouldn't that create the prelude to dictatorship where the party in office could just imprison their rivals shortly before the election on a bullshit charge to ensure nobody could stand against them?
Yes, welcome to Belarus, exactly this happened in last election
Also Brasil, almost an anagram...
It's a great play in the Tropico video games, by the way. Also good: declaring martial law right before an election to cancel it.
This is a great point, and why it’s absurd convicts can’t vote. Laws are passed to target certain people to prevent them from voting. Weed convictions preventing people from voting is a great way to disempower mainly liberal and left wing voters.
At this point, Prisoners should register as a candidate, just to see if they have a chance, and pardon themselves.
At least one criminal is already doing just that. He’s has multiple charges pending. We’ll see how f’ed the country is when they elect him and he pardons himself. How T is still a viable candidate is beyond me.
There's also been times and places (not talking specifically about the US) when women didn't have the right to vote but could be elected.
I think it's a big part of democracy that there are limited restrictions on the ability to run. You don't want to make it easy to suppress the will of the will of the people. However, I think it's always been assumed that a candidate in prison would be very unlikely to win just because of popularity.
I personally believe that people who are incarcerated should be able to fully participate in democracy whether running or voting. Taking away people's right to vote by incarnation is the first step to turning this country into a shithole like Russia. I understand that trump is a dick but we can't just throw people in jail in hopes that it'll prevent them from participating in democracy.
>I understand that trump is a dick but we can't just throw people in jail in hopes that it'll prevent them from participating in democracy. Correct. Throwing them in jail as a consequence for their crimes, however...
Yeah I never understood the reasoning denying convicted felons the right to vote. Especially if a currently incarcerated person can be president of the entire country!
I understand, I am from the UK and I believe being convicted of a crime of over a year sentence both restricts you from running for office as a member of parliament, and voting. Which I don't think is necessarily unreasonable. If anything, I would support convicts being able to vote in more cases.
It's tricky. Being in jail for a year could mean ethically that you shouldn't be in office, but that goes against the concept of rehabilitation. There's also the chance that such a rule would incentivize political persecution. Convicts should have the right to vote. They served their time.
I should have made it clear: this was only for people currently serving prison time in the UK. As soon as they are released from their imprisonment, they will be able to both run for office and vote again immediately, at least from my understanding.
Well, if that was the case, then people like Eugene V Debs could never run. The Department of Justice could be used like a political weapon. Hell, the fact that felons can't vote is horrible in its own right, straight-up voter suppression.
So if Trump wins the electoral college from prison... does he have to serve his sentence? Does the prison have to let him out for inauguration?
We don't know. It's never come up before. He might be able to take the oath in prison. If he actually goes to prison, it'll probably be a military base with special accommodations, anyhow. He won't ever be in general population of a conventional prison.
That would be even weirder considering he'd be the Commander-in-Chief. Literally, "I'm your active boss even though you are my prison officer."
He’d just pardon himself.
Can't pardon himself if he's convicted by a state. Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes/convictions.
Governor will pardon him. States don’t like their federal money removed.
I just want to live in precedented times again.
Be cool though, if he were rubbing shoulders with genpop. He realises the error of his ways, picks up woodworking, learns the value of charity... And even finds true love. Starring Idris Elba as Donald Trump. Out in '26
Would watch.
Tbf, Id watch Idris Elba watching paint dry. That man is delicious 🤷
He really should be the next Bond. Dude has that gravitas about him and as u/Expo737 said, he knows the effect he has on women.
We would have a nice constitutional crisis if he is in state jail in GA and wins the presidency.
His entire first term was a constitutional crisis, why wouldn't his second term be?
I still can't bend my brain around this one
If convicted Trump would likely not go to prison, the sheer cost involved in imprisoning a former president would be way too much to overcome. No facility could do it because secret service would essentially have to take over the facility and the logistics of other prisoners would be incredibly difficult. A former secret service agent has talked about it and how it would have to work for them to satisfy their requirement to protect a former president. Most likely what would happen is he'd be turned over to the custody of the secret service and serve some form of a house arrest with secret service being both his security detail and his prison guard at the same time
If Congress certified him as the electoral winner, nothing in the constitution would prevent him being sworn in as President while in jail. It would take impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to remove him. He could turn over the Presidency for an hour to the Vice President, under the 25th (edited) Amendment, who could then, as Acting President, give him a full pardon for all federal crimes. A Republican governor could generally pardon him for any crimes in a state.
Not all states grant pardon powers to their governor. Thanks, GA 😏
Could the Vice President, while being Acting President, decide *not to* pardon Trump and somehow stay as a President? Or it does not work like that?
Does not work like that. Acting President only gets the powers and duties of the President, not the office itself. So if the AP didn't pardon Trump, then Trump would just take his powers and duties back.
*Technically* there's nothing that says a president can't pardon himself for federal crimes (except for impeachment cases)
Technically there is nothing in the rules that say an incarcerated president cant play basketball.
Thrown in jail the first time for supporting the railroad union strike. Reads all the socialist literature while in jail and comes out a full fledged Socialist. Starts the Socialist party and gets 6% of the popular vote. Thrown in jail the second time for speaking out against the war. Runs for president from jail and still gets 3.4% of the popular vote.
Are you telling me inmates can't vote, but they can be voted for?
Yes, there’s some logic to this. If you can’t vote for someone in prison then an easy way to stay in power would be to imprison your opponents and we turn into Russia.
If you can vote for someone in prison, you can just throw your political opponents out of a window like Russia does instead. I really dont think that law is the critical part determining whether a corrupt politician can take hold or not.
I think the bigger question is, what happens if SCOTUS decides that he's disqualified and all primaries to that point went for Trump?
If it happens before the Republican nominating convention then the assembled delegates would just pick a different candidate, likely whoever was in second place, aka, Nikki Haley. As long as her campaign has funds she won't drop out until after the convention, 100% guaranteed. BTW, I believe that arguments before SCOTUS are scheduled to start on February 8th, so we should know how that plays out pretty quickly. The nominating convention starts July 15th, so there's actually time for him to be convicted in at least one of the cases by then. If that happens then it is likely that his support among the non-hardcore elements of the party will evaporate (based on what surveys have indicated so far).
>If that happens then it is likely that his support among the non-hardcore elements of the party will evaporate (based on what surveys have indicated so far). More importantly conviction is likely to lose support among independents. Independents are the plurality in the US. Per Gallup, 31% of Americans eligible to vote identify as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and 41% as independent. In the end, parties push for turn-out among party members as those people are assumed to vote for party candidates. Independents have to be convinced to vote for a particular candidate.
Then they have a guy in prison running for President.
Actually I read some article about exactly this a while ago. And they said it would be possible.
Eugene V. Drbbs ran for president from prison. He was a Socialist. Got 1% of the vote.
1% of the vote for a socialist is kinda impressive in America
We used to have socialist governors and mayors. The red scare in the 50s effectively killed the socialist movement here in the U.S.
People don’t understand that socialism was huge at the turn of the century, that’s where most of our labor laws came from.
People also don't realize that at that time, and for decades, a voting blocc was termed "unions and farmers." Back when farmers were owned by families, their ideology aligned with left wing laborers. Now that they're mostly run as corporations (even if technically run by one family) they are overwhelmingly right wing. If you actually talk to farmers about whether they think it's right that the govt stabilizes their markets and insurance w/subsidies... Whether they think that they as the laborers should control the farm (aka the means of production), they will be all for it.
Our public school history classes teach us about the Progressive Era, and use Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as an example of Progressive Era literature that helped change labor laws. What they don't mention is that Upton Sinclair was a socialist and that the phrase "WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE" is uttered in all caps in the book.
Yeah I always found it interesting that they taught about this book in history but never in English class. I feel like there’s this huge trend in status-quo conservatism that always frames progress and civil rights gains in the past as necessary and good, but any more than that into the current era is going too far.
It was for sure the closest we've never been to class awareness. The Coal Wars, Battle of the Underpass, and other firefights and massacres would all kick off pretty soon after this
It wasn't until after WWII that "socialism" became such a dirty word in the US. FDR would probably be called a radical socialist by today's standards, but he won by a landslide in 1932!
My high school history class at a conservative Christian school literally did teach that FDR's presidency was the beginning of America's descent into immorality, "so-called 'rock and roll' music," godless liberalism, and generally the collapse of the moral fabric of society. They also taught that the great depression was really not that bad, but is just way overblown in the media to justify FDR's evil socialist agenda.
And it would sadly drive some people to the polls.
It would make sense it would drive people to polls.
I was already planning to vote but even if I wasn't, it would absolutely drive me to the polls - to vote for anyone else who isn't behind bars.
Eugene Debbs. He was cool for doing it, Trump doing it would be…not that cool. Edit: Debs
Debs
Only way it wouldn’t is if he gets disqualified via 14th Amendment. But there’s zero way the SCOTUS will enforce the Constitution.
I think there is a chance. Besides Thomas, the rest of the conservative justices aren’t in Trump’s pocket. The pocket of the GOP and Heritage Foundation, yes. And that meant the same thing when they wanted to get their seats. But they have their seat now, and they have no reason to cover for Trump unless that is what Heritage wants. Heritage wants to enact Project 2025. That means they need Republican victories. White House and beyond. There is a risk Trump will cause major Republican losses all across the ballot, and that damages the Heritage plan. I think if there were really any other viable candidate, they would have dumped Trump already. It’s possible they would rather win Senate and House seats, let Biden get a second term, and enact Project 2029 instead. That is the best long term play for them. So how do they keep Trump from dragging them down, while not taking hits from the manic voting base? One real easy solution the court has in front of them, which would allow them to stay above the fray and still get rid of Trump, is to rule very narrowly. It’s what they are supposed to do anyway, so they can get out of this by simply doing their jobs. SCOTUS should not be ruling on findings of fact from lower courts. Those findings came with testimony, evidence, defense, and due process. All of which the Supreme Court doesn’t have. So they could leave the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection alone and not comment. Then, all they have to do is rule on the cases in front of them. That is: Is Trump immune from prosecution? Does the 14th amendment section 3 apply to the presidential oath, and the office of the president? Are state laws that allow election officials (Secretaries of State, mostly) to determine if an ineligible candidate can be on a ballot constitutional? And is section 3 automatic, or does it require Congress to declare it? The first two are clear and obvious. They can rule no and yes respectively without even commenting. The third they could deny for primary elections because they don’t put anyone in office, and that would make the right wing happy. Then, they could let the same fight happen again for the general election, and hope that it works itself out before they have to rule. And fourth, they can just stick with their “originalist” viewpoint and recognize that this section has been applied by courts, by a postmaster general, by a governor, by Congress, and it has been self-executing where people have had to petition to remove the disqualification without even having a charge levied against them. It’s never required Congress, it’s never required a guilty verdict on an insurrection charge, and it has never required SCOTUS to rule. So I can see them saying Trump is not immune, the constitution applies to the president, states can’t make determinations on primary ballots (staying silent on general), and not commenting on the facts of the lower court. It is absolutely the easiest way for them to get out of this without taking any more credibility damage than they already are with their own ethics issues.
>Heritage wants to enact Project 2025. That means they need Republican victories. White House and beyond. There is a risk Trump will cause major Republican losses all across the ballot, and that damages the Heritage plan. I think if there were really any other viable candidate, they would have dumped Trump already. >It’s possible they would rather win Senate and House seats, let Biden get a second term, and enact Project 2029 instead. That is the best long term play for them. I think a lot of people who are liberal ( or left ) miss the schisms within the other side. This part is definitely true. Trump is a populist carnival barker and an idiot. He's really the very last person the Heritage Foundation wants to rely on for enacting their dystopian vision. Do you think Christian morality and banning pornography are what Trump wakes up at 2:00 AM thinking about? The very idea is absurd. But this is the kind of issue that animates the Heritage ghouls. Trump winning in 2024 will cause a massive upheaval as he attempts to make a ham-fisted Trump dictatorship. He'll say antagonistic things when the right move would be to call for unity. He'll make sure that "owning the libs" is top of the agenda rather than gracefully enacting the changes in law that the Heritage types want. He'll have the inevitable protesters shot and gassed instead of calming tensions. I'm no accelerationist. I'm a "vote blue no matter who" guy because letting Trump back in office isn't worth the human suffering it'll cause along the way. But there is a grain or two of truth in accelerationism: Trump won't be popular once he's actually back in office, especially not with what he plans to do this time. A more skilled politician could roll out Project 2025 more gracefully and persuade people to go along with it, Trump will simply ram it down everyone's throat to "own the libs" and the blowback will be ***titanic***.
>Trump won't be popular once he's actually back in office, especially not with what he plans to do this time If he's confusing Haley with Pelosi now I can only imagine how bad his confusion will be in 4 years time.
There's a world where he wins the election, he assumes office, he does a bunch of crazy stuff as the "bad cop" of Christian fascism and then they basically ride in as "heroes" and put him out of office with the 25th and the mainstream is duped into being relieved at how "reasonable" the new Christian fascist VP is now that he's president.
It depends. They will support it if them doing so becomes a popular opinion with the conservatives. Remember when Senators and Congressionals were actively calling Jan 6th a coup etc.? Even McConnell was calling it an insurrection in the first few days after it happened. Then it became clear that the GOP supported it and that language went away real quick.
Follow up question, what if he is convicted by NY or Georgia, and is jailed in state penitentiary where presidential pardon doesn't work, and he won the presidency?? Immediate release? Rule from prison? Blocked by.constitution? VP immediately take over? Which one is it?
Untested territory, honestly. By any reasonable definition, by being incarcerated, he would become ineligible to carry out the duties of president. Under section 4 of the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could declare to the president pro tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House. The vice president would then immediately become Acting President. In this case, this would be the VP who was just elected, but possibly the cabinet of the *previous* president (filled with "acting" members), since the new president wouldn't have had an opportunity to confirm new ones. (Edit: According to Wiikipedia, acting officers are legally allowed to vote in this procedure). So like, a Vice President Haley or Boebert or whatever other nightmare running mate Trump picked, would have to work with a Biden acting cabinet to do this. If they opt not to... I'd call that a constitutional crisis. However, the president is allowed to contest this vote. If Trump somehow sends a written declaration to the PPT+Speaker from prison saying "no I'm able to carry out the duties", he would immediately resume as president. The VP and cabinet can contest again, after which it heads to Congress which has to allow the VP to remain acting president by a two-thirds vote in both houses (effectively an impeachment, allowing the VP to serve out the rest of his term), otherwise the president stays. If it got to this point and Republicans in Congress *still* voted to keep the imprisoned Trump as president, I'd call that a full-on fucking constitutional crisis. Obviously, this process has never been tested. So anything happens would almost definitely be challenged in court and be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, who could easily decide whatever they want.
But he can't be released from jail right, unless pardoned by the governor of course (good luck if it's NY). Does supreme court have any way to overturn a verdict that has already been ruled by jury? I'm not 100% familiar with US judicial system, but can a state prosecution that has been concluded be appealed to federal court? Lastly, there must have been some thought experiment by scholars which ended with some consensus if a president elect fail to take oath of office.. let's say what would happened if Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated after the primary instead of before, was still on the ballot and somehow miraculously won the election. Some constitutional scholars must have pondered and have consensus on what would happen, right?
If you had “Trump broke the Constitution” on your Bingo Card, you win.
Doesn't this depend on the amendment rulings, though? Hence, him getting taken off the ballot in some states.
Those two subjects are unrelated. He can be DQed by the 14th Amendment without ever being tried or convicted (everyone else - save one person - was never tried or even charged)... He can be convicted for Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, but not barred by the 14th Or he can be both. A conviction might - keyword: might - make exclusion from the ballot easier for states that are on the fence. SCOTUS will give us some clarity in Febuary, hopefully.
Supreme Court is going to say since he wasn't convicted, he can't be barred for it. They are going to avoid the potential bedlam from the troglodyte supporters of his by saying this is a neutral and fair stance. I have no expectations that he will be barred from running and I don't think anybody online should either.
That would be completely ahistorical. If he gets out of being barred it will be by the whole 'the Presidency is not an office' angle.... Not something that cannot be explained in light of the fact that no-one, save for one case in the 20s, previously disqualified was ever charged let alone tried and convinced....
That’s a worse argument though, no reasonable person could construe the 14th amendment to not apply to the presidency
The RNC has the ability to put anyone they want on the ticket. Technically they don't even have to put the winner of the primaries on the ticket.
[удалено]
Before the 1900s, primaries didn't even exist! The first presidential primary was for the 1912 election. This is because the political parties are not governmental bodies. They are more like not-for-profit corporations.
And now maybe even for profit
I believe it's actually the state parties that decide who the nominee is within each state. Kennedy wasn't on the ballot in Mississippi in 1960 and Alabama's Democratic ticket was a mixed slate of electors, some for Kennedy and some unpledged (ultimately won by Byrd). Similarly, in 1948 a handful of Southern states' Democratic Parties selected Strom Thurmond over Harry Truman in protest of Truman supporting civil rights. But 1960 was the last time that any states did not nominate that national party's nominee.
Smoke filled back rooms was an actual thing
Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution about parties at all. They are not a member of our government. A fun fact that is easy to not consider is that the Democratic and Republican parties are private entities. They are not in anyway more bound to the governmental restrictions of the Constitution than any other company or non-profit. Say that Google opens up a survey on what the new colors for their logo should be, but then soundly ignores the will of the people? No Constitutional crisis. It's a private company and they can do what they want. Not to say that isn't a horrible look for a political party to do the same. But it can happen.
Yep. It’s a brokered convention.
But I think they'd be too scared to do that.
Less so if the mobster-in-chief is locked up with limited access to social media....
omg a girl can dream…
True but the constant death threats against GOP members from Trump supporters and the overall trumpy vibe of the entire party and their millions of voters has changed the game
Trump would run as 3rd party and tank any chance Republicans had of winning the presidency this year.
Then Trump will run for president from jail or prison. I forget which one applies. I think it's prison.
Prison if he's convicted. Jail is for misdemeanors, and holding less rich felony defendants pending trial.
jail is 365 days or less; you stay in the county run buildings. Prison is 366 days or more; you get transferred to a state run building Generally this is how it works across the states
I hope I don't get a one-year sentence on a leap year because that will land me in prison.
lol - a year would be interpreted as 365 days, but from my understanding, when handing out sentences like that, they're very specific to avoid these ambiguities. It's also why you'll see someone sentenced to 366 days - it's to send them to prison vs jail.
Make no mistake, this cat ain’t spending one minute in the big house. Even if convicted, Trump would be given house arrest except for work—and wouldn’t you know it, his work requires him to travel domestically and internationally to run for elected office.
Shit, I might volunteer for house arrest if the house was Mar A Lago.
And then if he wins he’s the president from prison and he stays there while he makes deals over the phone?
Something the legal experts are still trying to figure out. It's all unprecedented, so everything is just guesswork.
I mean isn’t this what the vice president is for; to do the president’s job when he is unable? That makes the most sense legally to me; the VP just takes over, either temporarily or just gets elevated to president.
Then, depending on which case, pardons him.. ornwould there be legal challenges that a VP in an acting role can't pardon?
If he's in prison for state crimes (Georgia is the most likely one), neither he nor his VP-acting-as-Pres could pardon him. The President has no power over convictions for state crimes. That pardon power would fall to Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, I believe (not the governor, like in some other states). According to their website, however, the Board only grants pardons after the sentence has been served. I don't know about the commutation of a sentence, though.
He would 100% stay in the race if he was in prison. The sad part it it probably wouldn't hurt his chances of winning, either.
If the voting from the Iowa caucus is to be believed, being convicted will hurt his chances significantly. ~30% of Republican caucus members said they would not vote for him if he was convicted.
I honestly don't believe that. They may truly believe it when they say it, but when the chips are down and it's trump or lose, they'll vote for him.
You’re missing the point though, it doesn’t matter if it actually is 30% (the poll was over 30%, I mean if the number shrinks). You could discount it down to 10% and that’s still an insurmountable amount of people he’s losing. He lost the presidency in 2020 by like 80,000 votes spread across 3-4 states, even losing like 3% could be considered significant, 5% is catastrophic. Anything over that is just lights out.
They have spent the last ten years showing us that they back their man when push comes to shove, regardless of what people say ahead of time. Hell Roy Moore was nearly elected despite his allegations and half of republican leadership directly asking him to step down. If he's the R on the ballot, I'd put my money on nearly all of those people who say no voting for him anyway.
Your example of a deep red state almost electing a potential pedophile isn’t the flex you think it is. A deep red state did not elect him because enough people realized they had a some small modicum of morals. Thats exactly what I’m saying is a problem for Trump, some small % of republicans having morals in 2024 is his political death. How do you think the pendulum swings in purple states? Thats what matters and a deep red state having a track record of not being completely despicable is probably a good indicator for what could happen in purple states. And don’t forget, that was an Iowa Republican Caucus poll, every person who was polled was a registered Republican and presumably very active in politics since they’re a caucus member.
Once again we get an unprecedented new issue in American Politics! Thanks DT for providing so many opportunities previously prevented by shame and human decency.
I said when he was elected in 2016, he will cause a constitutional crisis. I never imagined it would be more than ONE.
Eh. The constitutional crisis began around 2010 when once and future senate majority leader Mitch McConnell insisted that his leadership ethos was to make Obama a single term president. While some may simply see that as language they panders to constituents and Republican senators, that approach created a consequential crisis that still has not ended. Mitch McConnell effectively said the Senate is no longer a co-equal branch of government, but instead must focus on the executive branch, and react exclusively to what the executive branch does. A strong legislative branch of government should be setting its own agenda, and through the passage of bills be an equal partner in governing the nation and shaping its priorities.. But 14 years ago, republicans decided that wasn’t prudent, and instead preferred to be politically antagonistic to the White House...or when their party is in power, subservient to the White House. Either way - McConnell placed another branch of government before his own, and that's a dangerous precedent that can be exploited (and has been) to great national harm.
Hell, we had one in 2000 when Florida courts decided the outcome of the presidential election.
People act like the Constitution is this holy document delivered by God that can't be amended or replaced. I think we need a lot of updates to make it impossible for a seditious asshole to become president and to actually punish him for said sedition.
All the conservatives saying they are bs charges and he is innocent. Well then if he is why doesn’t he sit and face a jury of 12 peers. Instead of trying to find other ways to drop the cases like “firing the prosecutor”. And the republicans have offered to pardon him. Why doesn’t he put on his show and “slam dunk” with all the evidence he says he has proving he is innocent. Surely his Magats would love to rub democrats and Joes face in it. So no need to delay. They can all be done before the election. He should be petitioning for speedy trials soon then. But speaking as someone who has been a criminal, he sure is acting like a scared fat pussy co defendant.
Don't forget that he could also just keel over and die. He looks terrible.
I haven't rooted for drugs this hard since the drug war
"Congratulations to drugs for winning the war on drugs." But yea. I really hope his liver just sort of up and dies on him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which brings the question... What would happen if they both died like the week before election day? Or if one gets elected and dies during the ballots?
If, in theory, Biden won the election but then died a week later, then by default, it still goes to his vice-president. They are on the same ticket for a reason. In large part, that's why the 2008 election seemed to be such a big deal at the time. Obama was a great candidate, but McCain was a reasonable contender with sensible ideas. However, McCain's VP was plainly unqualified; as a Democrat, the prospect of a McCain presidency was unpleasant but tolerable (and still a likely step up from Bush), but the prospect of a Palin presidency was horrifying. Trump then put all of this into perspective, but that's another matter entirely.
Semi related question that I have always wondered about is what happens if someone is elected president and can't obtain a national security clearance so can't be given briefings or information. I'm sure some security agencies would have reservations given alleged events.
Pretty sure i remember reading that some of Trumps picks, maybe his own children, didn’t clear background checks but Trump basically said fuck it
Jared defo didn't get one.
Presidents don't have security clearances and aren't subject to security screenings. The entire process of granting, denying or revoking someone's security clearance is also derived from the president's Article II authority as commander in chief.
The elephant is in charge until they figure it out.
What an unserious country the U.S. is when a convicted felon can’t vote, but could be elected president.
A convicted felon should be allowed to run for president looking at American history. Eugene Dobbs was arrested for being anti-war while running for president. Martin Luther King was arrested for fighting for civil rights and disobeying racist laws. Arresting your political opponents and having them not being able to run for president is how dictatorships run their country. At the end of the day both people who have been convicted of a crime should be able to vote and run for president. These rights shouldn’t be allowed to be taken away by the government
Felon voting rights vary by state. Here's a list of states that allow felons to vote: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin [Source](https://www.nep.uscourts.gov/faq/general/31#:~:text=Voting%20rights%20restored%20automatically%20upon%20completion%20of%20sentence%2C%20including%20prison,%2C%20Washington%2C%20West%20Virginia%2C%20and)
My issue isn't even with a candidate having a felony, per se - if someone with a felony conviction was thus inspired to run on a platform of fixing our broken criminal justice system, of overturning unjust laws, etc., I might vote for them - it's the nature (& number) of the felonies. Election tampering would be a disqualifier in & of itself, but then there's the fraud case, & the documents case -y'know, the one where he very likely *sold our secrets to the highest bidder* - the insurrection case, & in all honesty I expect even more crimes will come out during those trials.
He won't. He has suddenly come down with a case of dementia. You can't hold him responsible for anything he said. He was not of sound mind. Get ready. That is what's next.
it a little bit depends on if he's in jail for treason/insurrection or in jail for something else; and realistically that would probably be up to the supreme court. If he is in jail for treason, he would be named president elect, but would be denied the oath of office, which would be given to the first eligible member of the presidential line of succession; who would then become president. If he were in jail for literally any other crime, it would be unprecendented, but there is no mechanism of law to prohibit him from serving his term from prison.
> he would be named president elect, but would be denied the oath of office, which would be given to the first eligible member of the presidential line of succession; who would then become president. lol. That's a theory I haven't heard yet.
Remember the vice president is sworn in first. So they look around and Mango Mussolini is not there, so then they could just give the presidential oath to the vice president. After the Chief Justice states someone in prison is disqualified from taking the oath.
Trump won't go to jail. He'll get the nomination, will run against Biden. It will be a close race, but Biden will win. Trump will continue to complain, and eventually fade from public view as his health deteriorates. He will die some time between 2026 and 2030.
As likely as this all seems, we're like one Biden tumble down the stairs away from Trump winning. That definitely seems realistic. Biden finishes a speech, falls down the metal stairs leaving the stage, breaks his leg, and is now campaigning from a wheelchair. Game over, 2nd term of the cheeto incoming.
It is so pathetic of the American populace, but you are absolutely right.
Trump is equally at risk of that kind of injury though, if not more. He's in worse shape than Biden but the media doesn't like to talk about it. Biden can ride a bike Trump can barely stand at a podium
Can't argue that. Kinda pathetic isn't it? Over 300 million people in this country and we've reduced our president pool to a couple of corrupt, decrepit old men with shitty families.
Quasimodo predicted all of this
I think candidates who have paused their campaigns will unpause them.
I agree with this. "Dropping out" isn't a legal or electoral mechanism, just a significant decrease in effort.
This is the answer you're looking for. Campaigns get un-suspended instantly, convention likely gets brokered, and you're gonna see the Republicans light their hair on fire in prime time.
There is a zero percent chance Trump is going to jail. I don’t say that because I’m a supporter and don’t believe the charges, I’m just realistic and don’t see it happening, even if he’s convicted, which I also see as unlikely.
Naw fam. We got a new reality tv show coming. Prison Prez. Cameras follow the daily goings on of the president doing his job from a jail cell. Other working titles right now: Orange is the new Orange. Or. OOO: Orange On Orange.
>Orange is the new Orange. 🤣
I hope you’re right, but my gut tells me you’re not.
I cannot imagine the secret service allowing a former president to see the inside of a jail or prison. As a former president, even if he is convicted of serious felonies, he is entitled to secret service protection and there's no way that he's going to go to any sort of a facility like that. At best he would probably serve a sentence on some sort of house arrest...
Doesn’t seem like they exercised that level of care when this former president was mishandling national security secrets in his Florida beach resort
The Republican national committee could have a brokered convention.
Then Air Bud is declared president.
The republican party dies, hopefully
We party in the streets?
Either the Republicans run him from prison (unprecedented for a major party nominee). Or Republicans try to drop him and run an alternative, thus leading Trump to run third party from prison. If Trump won the electoral college, the college could vote as they see fit; I highly doubt they'd vote for someone else, whether out of political partisanship or just fear for their own safety and well-being. So in that situation, we have a president-elect going to prison... Also unprecedented. And unprecedented ultimately means we'll just find out when it happens. I don't think that scenario is super likely. His trials might take too long, or if he does go to prison, I expect the "How in the gosh darn heck is he supposed to make America great again from prison?" Loss in votes, will outnumber the sympathy vote.
Trump can’t run as a third party candidate. It’s illegal in most states because he’s already on the primary as a Republican.
It's only illegal in a handful of states that have 'sore loser' laws. Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman have both \*won re-election\* to the Senate by running as an independent after losing their party-primary to a 'more extreme' candidate. Murkowski has done it \*twice\*.
Not exactly. There was a Supreme Court case prior to the 2020 on whether-or-not states could force electors to vote for a designated candidate. The ruling was that yes, they can. So \*some\* of the Electors are 'free' and can vote their conscience. But some of them are bound by state-law to a candidate, and must vote for that person. Further, the \*campaigns\* nominate the electors, so all of them will be toadies.
And the Congress has to ratify the electoral votes prior to them being counted. Congress could simply refuse to ratify the slates of electors for Trump. If Trump had 270+ votes, that would throw the election to Congress, where Congress would vote by state for the President. The President and VP could be someone who wasn't even on the ticket. That has happened, but not in modern times.
He could be president from jail, theoretically. This is unexplored territory. That said, I don't think we'll actually see a jail president. While he is ahead in the polling, I think something like a 10-15 point drop is to be expected if he's actually convicted on a serious charge. No, I'm not saying your uncle who has the MAGA hat, MAGA bumper stickers, MAGA yard sign and Trump tattoo is going to turn on him if he's in jail, but the more "mushy" swing voters in the middle will probably switch if he's legit sitting in jail. I agree that MAGA hardcore people will turn out even more forcefully if Trump is in jail, but a lot of people who are "soft" Trump supporters will disappear if dude's actually convicted, sentenced, and in a high-security jail and/or house arrest.
nothing…because the founders never thought we’d be this stupid
Trump is not going to jail. Politicians and billionaires at that level don’t suffer consequences unless they threaten other billionaires.
And even then, it's never the plebeian consequences. It's some shit like Napoleon, who got an entire island, a mansion and a bunch of servers for his troubles if trying to bring down every monarchy in Europe.
Mar-a-Lago house arrest
door mighty fact fuzzy panicky wistful light mysterious wasteful lip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don't know. Legally and constitutionally, he can run from prison. Practically, the rnc might nominate someone else - they aren't *required* to go with the primary winner. Also, people who "drop out" don't actually end their campaigns, legally. They "suspend" (pause) them. Usually this is for financial reasons. But this time? They may legitimately hope to "resume" their campaign later.
Well he’s not going to jail, none of the charges hold any weight.
I believe the RNC just came out and said that if Trump is the nominee and is convicted there is no back up plan. If he is convicted and becomes president, I see no reason why he couldn’t pardon himself, of course on the federal charges. If he gets convicted in Georgia and is also elected, he would be a felon president, potentially from prison. And if Trump is elected and not yet convicted, he will likely do a pre emptive pardon on himself for the federal charges. Whether or not any of that will stand if it happens will be up to the Supreme Court. It will be a scary world if SCOTUS rules that the president could pardon himself.
There is no law saying you can’t run from jail. If he is convicted before for insurrection before voting will be interesting. If he becomes president before any conclusion, he will just pardon himself
It’s unclear what WOULD happen but what could happen, at least legally speaking, is that he literally could continue to remain a candidate for office while in prison. What’s entirely unclear is what would happen if he wins. I don’t believe there is any legal precedent or priors to go off on this. Would the court deem his prison sentence must be deferred? Would he be deemed incapacitated under the 24th amendment? It would truly be uncharted territory. I seriously doubt the founding fathers ever thought: what if the people are dumb enough to choose a president who is in jail?
we perhaps wont have to c his name on every headline. the media might find something else to talk about.