I know "someone is wrong on the Internet" should not lead to an extended reply each time. But, the argument below is present in various forms, and we continue to get it for Trump. So, it warrants a reply.
President Biden touched the right notes in his response to the verdict. He honored the rule of law and opposed reckless attacks on the justice system.
Gerard N. Magliocca is a Never Trump type who opposed the second impeachment and was "meh" about the first. He strongly wanted to use the 14A, sec. 3 provision, including offering expert testimony.
GM thought Trump v. Anderson was wrongly decided. He has (more strongly than his usual, generally above-the-fray law professor ways) continued to be quite snarky about the ruling's idiocy.
I have spoken (including at one of his blogs) about my opposition to his opposition to the second impeachment. He is at it again:
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment established that the appropriate sanction for engaging in insurrection against the Constitution was civil disqualification from office, not criminal punishment. Trump v. Anderson reached the opposite conclusion. The Court there held that states can sanction insurrectionists holding or seeking federal office only through criminal law.
Where is this coming from? His m.o. is to provide short takes that regularly don't hold up to scrutiny. He doesn't go in-depth (and that's appreciated somewhat since others do so in boring detail) and on both blogs (one rarely allows comments; the other none). But, at times, it might help.
The 14A provision is an extension of the impeachment clauses. It holds that those (state and federal) who already swore allegiance are blocked from further office for a specific category of acts. And, this disqualification (underlining this is not a criminal punishment) can be removed by a supermajority vote.
The idea that impeachment was the only limitation on wrongdoing as applied to Trump was rightly labeled asinine. Why should this provision be any different? This is a law professor. He is saying that someone who did not previously hold an office requiring a constitutional oath could be prosecuted for the VERY SAME ACT as these people commit. But, only those who did not hold office should be prosecuted.
And that is what New York and Georgia are now attempting to do.
This extends the insanity of the argument and he's not alone in finding (inventing) ways to keep Trump from obtaining justice.
The way New York particularly is "sanctioning insurrectionists" is by prosecuting one for non-insurrectionist related acts. GM argues that the cases wouldn't have been brought if Trump was disqualified.
So, the only way this makes sense is by arguing the indictments are indirectly for insurrection. This includes Georgia's indictments for events before January 6th. Does he think Georgia would also not bring a case against all the other people -- some of whom not covered by the provision -- covered in the indictments? So, for instance, they wouldn't really care about the harm to two election workers? I find that just asinine.
The choice to indict Trump for the New York crimes had something to do with it being Trump. Nonetheless, it was a balance of multiple factors. Multiple people involved in the scheme were either prosecuted or signed a non-prosecution agreement. Trump was not and did not. Trump also committed significant civil wrongs of a financial character.
The Georgia indictments had a more direct relationship with 14A, sec. 3 activities. Nonetheless, they involved various crimes, including some specifically local, that were separate. Likewise, Trump was one of eighteen people charged. The office disqualification route is not only a limited one but was not applicable in each case. His disqualification was not likely to have led Fani Willis (judge her as right or wrong) to not prosecute.
Even if I'm wrong about that, the damage done by these prosecutions is much greater because he is a candidate. If Trump loses in November, many people will conclude (not unreasonably) that the conviction did him in. This will encourage future state prosecutions of candidates for federal office either as a Section 3 proxy or out of partisan revenge. That's more dangerous than the fear expressed by some of the Justices that there would be a retaliatory cycle of state ballot exclusion.
Well, yes, a candidate who is convicted of multiple felonies is "damaged." They are appropriately so because voters have grounds to be wary of convicted felons, especially those convicted of crimes related to sleazy election interference-related crimes.
The wariness of prosecuting candidates is present but prosecutions for illegitimate reasons are a general concern. We still realize that often prosecutions are appropriate. This rule applies to people who run for office. People who run for office do not get a special immunity from crimes everyone else is liable to be tried for. To continue a theme, that's asinine.
Does he also think the national security documents case is improper and would not have been brought if he was eventually found disqualified? I suppose if he was impeached and convicted (which GM opposed), he might not have had access. But, if it was left to a 2024-5 application of the insurrection provision, he would have lots of time.
Finally, people raise the specter that the disqualification will be applied in a partisan way. I think the argument does not warrant taking it off the table. The overall concern is still present.
One final thought--the Supreme Court's refusal to say whether Trump is constitutionally eligible to be President, combined with Trump's state conviction, increases the probability of instability following the election if Trump wins.
I don't know what difference it made that the Supreme Court refused to say whether Trump is eligible. The gaming out the possibilities here includes Trump winning and then his election being challenged.
I assume that if he wins, there is a possibility of instability. A sizable group will just not find it possible to accept the election of someone so dangerous, especially (as it is likely to be) if yet again he is elected without the popular vote. This is true even if the Supreme Court (which this group largely does not trust) declared him eligible.
It was doubtful in the extreme that they were going to declare him ineligible. The very question did not need to be answered.
Finally, the state conviction does not add much to this whole thing. Would the people challenging the election act much differently if the acts they believed happened were not tried in a court of law? The court of law avenue very well might be a means to cool things down. Justice is being served. The guilty verdicts add little to the fear of instability.
Ultimately, we are doing mental somersaults here (as with his challenge to the second impeachment) to block a modicum of justice from happening. I appreciate his support of the insurrection provision route.
But, like the impeachment clauses, this doesn't mean Trump (unlike loads of other people) gets criminal immunity from punishment. How far is he taking this? Are the New York civil proceedings wrong too? What about his sexual abuse and defamation trials?
Please stop with this asinine bullshit, people.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!