Great analysis, and as I lawyer myself, I know what you are saying is logical.
Yet the anxiety remains for us (the sane “us” in the country) who have already seen the nearly unimaginable depths to which Trump will stoop again and again, and how hands-off mainstream Republicans act every time he does – not to mention the rabid, full-throttle support from the MAGA wing. The man literally placed unqualified lapdogs in high positions at the Pentagon as his term was expiring and nearly did the same at Justice while he contested his 2020 defeat and planned January 6th. If he were to somehow prevail in 2024, as hard as that is to imagine, there is nothing he wouldn’t do – no norm he wouldn’t obliterate - to shut down every investigation and prosecution relating to him. And the reaction from all but a handful of Republicans on the Hill would be completely supportive or … “oh, there’s my elevator; I have to go.”
Yet, one could think of petitioning federal court, on the following ground:
That Trump, can't run to presidency, due to such heavy and unusual conflict of interests (see and compare the emolument clause to the constitution).
Finally:
The supreme court, from scratch, granted immunity to sitting president at the time. Nothing in the constitution, suggests such thing as granting immunity of any sort to sitting president. Yet, the supreme court prevailed affirmatively. The same could be argued, concerning such complicated conflict of interests (with no legal constitutional basis or explicit text).
For the president, is the executive branch itself according to the constitution. He is in charge of such investigation in fact, and the subject of it at the same time. Very massive and complicated one. If the supreme court, could conclude, that being too busy as sitting president, justifies immunity (while no constitutional basis exists for it in fact) why not such amazing conflict of interests ?
The constitution prevents candidates from running to federal offices based on 14 (3) to the constitution. Some claim even, that it does include candidates for presidency. Why not then based on such astonishing conflict of interests one may argue.
I look forward to these posts. They are always clear, concise and informative.
Great analysis, and as I lawyer myself, I know what you are saying is logical.
Yet the anxiety remains for us (the sane “us” in the country) who have already seen the nearly unimaginable depths to which Trump will stoop again and again, and how hands-off mainstream Republicans act every time he does – not to mention the rabid, full-throttle support from the MAGA wing. The man literally placed unqualified lapdogs in high positions at the Pentagon as his term was expiring and nearly did the same at Justice while he contested his 2020 defeat and planned January 6th. If he were to somehow prevail in 2024, as hard as that is to imagine, there is nothing he wouldn’t do – no norm he wouldn’t obliterate - to shut down every investigation and prosecution relating to him. And the reaction from all but a handful of Republicans on the Hill would be completely supportive or … “oh, there’s my elevator; I have to go.”
Great post.
Yet, one could think of petitioning federal court, on the following ground:
That Trump, can't run to presidency, due to such heavy and unusual conflict of interests (see and compare the emolument clause to the constitution).
Finally:
The supreme court, from scratch, granted immunity to sitting president at the time. Nothing in the constitution, suggests such thing as granting immunity of any sort to sitting president. Yet, the supreme court prevailed affirmatively. The same could be argued, concerning such complicated conflict of interests (with no legal constitutional basis or explicit text).
For the president, is the executive branch itself according to the constitution. He is in charge of such investigation in fact, and the subject of it at the same time. Very massive and complicated one. If the supreme court, could conclude, that being too busy as sitting president, justifies immunity (while no constitutional basis exists for it in fact) why not such amazing conflict of interests ?
The constitution prevents candidates from running to federal offices based on 14 (3) to the constitution. Some claim even, that it does include candidates for presidency. Why not then based on such astonishing conflict of interests one may argue.
Thanks
"On the contrary, I think all the outward signs are of a massive, complex criminal probe unfolding about as we should expect."
OK. What would concern you if you saw it? (If a question that vague is fair to ask.)