No Easy Out for Trump Foes

Trying to remove the former president from the ballot is folly.

By
111
Donald Trump speaks to guests during a campaign event at the Orpheum Theater on October 29, 2023, in Sioux City, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

With the guy who was once his most formidable challenger for the Republican nomination just an absolute wreck and a general election rematch with Joe Biden seeming to be a jump ball, Donald Trump has resumed his place as the nightmare fuel for most Democrats and some Republicans.

Watching him pirouette through legal proceedings, defying court orders, and offering a running commentary on the cases against him must evoke bitter memories in the minds of his detractors. There are those feelings of frustration from when he dodged any consequences in the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, ducked his impeachment for trying to extort political favors from the president of Ukraine, and weaved around a second impeachment for sending an angry mob to the Capitol to disrupt the certification of his 2020 opponent’s win.

Trump’s pursuers have so often believed they were this close to finally nabbing the culprit, and every time found themselves with the laughter of his supporters ringing in their ears. What confidence could they have that the criminal charges Trump now faces would be any different?

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
111
By
Comments (111)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Indisguise

    You ought to require a process of determining sedition before punishing it. Going with gut feeling and everybody knows has led us to Trumpism. 'disqualifying' a candidate sounds like competing magas mission of removing the rule of law for them.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Delenda Est

    Somehow I think Stirewalt could find his respect for the rule of law, if it were a Democrat who was the rank demagogue and relieving himself on the Constitutional order.

    No, it's not some "easy out" to follow the rule of law and disqualify Trump, as he so richly deserves. Just because the man benefits from a personality Cult, actually following the rule of law is the harder thing in this case. Trump has already made the impeachment-provision of the Constitution into a dead letter; should we add to the defunct parts of the Constitution 14A Sec. 3?

    In point of fact it is hardly "easy" to disqualify a candidate for office per Section 3. A political actor has to engage in some hellishly unprecedented conduct, to find themselves eligible for disqualification per the Section. Trump has already done the hard part, here. All that is left is for the rest of us to keep our wits and follow the law. But Stirewalt would rather defer to the Mob instead of the Constitution.

    Collapse
  3. AJLiberty

    Being 35 years of age and a natural born citizen are qualifications that can be objectively assessed. Despite claims about Obama...and even McCain, birth certificates can be accessed and examined. How does a secretary of state objectively determine if someone has committed an insurrection? The civil war cases are at least instructive. Were you actively supporting the confederacy when they were violently trying to secede from the Union? There is ample evidence that the confederacy was violently revolting against the established government and were trying to introduce a new government. High-ranking politicians and military leaders could be guilty of insurrection. But what about southerners who were neither politicians or military but who supported the goals of the confederacy to certain degrees? Are they all ineligible and how precisely would a secretary of state make that determination?

    Trump's action surrounding J6 were contemptible...and, in my opinion, criminal with respect to obstructing a congressional proceeding. But does it rise to insurrection? At what point does his rhetoric go beyond hyperbole and represents an actual revolt? What standard should be used...and are we working back from the odiousness of Trump's actions to that standard? The insurrection should be clear....and the accused participation equally clear and consequential. The standard should be recognizable across states just as the age and citizenship requirements are.

    I think raising the question and establishing a standard is an important outcome of this judicial process. I fear though that the standard will be higher than what Trump did...absent some sort of proceeding that includes adequate due process. We haven't had that...and Trump has not been indicted for insurrection. We need a line.....but it won't be that easy to cut out Trumpism.

    Collapse
    1. Indisguise

      Maybe a group of citizens could gather and examine the evidence. Some kind of advocates could argue the merits. Then these citizens could poll themselves. No better to shout and scream. Dress up in tri corner hats and determine the issue according to which side gets tired and goes home first

      Collapse
  4. Wes.Bridges

    Boebert squeezed herself?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    BloggerBarbie

    As a matter of moral and legal weight, he should be prohibited from running for dog catcher in East Nowhere, from now until such time as it is no longer a concern. As a matter of politics, it's insane to bar him and will backfire by firing up his cultists.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mandy B.

    Love the 'Time Out' on footwear: great.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jhc

    "If it ultimately fails, as I suspect it will, the disqualification effort isn’t just wasted time and effort, it is explicit evidence in support of Trump’s claim that his enemies are trying to prevent voters from having their say."

    Hear, hear! I wish Mr. Trump wasn't running, but I understand that nothing will say Rigged Election! to Trump's supporters like Secretaries of State not allowing his name on their ballots.

    "And if it somehow succeeds, does anyone imagine that Trump and his backers in Republican-controlled states would quietly acquiesce? The chances for Electoral College chaos seem significant, especially with a new House speaker who once spearheaded an effort to try to block the 2020 certification."

    As I've said in other comments here (at The Dispatch), using 14A / Section 3 is sure to be a Goat Rodeo of unimaginable size & complexity.

    "For Trump’s foes, the only way out is through. The ballot box is the place for their fight, not the courtroom."

    Sigh...

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Trudius24283

    The disqualification of Trump needs to be litigated, and it will be litigated because there are 50 separate Court instances in which the cases can be brought for, until it reaches the USSC. If Trump was removed in January 2021 the case would be a lot stronger than it is now.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    As I mentioned earlier, it was fascinating to, in a recent symposium live-streamed on Lawfare, see the "liberal" law professor argue against disqualification, while the FedSoc representative, was arguing *for* disqualification.

    The reason for arguing against such efforts, had nothing to do with what's actually in the Constitution, but "there's no point to pursuing this because the Republicans on SCOTUS would never actually DQ Trump" and "it goes against my pro-democracy inclinations to just disenfranchise 70 million people".

    But one good point made against that by his opponent, was, "more than 70 million people would have happily voted for Barack Obama in 2016, but they couldn't because of the Constitutional term limit, would you say all of those people were disenfranchised, too"?

    Collapse
    1. Indisguise

      Yes

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      What is interesting about that last point is that I read/heard somewhere that the Steve Bannon types are talking about Trump ignoring term limits and running for a 3rd term if he wins a second.

      That would create a similar situation: Yes, it's in the Constitution. How is it enforced? If it's up to each individual state to remove him from the ballot, couldn't the red states just ignore that? Would an EC victory be possible? Some swing states have Republican legislatures/trifectas.

      In this case there is some vagueness about whether the President is an "elected officer" and the definition of "officer." Just enough doubt that the losing side of a SCOTUS decision would be crying foul.

      Collapse
      1. Indisguise

        Omg. A new nightmare.

        Collapse
      2. Wes.Bridges

        Richard Nixon famously said, "Well, if the President does it, that means it is not illegal, by definition." He subsequently resigned; presumably, he understood that there were limits. Mr. Trump does not acknowledge any.

        Collapse
  10. John.ryan

    The opportunity to remove the very dangerous Donald Trump from political life in America was right in the hands of Republican senators in early 2021 in the second impeachment process. The case of incitement to sedition against our Republic and Constitution was clearly made. The commentary of Sen. McConnell should have lead him and other Republican Senators to vote for conviction and once and for all we would have been rid of this danger to our country and the world --- and then they wimped out. They made the cowardly decision to assume that his political future was done anyway and they wanted to avoid a backlash from his supporters. They were like a doctor or a patient deciding to leave a cancer in place and not to remove it. Now the malignancy has metastasized and unless the Democrats or Biden himself bail us out by having Biden and Harris withdraw and be replaced by younger and more capable alternatives, our country is in trouble.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Biden will not withdraw but he could help his own cause by detaching Kamala Harris. I don't think Black voters would object--especially if he slotted in someone like Raphael Warnock. And women would still vote for him.

      Collapse
Load More