A friend of mine posted this on FB.
The optimal choice was to take a plea.
2 Likes
I wonder what the last possible moment was for Tarrio to take the plea? Was there enough time to apply some actuarial methods based on the others’ experience?
they were tried together. so they had to agree before the trial. only the sentencing phase was split out IIRC.
Application of the 14th probably deserves its own thread.
I’d be curious as to what originalist legal philosophy would say. Since 14th was post civil war, would how the immediate application (was there anyone who tired to run but was denied, or did they even bother?) factor into its interpretation? I generally don’t like rights removed without due process, but what “due process” means in practice, I am no expert.
Despite this being a current article, it looks like this is not new news; just ABC pushing the story due to the efforts to disqualify Trump from ballot access.
OBNA?
But he was convicted, even if only trespass (during an insurrection). Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything.
1 Like
Correct. This is why I expect the attempts to disqualify Trump under Section 3 will fail (or at least won’t succeed before primary ballots are printed).
Now, if he’s convicted on the January 6 charges after getting the nomination, but before voting starts for the general election (or before inauguration day, if elected)…that’d be a big mess.
Yeah. I think if he’s convicted there’s a strong case that he’s not qualified to be president. I don’t know what happens if someone is in the middle of the process and becomes ineligible. I suppose that’s never happened.
1 Like
If it was consistent with other offices, the party would decide if before election. After the election, before house declares winner, house would decide. After house decides, before inauguration, maybe vice president takes pres office. Just my best guesses.
Well, that’s one of the things that shows up in the “The decline of ________” part of the story.
The House of Representatives? Are you talking about a scenario where no one gets 270 EVs?
Even in that scenario, the House is restricted to picking among the top 3 EV getters.
Otherwise I’m not sure why the House would get any say at all.
Guessing at what would happen if winner of 270+ electoral votes was disqualified due to 14th amendment becore the electoral votes were certified. Uktimately it would go to scotus to decide proper.procedure.
But how/why does the House fit in to that scenario?
After the election, the EC could decide, probably for VPOTUS-elect. The House could possibly decide to throw it to someone who got faithless elector votes, but that might not work if the leader has 270+.
Barring votes in the joint session to disallow enough EVs, I assume SCOTUS would pave the way for VPOTUS to auto-ascend on Jan 20.
I’m trying to think of it in a similar way to finding out at diff points that a POTUS-elect is only 30yo, and I feel like the above holds for both scenarios.
President Ramaswamy, assuming that his campaign is about being tapped as running mate, and that those efforts are successful?
Sorry, I was conflating the EC with the House. The electors would make the decision, most likely elevating the VP on the ticket. To do otherwise would probably subject them to faithless elector laws from their home state.
What the House does after that is a good question.
I don’t understand why the House has any say whatsoever… unless no one gets to 270.
I would think it would be similar to a candidate dying… namely… up to the political parties up until the conventions and up to the electors after the conventions.
If it was after the EC met then the VPOTUS candidate would simply take over on Inauguration Day and appoint a successor VPOTUS to be confirmed by both chambers of congress.
Less clear is if the candidate doesn’t meet the requirements to be on the ballot, or if that is in dispute, but I still think at whatever point it’s decided that the candidate is ineligible it would go as above.
This is an odd one
Witness protection?
1 Like