Dear America,
Now that most of the Trump dust has settled, at least until early March when his first trial will begin in Washington, D.C., it may be time to discuss other more fundamental things, like the 2024 election and whether there is a way to obviate running the risk of him being elected president again. I keep harkening back to a Trump rally in 2020 at which the crowd started chanting the trite old phrase, "four more years..." Trump took to the microphone and said with his bare face hanging out, plain enough for everyone, including the press to hear, "If you really want to make them crazy, ask for twelve." At the time it seemed nothing but bombastic, especially considering the source. He should have two middle initials: S for Snake-oil-salesman and B for Bloviator-in-chief. But in light of the aftermath of the election, it seems more like a profane promise. All Americans should resign themselves to the fact--and yes, I think it is a fact not an opinion--that should Trump win in 2024, we will never get rid of him. He will seek--and given the poltroons whom the Republicans keep electing to congressional office no one in power will have the guts to resist his effort,--to change the constitution back to its pre-Roosevelt, pre-22nd Amendment state, under which Roosevelt was allowed to seek and win a fourth term. And should he succeed, when he sees his own biological end coming, he will manipulate his blind sycophants into elevating his son, Donald, Jr.--a miscreant if I ever saw one--to succeed him and initiate a Trump dynasty, and with that he will shuffle off this mortal coil with a sadistic smile on his face. I know this all sounds parodical, but think about it. What part of that scenario seems unrealistic?
However, we do have recourse from two sources, both of which I have mentioned in the past, but both of which I think must be raised as a possible last hope again. The first is a provision in section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution. That provision bars anyone who took an oath to defend the constitution when taking the office of president, or any other government office for that matter, from holding public office again if he has given aid or comfort to the enemies of our government. And the same proposition exists in the statutes of the United States: Chapter 115, Title 38, section 2383, which proscribes inciting or "set[ting] on foot" rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof. The companion statute has been in the news a great deal recently: Chapter 115, Title 38, section 2384 proscribes seditious conspiracy. The leadership of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been pared back to nothing pursuant to that statute, which makes conspiring to effect the overthrow of the government of the United States a federal crime, and that's what they tried to do on January 6, 2021. Those guys are going to a new home for more than a decade, and we should be thankful. Should Trump rise again, they would be right by his side as he rose, probably as cabinet members once he seized office. The problem with section 2383 and section 3 of the 14th amendment is that someone has to implement them.
For section 2383, that would have to be Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor who brought the charges against Trump in Florida for Trump's unlawful attempt to keep classified documents that he should have relinquished control of when he left office, and certainly when they were subpoenaed by the appropriate federal authorities, and Smith again in Washington, D.C. for his conduct at the time of the January 6th insurrection. But Smith chose to forego citation of section 2383 for some reason, which brings me to what I think should occur next. Another special prosecutor, one with guts, should be appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to consider whether section 2383 was violated before or during the events of January 6th, and if so, whether anyone should be prosecuted for doing so. In the matter of violation of section 3, that's a different matter. Section 3 includes a provision for waiving the sanctions it prescribes, specifically prohibition from holding political office in this country, by virtue of a 2/3 vote of each house. By implication then, the section 3 sanction could be imposed by such 2/3 vote of the two houses, and there's the rub...Republicans again.
Not to put too fine a point on it, even though Trump's reelection should be precluded by law, by default our best hope of keeping Trump out of office may be him losing the 2024 election. He's a shoe-in for the Republican nomination, but I think Biden can beat him in the election for the same reason that led him to do so in 2020: there are enough sane and prudent people in the country to counteract what I see as the dementia of Republicans everywhere. As to a prosecutor rising to the occasion, if Smith didn't do it and Garland doesn't have the fortitude to get someone else in to assume the prosecutorial mantle, that seems unlikely. And no tidal wave is going to sweep through the capital building and flush all the Republicans out into the Atlantic ocean, so the constitutional remedy seems too farfetched to even discuss, even though its intent is plain to see. So we have two hopes: first that Garland or Smith rises to the occasion, which as I have postulated seems unlikely, or second, that Joe Biden will. It isn't hopeless, but it has to give us all pause.
Your friend,
Mike
Now that most of the Trump dust has settled, at least until early March when his first trial will begin in Washington, D.C., it may be time to discuss other more fundamental things, like the 2024 election and whether there is a way to obviate running the risk of him being elected president again. I keep harkening back to a Trump rally in 2020 at which the crowd started chanting the trite old phrase, "four more years..." Trump took to the microphone and said with his bare face hanging out, plain enough for everyone, including the press to hear, "If you really want to make them crazy, ask for twelve." At the time it seemed nothing but bombastic, especially considering the source. He should have two middle initials: S for Snake-oil-salesman and B for Bloviator-in-chief. But in light of the aftermath of the election, it seems more like a profane promise. All Americans should resign themselves to the fact--and yes, I think it is a fact not an opinion--that should Trump win in 2024, we will never get rid of him. He will seek--and given the poltroons whom the Republicans keep electing to congressional office no one in power will have the guts to resist his effort,--to change the constitution back to its pre-Roosevelt, pre-22nd Amendment state, under which Roosevelt was allowed to seek and win a fourth term. And should he succeed, when he sees his own biological end coming, he will manipulate his blind sycophants into elevating his son, Donald, Jr.--a miscreant if I ever saw one--to succeed him and initiate a Trump dynasty, and with that he will shuffle off this mortal coil with a sadistic smile on his face. I know this all sounds parodical, but think about it. What part of that scenario seems unrealistic?
However, we do have recourse from two sources, both of which I have mentioned in the past, but both of which I think must be raised as a possible last hope again. The first is a provision in section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution. That provision bars anyone who took an oath to defend the constitution when taking the office of president, or any other government office for that matter, from holding public office again if he has given aid or comfort to the enemies of our government. And the same proposition exists in the statutes of the United States: Chapter 115, Title 38, section 2383, which proscribes inciting or "set[ting] on foot" rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof. The companion statute has been in the news a great deal recently: Chapter 115, Title 38, section 2384 proscribes seditious conspiracy. The leadership of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been pared back to nothing pursuant to that statute, which makes conspiring to effect the overthrow of the government of the United States a federal crime, and that's what they tried to do on January 6, 2021. Those guys are going to a new home for more than a decade, and we should be thankful. Should Trump rise again, they would be right by his side as he rose, probably as cabinet members once he seized office. The problem with section 2383 and section 3 of the 14th amendment is that someone has to implement them.
For section 2383, that would have to be Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor who brought the charges against Trump in Florida for Trump's unlawful attempt to keep classified documents that he should have relinquished control of when he left office, and certainly when they were subpoenaed by the appropriate federal authorities, and Smith again in Washington, D.C. for his conduct at the time of the January 6th insurrection. But Smith chose to forego citation of section 2383 for some reason, which brings me to what I think should occur next. Another special prosecutor, one with guts, should be appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to consider whether section 2383 was violated before or during the events of January 6th, and if so, whether anyone should be prosecuted for doing so. In the matter of violation of section 3, that's a different matter. Section 3 includes a provision for waiving the sanctions it prescribes, specifically prohibition from holding political office in this country, by virtue of a 2/3 vote of each house. By implication then, the section 3 sanction could be imposed by such 2/3 vote of the two houses, and there's the rub...Republicans again.
Not to put too fine a point on it, even though Trump's reelection should be precluded by law, by default our best hope of keeping Trump out of office may be him losing the 2024 election. He's a shoe-in for the Republican nomination, but I think Biden can beat him in the election for the same reason that led him to do so in 2020: there are enough sane and prudent people in the country to counteract what I see as the dementia of Republicans everywhere. As to a prosecutor rising to the occasion, if Smith didn't do it and Garland doesn't have the fortitude to get someone else in to assume the prosecutorial mantle, that seems unlikely. And no tidal wave is going to sweep through the capital building and flush all the Republicans out into the Atlantic ocean, so the constitutional remedy seems too farfetched to even discuss, even though its intent is plain to see. So we have two hopes: first that Garland or Smith rises to the occasion, which as I have postulated seems unlikely, or second, that Joe Biden will. It isn't hopeless, but it has to give us all pause.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment