Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[Robert]

https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/biden-sta ... ndictment/

The White House counsel’s office met with a top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before he brought charges against former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents — raising serious concerns about coordinated legal efforts aimed at President Biden’s likely opponent in 2024.

Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel’s office, White House visitor logs show.

They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office.

Nine weeks later, Trump was indicted by Smith’s office on June 8, 2023.

Bratt, 63, also met with Saba at the White House in November 2021, when Trump was mired in negotiations with the National Archives, who were demanding the return of presidential records from his Mar-a-Lago estate before a formal investigation had not yet been opened.

[HondurasKeiser]

This is a novel legal theory that sound awfully similar to the theory that the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states.

[temporal1]

can ‘o worms

[JimFoxvog]

This is a novel legal theory that sound awfully similar to the theory that the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states.

A legal theory that dates back to the passing of the 14th Amendment.

Here is AP News's discussion of the issue:

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution’s insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots
https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-a ... 8e708ad725

The headline writer may not have read the whole article. Further down it makes clear that some conservative scholars have the same opinion.

[Josh]

This is a novel legal theory that sound awfully similar to the theory that the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states.

A legal theory that dates back to the passing of the 14th Amendment.

Are you saying you think the 14th amendment supports the idea the the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states?

[HondurasKeiser]

This is a novel legal theory that sound awfully similar to the theory that the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states.

A legal theory that dates back to the passing of the 14th Amendment.

Here is AP News's discussion of the issue:

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution’s insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots
https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-a ... 8e708ad725

The headline writer may not have read the whole article. Further down it makes clear that some conservative scholars have the same opinion.

Just like the "Mike Pence can refuse to certify the election" theory, dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

[Ken]

This is a novel legal theory that sound awfully similar to the theory that the President of the Senate can refuse to certify the presidential election and send electoral votes back to the various states.

A legal theory that dates back to the passing of the 14th Amendment.

Here is AP News's discussion of the issue:

Liberal groups seek to use the Constitution’s insurrection clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots
https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-a ... 8e708ad725

The headline writer may not have read the whole article. Further down it makes clear that some conservative scholars have the same opinion.

Just like the "Mike Pence can refuse to certify the election" theory, dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment clearly has an insurrection clause.

Show us where in the constitution it gives the VP the right to refuse to certify the election and and by doing so invalidate the results.

[HondurasKeiser]

A legal theory that dates back to the passing of the 14th Amendment.

Here is AP News's discussion of the issue:


The headline writer may not have read the whole article. Further down it makes clear that some conservative scholars have the same opinion.

Just like the "Mike Pence can refuse to certify the election" theory, dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment clearly has an insurrection clause.

Show us where in the constitution it gives the VP the right to refuse to certify the election and and by doing so invalidate the results.

You do understand that I am not in agreement with the above theory. I am simply pointing out that argle bargle legal theories that attempt end-runs around democracy are all of a piece, no matter which side advances them.

Nevertheless, the theory that the VP can refuse to count certain states' electoral votes finds it source in a novel reading of this phrase from the 12th Amendment: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".

This wiki on the Eastman Memo is helpful in breaking down the tortured logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

[Ken]

Just like the "Mike Pence can refuse to certify the election" theory, dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment clearly has an insurrection clause.

Show us where in the constitution it gives the VP the right to refuse to certify the election and and by doing so invalidate the results.

You do understand that I am not in agreement with the above theory. I am simply pointing out that argle bargle legal theories that attempt end-runs around democracy are all of a piece, no matter which side advances them.

Nevertheless, the theory that the VP can refuse to count certain states' electoral votes finds it source in a novel reading of this phrase from the 12th Amendment: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed".

This wiki on the Eastman Memo is helpful in breaking down the tortured logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

John Eastman's nonsense is hardly in the same category as plain language Constitutional restrictions on who is eligible to be president. Which include:

Be a natural born US citizen
Be at least 35 years old
Been a resident of the US for at least 14 years
Has not participated in an insurrection against the US.

Are the natural-born citizen and 35 year age requirements "end-runs around democracy?

[temporal1]

“Alleged,” accused of, labeled, etc., are not equal to “found guilty of.”

The AP, NYT, etc., are not courts of law.
MSM is guilty of hideous abuse of power, and sometimes found guilty of it. Example, Nick Sandmann.