 |
| credit: AP |
Update: Defendant Chesebro asked for a speedy trial in a motion. DA Fani Willis complied with that request by suggesting October 23rd. That date was accepted by the presiding judge, but it will mean separate trials for the "boss"" who wants a delay until after the election in the hope he may win. At least two defendants (Meadows and Clark) have already filed motions for removal of their case to federal court. Neither is likely to prevail on removal."Menacing" inmate #P01135809 has been booked in Fulton County jail and released on $200,000 bond awaiting trial. Arraignment will occur shortly.
US Person, alleged hot-head and radical suggested back in February 2022 that Don 'Legit' is disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3. Now that he is out on bail in the Fulton County election interference case--his fourth criminal indictment with a total of 91 felony counts--constitutional scholars are finally coming forward to agree with that proposition. These authorities are from both sides of the ideological divide. Although the section was drafted with former Confederates in mind, it is applicable on its face to the crisis that currently confronts the nation.
It is not disputed, except by crazed Trump cultists, that what occurred on January 6th was an insurrection. See, ex rel. White v. Griffin, No. D-101-CV-2022-00473, 2022 WL 4295619 at 29 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022) Participants have been sentenced to long prison terms for violating the federal criminal statutes prohibiting insurrection. After all the investigations by Congress, the state of Georgia, and the Department of Justice it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the former president, at a minimum, aided and abetted the violent storming of the Capitol, which was the greatest danger posed to republican government since the War of 1812 when the British sacked Washington, DC. It is probable that he will be convicted of one or more felony counts related to the insurrection. Bipartisan votes of Congress have reached the same conclusion--that Dear Leader was at the center of the conspiracy to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power--something no other President has come close to doing in our history. "Overblown" said the cultist from Iowa? Hardly.
Accountability for the greatest political crime since the nation's founding must be forthcoming. Fortunately, our founding charter provides a ready answer to his unprecedented crimes. No person who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution that has engaged in insurrection, or given aid or comfort to same, is disqualified from holding public office. Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law, among others, points out that the provision is properly applied to defendant Trump, it only remains to be enforced against him.
Enforcement of Section 3 properly lies with states' Secretary of State, among other mechanisms*. These public officers also take an oath to defend the Constitution. They are responsible for determining the eligibility of persons running for public office in their state, among other election duties. Failure to enforce the constitutional disqualification of Trumpilini would be a dereliction of their own oaths of office. Appropriately, there is a role for private citizens in such a process. They need to petition their Secretary of State to strike Trump's name from their election ballots on constitutional grounds. If you are concerned that our constitutional republic may be slipping away due to the concerted corruption of those who would destroy representative democracy, write your Secretary of State today before its too late. Be a true patriot and stand for democracy!
*Quo warranto is an equitable writ in which a plaintiff can challenge a person's right to hold public office or to remove an unqualified individual from office. In DC quo warranto has been codified in the DC Code Section 16-3501. Both the Attorney General and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia may bring an action to disqualify a person from federal office post election or appointment. Interestingly, the law provides that if either of these two law enforcement officials refuse to bring an action, an "interested person" may ask the court to bring the action in the name of the United States over the objection of the Justice Department. Now, that is real democracy!
 |
| credit: Weyant, Boston Globe |