As in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump is monopolizing media and political attention for his third election campaign. charged four times over the past six months for his post-election 2020 behavior, retention of classified documents and a case of accounting fraud following the purchase of the silence of a former porn star – something unprecedented for a former American president – his campaign has come down to a legal battle for the time being and will probably continue in this way in the next few months, until the election scheduled for November 2024, if he is nominated as the Republican Party candidate.
Of these four trials to come, two hold particular attention if we focus on the democratic aspect, since they are directly linked to his attempt to overturn the result of the last presidential election: the one in Washington DC and the one in georgia.
Subscribe to Slate.fr’s daily newsletter for free and never miss an article again!
I subscribe
So far, the discussions and debates have revolved around the potential prison sentences that could be imposed in the event of a guilty verdict or the electoral consequences of these procedures. But little by little, another aspect is emerging: can the election take place under good conditions if the Americans do not have the necessary elements to arbitrate? Two crucial questions remain unanswered today and no one knows if the answers will be provided over the next fourteen months.
Is Donald Trump guilty of conspiracy against the United States?
The legal procedure in Georgia being extremely complex and sprawling, it seems difficult to envisage a verdict falling before the 2024 presidential election.
But in that of Washington, things are a little simpler: Donald Trump is the only accused of a “conspiracy against the United States”, the trial is due to open on March 4, 2024, Judge Chutkan does not wish to see the proceedings drag on, there is ample evidence of wrongdoing and the charge of sedition/rebellion was dropped from the indictment so as not to complicate the trial. This affair therefore appears, in the short or medium term, to be the most dangerous for the former president.
If it is not excluded that a first verdict will be rendered between March and November 2024, nothing allows today to be assured of it. The defense logically plays its role trying to drag out the process, arguing in particular that the indictment is made up of more than ten million pages and that it is not possible to study it as a whole within the time limit. An argument that did not convince the federal judge when determining the start date of the trial, but which will certainly come back in the coming months.
This uncertainty poses a major problem. Knowing whether Donald Trump is innocent or guilty of conspiracy against the United States (the election interference that culminated in the attack on the Capitol) before November 2024 is essential for the proper functioning of American democracy.
Voters must be able to make their choice knowing all the elements. A point raised by William Barr, Minister of Justice of the Trump administration, during an interview on Fox News: “If a personality commits a crime and seeks office, that does not give him immunity. If there is enough time to solve the problem before the election, it should be done.
Is Donald Trump eligible?
The question of Donald Trump’s eligibility is perhaps even more important than his guilt or not in the upcoming trial in Washington DC because it touches on the law and respect for the Constitution. Two well-known professors of conservative constitutional law – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – indeed argue that the former president is already ineligible because of his attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election and his influence on the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
They rely on section 3 of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution, which deals with ineligibility if “a political leader has participated in or supported an insurrection or rebellion, when he had taken an oath to defend the Constitution”. According to them, the elements known publicly as to the actions of Donald Trump are numerous enough to consider that he is ineligible and nothing indicates in the Constitution the need for a decision of justice or Congress for this.
For this interpretation to take shape, it would be necessary, for example, for a Secretary of State (who generally oversees the organization of elections locally) to purely and simply refuse the candidacy of Donald Trump in his State, by invoking this section 3.
Ultimately, justice would still have to decide this case, since the latter would certainly challenge this decision before the courts. The case would probably even go all the way to the Supreme Court. For now, although some officials are wondering, this option seems unlikely, as the uncertainty is great. But this interpretation – developed in more detail on Slate.fr on August 18 – is gaining momentum, convincing several lawyers and logically raises questions about the legality of the billionaire’s candidacy.
For the good of institutions and democracy, some hope that answers will be given sufficiently in advance of the electoral high mass.
The point raised by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen and the reluctance of local officials to cross the Rubicon prompt several individuals or associations to want to take the lead and to directly appeal to justice to challenge the presence of Donald Trump’s name on the ballots. In Florida, a lawyer who had launched into this breach was however very quickly struck down by a federal court for not having sufficiently justified “his interest in acting”. Unless surprised, the same thing should be retorted to future complainants.
The validity of this interpretation may therefore not be decided before the election. If this were the case, voters would therefore potentially be led to vote for a possibly ineligible candidate – a major problem. And if he were to be elected, Donald Trump would be parasitized by this questioning throughout his mandate. A situation that would only make losers.
For the good of democracy
It cannot be ruled out that American democracy will emerge weakened if the answers to the two crucial questions presented in this article are not given before the election. And everyone could feel aggrieved at the finish, whatever the result of the latter.
In the event of defeat (or even victory), Donald Trump and his supporters would not fail to recall –what they already do– that all of this was used to cause his downfall. In case of victory, the trial would probably never come to an end and the Americans would not have the end of the story. Worse still, part of the citizens could have doubts about the legality of his election and his legitimacy to occupy the Oval office.
The 2020 presidential election having already suffered from disputes which quickly proved to be unfounded, everything must be done so that the doubt machine is not relaunched four years later, for admittedly very different reasons, if Donald Trump wins the ballot. . For the good of the institutions and of democracy, some therefore hope that the answers to these questions will be given sufficiently in advance of the electoral high mass.
But since judicial time does not always correspond to political time, there is a good chance that American citizens will have to make a choice of the utmost importance for the future of their country in November 2024, without having all the cards in hand. hand.
2023-09-07 05:40:00
#Trump #crucial #unanswered #questions
