I don’t know how I missed this when it occurred six weeks ago, must’ve been running for Speaker of the House, was very very hard pressed . . . In any event, I missed the news that Trump is planning to run for president a third time! Give a listen to the CNN clip to the left. I’ll wait.
Here’s the Fun Part . . . ?
Here’s the fun part where Trump said: “That means that if I win [in 2024] and someone wants to run against me [for president, in 2028] I call my Attorney General and I say listen, indict him! ‘Well he hasn’t done anything wrong that we know of.’ ‘I don’t know, indict him on income tax evasion, you’ll figure it out,'”
Where to start? First, Trump is precluded from running for president a third time by the 22nd Amendment, a trifle in Trump’s stable-genius-head, but critically important to the rest of us non-MAGAs.
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
So, what else is (potentially) wrong with his plans to order indictments against presumably all his political campaign opponents, his 2028 opponents? Here’s a good summary of the state of play from a Trump era 2019 Fordham Law Review article summary:
Suppose the president sought to serve as prosecutor-in-chief, telling prosecutors when to initiate or dismiss criminal charges in individual cases and making other discretionary decisions that are normally reserved to trained professionals familiar with the facts, law, and traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice. To what extent may prosecutors follow the president’s direction? In recent presidential administrations, the president has respected prosecutorial independence; while making policy decisions, the president deferred to the Attorney General and subordinate federal prosecutors to conduct individual criminal cases. In a recent article, we argued that this is as it should be because the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to control federal criminal prosecutions.
“In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
If you mentally noted with a bit of fear when I used the parenthetical “(potentially)” to modify the “wrong” of Trump’s plan to order indictments left and right, well, you were right. The question is somewhat up for grabs. Although there is no federal law or directly applicable constitutional provision forbidding a president to meddle, specifically, to order “indictments against political campaign contenders,” the foundational principle of separation of powers strongly militates against Trump’s confident assertions. A president can consult, advise, or instruct the AG to pursue investigations of illegal activities he perceives to be present. The AG can comply, persuade the president otherwise, or flat out refuse. Also, a president can fire the AG for refusing to carry out his priorities, for insubordination or for no reason at all, although political consequences might be severe for a president who did so.
To be realistic – though, Heaven forfend! – should Trump be elected president in 2024, as he explicitly assumes, the question may become another “instructional moment” for his utterly vapid and intentionally uneducated self. You see, such plans to go after political opponents in the lead up to the 2028 election would immediately run afoul of the fact that he’d be ineligible to run again, per the 22nd Amendment. Seems obvious to all, eh? Well, Trump is a black swan, an event so utterly unlikely, that anything ludicrous might happen, as it has for his entire life. Don’t rely on reasonable arguments; rely on active in-the-streets resistance, should the event arise.