this raid could preclude Trump from running for office ever again, by law.

[Grasswire2]

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=qmIUvINnP-BJEZvHW32pNQ|

[GregariousGroundhog]

1. The qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Any law that attempts to add additional requirements on top of that is unlikely to survive court challenges.

[Effete Snob]

5. Correct

[spooky3]

6. Marc Elias is a lawyer with a very good record of winning cases.

I don’t think he would have issued this tweet if the code section he cited was on shaky ground.

[tritsofme]

10. Many of these cases are more about messaging than winning with him.

Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that. He admitted as much in his next tweet.

[spooky3]

12. But that's really beside my point, which is that Elias

Is a very good lawyer. If the interpretations of the Constitution offered here were well-founded, I think Elias would know about them and likely share those views.

[tritsofme]

14. He recognizes it is a weak argument in his next tweet.

Link to tweet

It’s good politics, but not something that will win in court.

[spooky3]

17. I don't interpret it that way. Nt

[tritsofme]

18. I'm not sure there is any other way to interpret that...but ok.

[spooky3]

19. Well, there is. If Elias honestly thought the Code section would not survive

A legal challenge, or should not survive it, I don’t think he would have mentioned the Code in the first place. That he anticipates that someone like Trump would attempt a legal challenge during a campaign, and that would have “blockbuster” political implications, is a separate issue. That does not mean he thinks the legal standing is “weak.”

[tritsofme]

20. There isn't a straight faced argument to be made that presidential eligibility could be limited in

such a way.

That’s why Elias immediately mentions that presidential qualifications are set by the Constitution, but that forcing such damaging litigation before an election would be a blockbuster. He’s right.

[spooky3]

22. I disagree but it's clear you're set on your view. Have a

nice evening.

[grantcart]

28. The code section is not on shaky grounds, it only applies to offices

Not defined in the Constitution which the President and Vice President are. His follow up tweet basically concedes the point but making Trump litigate to get on the ballot is a win. Your choice of interpretation is based on the outcome you want. Whenever there's a conflict between US code or law and the Constitution the clearly stated Constitutional language will prevail.

[ok_cpu]

8. I'm not a lawyer, but

is saying no one shall be eligible to be President except for X the same as saying X is the only qualifying or barring factor?

[GregariousGroundhog]

16. It depends on your school of thought

The Supreme Court has ruled that States cannot require qualifications for who they elect as their representatives to the House in addition to those qualifications spelled out in the Constitution. In particular, they ruled that states cannot impose term limits on their own representatives.

The case was U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton and you can find the opinion here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/

All that said, the current Supreme Court may disagree with the case. Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in the majority while Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia dissented.

[ok_cpu]

21. That helps. Thank you. n/t

[Retrograde]

9. Especially in a court that's bought and paid for

Donnie probably thinks he has 5 sure votes in his favor with the Supremes

[soldierant]

37. The Fourteenth Amendment adds some additional qualifications

amd the Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, and supersedes the unamended Constitution. (well, so do all amendlents/ That's what they are for.

Yes, I realize the Fourteenth is not what Elias cited. But it absolutely is possible to add qualifications That's what Amendments are for.

[Grasswire2]

38. Laurence Tribe disagrees with you.

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=qmIUvINnP-BJEZvHW32pNQ|

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Let it be so...amazing world we live in, if trump doesnt run, the most dangerous man

in the free world does...DeStupid...and he isnt stupid.

[FirstLight]

3. hallelujah!

i cant WAIT for this to be the nail in his fucking coffin...and his kids will no doubt go down as well. I might just start watching the news again

[GusBob]

4. And for those that say the documents were moved

Or hidden by someone else, those folks would on the hook for jail too

[tritsofme]

7. Presidential eligibility cannot be limited (or expanded) by statute.

[Jarqui]

11. Trump is just a piata to take the media bashing for Gov DeGenocidis ...

I do not think there's any chance for Trump even though he'll get a brief martyrdom bump ...

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. Well, I hope THAT is the least of his problems.

[ecstatic]

15. Awesome. I'll take it

No more ridiculous chatter about him running again. Time for someone to update all the talking heads.

[ancianita]

23. It's evidence. So that's that for THAT.

[BigmanPigman]

24. Bill Pascrell (NJ) said the same thing today....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217015732

[milestogo]

25. Its not really a raid...

Link to tweet

[TomSlick]

26. My knowledge of the law of classified documents is based only on my Army experience,

which did not involve Presidents. That being said, I think a President can unilaterally de-classify anything.

If that is correct, the next question is how a President goes about the declassification. Is putting the country's secret documents in a box and taking them home with you enough to declassify or is there paperwork involved? (My guess is there is paperwork involved.)

Any classified document experts out there know the answer?

[cstanleytech]

27. He has to be convicted of it though.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. This may be the easiest case to bring

[iemanja]

31. He would have to be convicted

A search itself isn’t adequate.

[ancianita]

32. He'd better get ready.

[James48]

33. I give it to Garland.

Nice job to DoJ- in picking the particular USC Section
that covered what was most needed in order to serve justice.

Great work.

[Escurumbele]

34. Anything less than jail for that crook is not good enough, he must be made accountable

if we want to stop further totalitarian ideas, and having another January 6.

Fine that he won't be running again, but I have my doubts that if he won the nomination that he would win, I think he would loose, but that is not the case, there are plenty of evil bastards in the GOP who are intelligent and could win, but trump going to jail would stop other SOBs from trying to screw the country.

Not sure if the "presidential pardon" has caveats that would impede a repub president from pardoning the SOB, if it doesn't then it must be changed to assure that SOB cannot get a pardon.

[summer_in_TX]

35. Actually, Keith Olbermann didn't realize that positions

defined in the Constitution (like the President and Vice-President) are not affected by that later provision in the Presidential Records Act. So Trump is unlikely to be prevented from running because of the theft or destruction of presidential records.

[UTUSN]

36. K&R

[Grasswire2]

39. Laurence Tribe.

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=qmIUvINnP-BJEZvHW32pNQ|

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Seems to me (a) applies to people who shouldn't have the document

and (b) applies to people "having the custody", ie it's their job to keep it safe. Both (a) and (b) have a fine and/or up to 3 years' imprisonment, but only (b) has the "disqualified from holding any office". But in this case, Trump had left office, so I'd think he comes under part (a).