Donald Trump - GUILTY!

I think you are greatly underestimating the level of antipathy towards Trump. A Republican Attorney General soft-pedaled the Mueller report, and the head of the DoJ determined a President couldn't be charged while in office - but neither of those things will prevail if Biden is re-elected. People have learned the lesson of letting Nixon off the hook.
An office in the DoC, the OLC, Office of Legal Counsel, floated an internal memo in house in 1973 which said that a president cannot be charged on the state or federal level. This is what Mueller et al have referred to innumerable times.

Bill Barr royally fecked the country over a few times, but he shouldn’t be given any clout as the one who arbitrarily came up with that caveat.
 
Yes, the states. That’s who the Constitution vests with that power.

This wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Candidates have been on some ballots and not on others many times… probably most famously in the election of 1860 with Abraham Lincoln absent on ballots across the south.

Today most ballot removals are done by the party itself. If a state assembly or election official did so, it would likely end up being challenged in court. A party's candidate being considered ineligible will most definitely be challenged.

In 1860 ballots were not produced or distributed by the state, but by the candidates campaign. On that ballot you would have names of citizens in the state willing to vote for the candidate in the electoral college. In short, you had to literally vote for the citizen who would vote for your favoured presidential candidate. There were no citizens in 10 southern states who were willing to publicly declare they would vote for Lincoln, and there was even a refusal to print campaign ballots by local printers.

To vote Lincoln you would have to know which individual would vote for him in the Electoral College and hope a lot of other people voted for that individual too.

I edited my response after. You’ll hopefully accept the explanation that my lifelong unmedicated ADHD sometimes leads me to post before my thoughts are really fully down on paper, so to speak.

No worries,.
 
You seem to be ignoring the whole “if he won the election” part of what’s being said.
Winning the election would only delay the serving of the sentence, assuming he is found guilty as charged. There's nothing that would allow him to remain out of prison after his 4 year term ended.

There are countless 'what if' scenarios if you want to play that game, such as, Georgia amends its constitution and gives the governor power to pardon people, or Biden wins and pardons him, or Biden dies and some other democrat wins and pardons him, and so on, but the truth of the matter is there has never been a figure in American politics as vehemently hated as Trump. Even Nixon was a pussycat compared to Trump.

An office in the DoC, the OLC, Office of Legal Counsel, floated an internal memo in house in 1973 which said that a president cannot be charged on the state or federal level. This is what Mueller et al have referred to innumerable times.

Bill Barr royally fecked the country over a few times, but he shouldn’t be given any clout as the one who arbitrarily came up with that caveat.
That is saying while President, they can't be charged. It doesn't say a former President cannot be charged. Trump obviously is trying to kick the can down the road until he dies. The goal then is for all of the prosecutors to get decisions before the election. No one really knows what would happen if, say, there was an impaneled jury hearing evidence and Trump wins the election. It would be a first, and this particular SCOTUS is capable of anything, so they might rule there is some magical get out of jail forever clause hidden in the constitution.
 
I guess he can get disbarred, but maybe is better than go 10 years to prison and not have any job afterwards anyway?
A jailed lawyer on charges like these would be disbarred anyway
 
An office in the DoC, the OLC, Office of Legal Counsel, floated an internal memo in house in 1973 which said that a president cannot be charged on the state or federal level. This is what Mueller et al have referred to innumerable times.

Bill Barr royally fecked the country over a few times, but he shouldn’t be given any clout as the one who arbitrarily came up with that caveat.
Federal level yes, but DOJ have no powers in State cases, are you sure that charging under State law is correct?
 
Federal level yes, but DOJ have no powers in State cases, are you sure that charging under State law is correct?
Basically the state could charge whenever they want, but it wouldn’t matter. It would simply be ignored for the duration of the presidency.

Apologies if I wasn’t clear.
 
Basically the state could charge whenever they want, but it wouldn’t matter. It would simply be ignored for the duration of the presidency.

Apologies if I wasn’t clear.
Just means that you'll be safe in GA, I mean if he failed to show up they'd issue an arrest warrant so he'd never be visiting
 
When it comes to Meadows never forget...

John Boehner - “He’s an idiot. I can’t tell you what makes him tick.” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/john-boehner-on-republican-party

Unnamed GOP aide on the Freedom Caucus as a whole - “They’re not legislators, they’re just assholes,” a senior GOP aide told CQ's Roll Call. “These guys have such a minority mindset that the prospect of getting something done just scares them away, or pisses them off.” https://washingtonspectator.org/jim-jordan-house-asshole-caucus/
 
It’s very early to be celebrating “real accountability” if we’re honest.

Not early, is very very late, these people will never be condemned enough to account for all the damage they caused
 
‘Straight fire’ is about as idiotically cringey a phrase as ‘my guy’ or ‘my dude.’
 
Someone would still have to take the step to remove him from the ballot or order his exclusion. Given the political climate it won't be congress, it won't be the executive branch, and it won't be the Republican party itself. Which leaves actors on the state level. Which comes with a whole bunch of problems of its own. If then, someone does actually give the order to remove him from the ballot the courts will become involved. They will pass an immediate injunction to halt the order for the removal until the case has been deliberated. The likelihood of this case being deliberated by the time of the election is slim at best. If they do get to deliberating it "early" we then enter a legal minefield as to how involved Trump was in the "insurrection" - which the courts will likely argue are part of an ongoing criminal case - so we have to await the results of that case. If that case, by some miracle, is done by the election, the issue will again find itself in the courts, and by this time the election has surely passed us by.

If against all reasonable odds the court proceedings of all these processes can somehow be tied up nicely by the election, the case will again be taken up by the courts and eventually make its way to the SC. That process will not make its way to the SC in time of the election, so it won't matter anyway , but let's pretend it did. In 1869 Salmon P.Chase, the sitting SC chief justice, issued a circuit opinion (not a SC opinion mind you) that set the precedent that section 3 of the 14th is not self enforcing, but would need congressional direction through law to be implemented. Given the courts composition, the political climate and what would be a historic decision of preventing a former president from running, the SC would likely lean on that, passing the buck to congress. Which then would do nothing.

However, even in the most optimistic scenario, a final decision in such a case - one that would likely just put the responsibility to Congress anyway - would be done long after the election is over. The only way to prevent the man from being president again is for people to vote for his opponent and to stop voting for him.
The Secretary of State in each State I think has the power to remove someone from the ballot.
 
Yes but again, it's not actually that simple. Maybe it should be, but this is the American legal system we're talking about.

Or rather, it might be that simple, but some scholars argue that it isn't.
Think it's the latter, but no doubt the shystery lawyers out there like Turley, Dershewitz, Eastman et al will very much argue that it isn't.