Life In Prison Is Way Too Lenient For Trump-- The U.S. Needs To Do The Right Thing This Time

So That There's No Next Time

"The Frontrunner and the Fall Guy" by Nancy Ohanian

No matter how fabulous Republicans think he is, if Trump were born in Hohenau or Obligado in Paraguay or if he were born in 1996 instead of 1946, or if he has been living in Trump Towers Moscow as his official residence until 10 years ago, he would not be able to run for president. The constitution decrees a candidate for president must be a natural born citizen, that they must be at least 35 years old and that they have been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years. That’s it. However, there were more than a few Founders— mostly very wealthy men— in 1787 who wanted to stipulate that the president be a man of wealth, education and have a military background. These ideas were debated but ultimately failed. In 1776, John Adams wrote to his friend, Judge James Sullivan, a liberal who was sympathetic to those who thought women and non-elite men should have a voice in the new government. With this Adams explains his reactionary view about why women and men without property should be excluded:

May 26, 1776

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?...

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.

Sorry for the tangent. I was just thinking again about that piece by conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen that makes it clear that Trump is not qualified to run for president, not because of the original stipulations, but because a post-Civil War amendment that prohibited former public officials from holding office again if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to those who did, the 14th Amendment’s 3rd section. David French took it up in yesterday’s NY Times, Appeasing Donald Trump Won’t Work.

French wrote that “Barring a two-thirds congressional amnesty vote, Trump’s ineligibility, Baude and Paulsen argue, is as absolute as if he were too young to be president or were not a natural-born citizen of the United States. It’s a fascinating and compelling argument that only grows more compelling with each painstakingly researched page. But as I was reading it, a single, depressing thought came to my mind. Baude and Paulsen’s argument may well represent the single most rigorous and definitive explanation of Section 3 ever put to paper, yet it’s difficult to imagine, at this late date, the Supreme Court ultimately either striking Trump from the ballot or permitting state officials to do so.”

French recalls how mind-boggling it was that most Senate Republicans blocked removing Trump after he was impeached for the J-6 insurrection and attempted coup. “Rather than remove Trump from American politics,“ wrote French, “Republicans punted their responsibilities to the American legal system. As Mitch McConnell said when he voted to acquit Trump, ‘We have a criminal justice system in this country.’ Yet not even a successful prosecution and felony conviction— on any of the charges against him, in any of the multiple venues— can disqualify Trump from serving as president. Because of GOP cowardice [or was it a kind of craven Machiavellian instinct], our nation is genuinely facing the possibility of a president’s taking the oath of office while also appealing one or more substantial prison sentences… Why are Republicans in Congress punting to voters and the legal system? For many of them, the answer lies in raw fear. First, there is the simple political fear of losing a House or Senate seat. In polarized, gerrymandered America, all too many Republican politicians face political risk only from their right, and that ‘right’ appears to be overwhelmingly populated by Trumpists.”

Trump and his allies are already advertising their plans for revenge. But if past practice is any guide, Trump and his allies will abuse our nation whether we hold him accountable or not. The abuse is the constant reality of Trump and the movement he leads. Accountability is the variable— dependent on the courage and will of key American leaders— and only accountability has any real hope of stopping the abuse.

…[W]e can and should learn lessons from history. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, two of our greatest presidents, both faced insurrectionary movements, and their example should teach us today. When Washington faced an open revolt during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, he didn’t appease the rebels, instead mobilizing overwhelming force to meet the moment and end the threat.

In 1861, Lincoln rejected advice to abandon Fort Sumter in South Carolina in the hope of avoiding direct confrontation with the nascent Confederate Army. Instead, he ordered the Navy to resupply the fort. The Confederates bombarded Sumter and launched the deadliest war in American history, but there was no point at which Lincoln was going to permit rebels to blackmail the United States into extinction.

If you think the comparisons to the Whiskey Rebellion or the Civil War are overwrought, just consider the consequences had Trump’s plan succeeded. I have previously described Jan. 6 as “America’s near-death day” for good reason. If Mike Pence had declared Trump the victor— or even if the certification of the election had been delayed— one shudders to consider what would have happened next. We would have faced the possibility of two presidents’ being sworn in at once, with the Supreme Court (and ultimately federal law enforcement, or perhaps even the Army) being tasked with deciding which one was truly legitimate.

Thankfully, the American legal system has worked well enough to knock the MAGA movement on its heels. Hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters face criminal justice. The movement’s corrupt lawyers face their own days in court. Trump is indicted in four jurisdictions. Yet all of that work can be undone— and every triumph will turn to defeat— if a disqualified president reclaims power in large part through the fear of his foes.

But the story of Washington and Lincoln doesn’t stop with their decisive victories. While 10 members of the Whiskey Rebellion were tried for treason, only two were convicted, and Washington ultimately pardoned them both. On the eve of final victory, Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address contained words of grace that echo through history, “With malice toward none, with charity for all.”

French concludes by talking about mercy. Bullshit! Trump should be executed, on TV. Washington was still building a nation when he pardoned the Whiskey Rebellion traitors who had been sentenced to death. He believed that the rebellion had the potential to escalate into a larger conflict that could threaten the stability of the young nation. He wanted to demonstrate that the federal government was willing to show clemency and promote reconciliation to prevent further division among Americans. He was concerned that a harsh response to the rebellion could lead to more violence and bloodshed. By pardoning the convicted rebels, he hoped to defuse tensions and avoid further confrontations between government forces and rebellious citizens, believing that pardoning the 2 convicted traitors would encourage them and others to return to their allegiance to the federal government and contribute to the nation's success. He saw the act of clemency as an opportunity to bring the rebels back into the fold of the young United States.

Some historians have argued that the Whiskey Rebellion's underlying issues— economic grievances and concerns about federal power— persisted in certain regions. While the pardon may have temporarily calmed the situation, it did not necessarily address the root causes of the rebellion. Those two root causes continued to affect some communities— especially rural ones and especially in the South— and some areas maintained anti-federal sentiments and we know where that led.

As for French’s argument about “With malice toward none, with charity for all” being words of grace that echo through history… let me guess that David French is white, not Black. The rebels getting off so lightly led to a century of Jim Crow. At minimum, I would have executed or exiled all the civilian and military leaders, confiscated all their property and given it to former slaves and prohibited gun ownership to anyone who took up arms against the U.S. And none of these rebels would have been allowed to vote again until they passed a civics test. (I feel the same way about the J-6 insurrectionists— no guns, no voting for the foot soldiers, life in prison for the leaders and plotters, execution for Señor Trumpanzee.)

Lerone Bennett Jr., an influential Black historian and author who died (age 90) in 2018, wrote extensively about Lincoln's relationship with African Americans. In his book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, Bennett argued that Lincoln's primary focus was on preserving the Union and that his stance on slavery evolved based on political expediency rather than a genuine commitment to racial equality. More recently, Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his essay, “The Case For Reparations,” criticized Lincoln's role in the aftermath of the Civil War, arguing that the federal government failed to fulfill its promises of providing land and economic opportunities to former slaves, leaving them vulnerable to continued oppression and economic exploitation during the Reconstruction era and beyond.

Yesterday Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) were guests on State of the Union. Both are not Trump fans. Cassidy, who voted to convict Trump after the second impeachment, argued that the GOP should dump him and, when asked he said Trump should drop out of the race but if he doesn’t and wins the nomination “he will lose to Joe Biden, if you look at the current polls. I'm a Republican. I think any Republican on that stage in Milwaukee will do a better job than Joe Biden. And so I want one of them to win. If former President Trump ends up getting the nomination, but cannot win a general… There's 91 charges, I think. I think the charge that seems most likely— I mean, seems almost a slam dunk, is the one related to mishandling of classified documents. So— so, I can't comment on the rest of them, because, apparently, you have to prove state of mind. You will have attorneys after me that can comment on that. But there's at least one, which is the mishandling of the federal documents, which is— seems, again, a very strong case. They have a tape recording of him speaking of it. If that is proven, then we may have a candidate for president who has been convicted of a crime. I think Joe Biden needs to be replaced, but I don't think Americans will vote for someone who's been convicted. So, I'm just very sorry about how all this is playing out.

Hutchinson, who’s a candidate for president said he would sign the pledge because he’s “confident that Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee of the party… I'm not even sure he's qualified to be the next president of the United States. And so you can't be asking us to support somebody that's not perhaps even qualified under our Constitution. And I'm referring to the 14th Amendment, that a number of legal scholars said that he is disqualified because of his actions on January 6… I think it's a serious jeopardy for Donald Trump under our Constitution and not being qualified.”