Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers in a closed-door interview Wednesday that his team of investigators ādeveloped proof beyond a reasonable doubtā that President Donald Trumphad criminally conspired to over the results of the 2020 electionā¦
ā¦Several Democrats who emerged from Smithās interview said they could understand why Republicans did not want an open hearing based on the damaging testimony about Trump they said Smith offered.
The committeeās top Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, said the Republican majority āmade an excellent decisionā in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly ābecause had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the presidentās men involved in the insurrectionary activitiesā of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021ā¦
I agree. He should have been tried, and convicted, and put in prison. It was a miscarriage of justice that he was not. But even if all that had happened, it shouldnāt make someone ineligible for office, otherwise it could be abused by a corrupt government. Ideally it would make someone unqualified in the eyes of the electorate, butā¦ well I wouldnāt count on it these days, unfortunately.
The US constitution disagrees with you. Specifically, the insurrection clause.
This isnāt even a hypothetical. There are countries, such as Russia, that actually do this.
When your country is corrupt enough so you can just put a fake charge on a person and make it stick, youāre done already, rules donāt matter. This rule only relevant in cases when judiciary system actually works and works independently of current leader.
This rule will help those who follow the rules, and donāt stop those who donāt, so overall itās a good rule.