Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers in a closed-door interview Wednesday that his team of investigators “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Donald Trumphad criminally conspired to over the results of the 2020 election…
…Several Democrats who emerged from Smith’s 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 committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, said the Republican majority “made an excellent decision” in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly “because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities” of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021…
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 shouldn’t 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, but… well I wouldn’t count on it these days, unfortunately.
When your country is corrupt enough so you can just put a fake charge on a person and make it stick, you’re done already, rules don’t 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 don’t stop those who don’t, so overall it’s a good rule.
The US constitution disagrees with you. Specifically, the insurrection clause.
This isn’t even a hypothetical. There are countries, such as Russia, that actually do this.