For next weeks debate, his super pac has advised him to take a hammer to Vivek Ramaswamy but defend trump if trump is attacked by chris christie. Here was some reaction after Fulton County d. A. Fani willis indicted trump and 18 codefendants for state rico violations. South carolina senator tim scott said this. We see the legal system being weaponized against political opponents. That is unamerican and unacceptable. Vivek ramaswamy said that should he become president , he would pardon trump. The reality is this, these are politicized persecutions through prosecution. Trumps former Vice President mike pence, who has criticized trump for putting himself above the constitution, says he prefers that trumps fate be decided, quote, by voters, not criminal courts. Ron desantis said i think its an example of the criminalization of politics. I dont think this is good for the country. Even chris christie, who has been consistently critical of trumps underlying conduct told cnn, he thought that jack smiths 2020 election case sufficiently covers trumps alleged georgia charges. I didnt think it was a necessary thing to do once you saw that jack smith was charging him federally for the very same conduct. We would have these discussions amongst federal and State Prosecutors when i was u. S. Attorney and we would work it out so we didnt do these things. Im a little bit concerned this had to do with ego more than anything else. Asa hutchinson also questioned the overreach by the georgia d. A. Only will hurd described the finding that trump was doing anything it took to cling to power. The rest fingers to the wind, wont step out against trump until the base tells them the coast is clear. Yet, a new a. P. Poll says 69 of americans overall say they dont want trump to run again. By the way, take a look at that other number, because thats exceeded by the 75 who say they dont want biden to run again. Among republicans, according to the same poll, nearly twothirds or 63 now say they want the former president to run again. Thats actually up from the 55 who said the same thing in april. And 70 of republicans now say theyve got a favorable opinion of a man whos four times indicted up from 60 just two months ago. Donald trump has seen a 10 increase in favorability of republicans after being criminally charged for allegedly taking Nuclear Secrets to his private residence, using false claims of voter fraud to pressure officials to overturn results and falsifying Business Records to hide a hushmoney payment to a porn star with whom he had an extramarital affair. I think many republicans who are part of Donald Trumps rise in favorability were prepared to discard the former president on their terms, but not when told they must. They unify and instead turn their fwaggression on the outsider, much like what happens when Police Respond to a Domestic Dispute, which is one of the most perilous calls to which Law Enforcement ever respond. Heres the data. 503 officers nationwide were killed between 2011 and 2020, 43 of them while responding to domestic disturbance or violence calls. Last fall, 27yearold cop killed in colorado trying to break up a large family disturbance. A cnn piece on this phenomena quoted Professor John shane, quote, peoples emotions are already elevated due to whatever dispute theyre involved in, and now you bring the coercive power of the state. People are angry to see you knowing theres potential to be arrested and incarcerated. This week i tracked down dr. Shane. He has a phd in Criminal Justice from rutgers university. Hes written a number of books. I sent him an email with my offthecuff theory and i asked him if he saw parallels to how a couple in a domestic disturbance unites against a Police Officer comparable to trump with each indictment. I said the fighting couple are like republicans, perhaps ready to leave one another or leave trump until such time as an outsider, in this case prosecutors, police, tell them they must separate. Then they rebel against their interloper and they stick together, much like republicans stand with trump. Had the cop not arrived, they might have left one another, they might have had a divorce. Had trump not been indicted, they might have moved to another candidate. Professor shane wrote me back with some scientific underpinning of my observation. Quote, i can see the parallels. What you describe fits the ingroup outgroup theory of human relations. Although the ingroup members may disagree with one another, they will unite against a common enemy, the outgroup. Research shows outgroup threat has been identified as an important driver of ingroup cohesion among humans. The competition for power between groups will foster group cohesion. So in our example, politics, the ingroup will more easily justify or rationalize their wrong, meaning trumps indictments, as long as it advanced their agenda, i. E. , power and prestige because theyre biassed in favor of trump, who holds sway over their constituent base. Although the victim would like nothing more than to part ways with trump, trump still comes first. Sure, weve had our differences, but blood is thicker than water. Im always here for you no matter what. Makes sense, right, at least to me as an explanation as to why, having been indicted four times, donald trump has seen his position strengthened among republicans. There is, however, a flip side. The reaction among democrats, the exact opposite, maybe like the neighbors who want the homes on their block to be in order, democrats are looking on in horror, ready to take action of their own if the cops cant quell the violence. That same poll found that while 74 of republicans said they would support trump in november of 2024, overall 53 of americans said they would definitely not support him if hes the nominee and another 11 said they probably would not do so. After all, bias tends to bind. Now, many have cited the importance of fani williss indictments as being from a state, not federal prosecutor, because they would not be subject to a pardon should trump or another republican president try to give one. This begs an interesting question. Is it the prosecutors role to worry about the issue of pardons when deciding to bring charges . The problem with pardon proofing, should a prosecutor, someone in your old role, ever worry this defendant may get pardoned and then act accordingly . Michael, fani williss d. A. Prompted me to think in depth about that question. My answer is, no, i dont think its proper or appropriate for prosecutors to worry about trying to counteract or prevent pardons. I base that on two principles. The first one is the constitution. The u. S. Constitution and most State Constitutions vest the pardon power in the Chief Executive, the president of the United States, and in most states in the governor. If youre a prosecutor, as i once was, you are working as part of the executive branch. Whose job is it then to hand out pardons . Isnt it sort of an arrogant position by prosecutors to say, im going to try to frustrate the will of the Chief Executive who heads the very branch in which i work . I start off with that institutional argument. This is reminiscent for me sitting here listening to you and reflecting on a commentary i delivered a week ago where i was similarly analyzing whether its proper for prosecutors to game out the timing of a trial according to the election calendar, i took the view that thats improper. Do you see parallels between the two . I do, because in the prosecutorial ideal, youre not thinking about politics at all. We strive to be separate from politics. Look at any state a. G. They will say, we have nothing to do with politics, we dont consider politics. Part of the problem with the scheduling of this trial, its obvious doj and all the prosecutors are thinking about the election and theyre trying to get it in before the election. Theyre not saying it, but its clear theyre very much focused on the election. This brings me to my second point about why its problematic. How are we deciding which pardons were going to try to essentially undo . If youre a federal prosecutor, you fear a president might pardon your case. Which case do you send over to the state . Wh how are we making these decisions, and is it possible to separate those from politics . I dont think it is. I totally get your point. It seems like its a selective prosecution. By the way, this is not some esoteric conversation. If i think of bannon and manafort, how do they fit in . Those are two recent examples. Both were charged or convicted federally. Donald trump pardoned both of them on his way out of office. What happened in both instances was State Prosecutors picked up the charge. Paul manafort went really poorly because State Prosecutors in new york charged him after he had been pardoned and the state courts said you cant do that. Steve bannon was charged federally, then pardoned by trump and then recharged by the state. That prosecution remains ongoing. This makes me point. Why should Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon Be Reprosecuted but not any of the hundreds of other people pardoned by donald trump . Are they being picked out simply because theyre seen as politically odious by certain prosecutors . I think thats the only answer and i think thats unacceptable. The same rules ought to apply to trump as any other defendant. People can send all their negative reaction to you on this one and not to me. Please do. Bring it on. Im going to read something from social media. What do we have that loosely applies to what we are discussing . You asserted the trump leads in the polls because of his indictments. Nonsense. You are confusing coincidence with causality. Thank you for being here. Can you put that back on the screen . I dont know if you have the ability to do this. So this person says that i asserted trump leads in the polls because of his indictments. That is absolutely what im saying. Do you have the ability now to put up the full screen that shows the rise in trumps favorability in the last two months . Regardless of whether you can find that okay. You dont have it. Its gone from 60 to 70 . When i asked david and anyone else watching this question, how else do you explain that trumps Approval Rate was 60 two months ago and now is 70 . I ask you, what else has happened in the last two months pertaining to trump . Has there been any Policy Speech . Has there been any new information about his record . Has he put forth any plan that youve not heard of before . Has he distinguished himself in any way . Nothing has happened. You can make a case about things that have gone well or not well for biden, but in trump world the only thing thats happened in the last two months is hes gotten indicted four times and his numbers have spiked. So it totally fits with the theory ive advanced that it is akin to an outsider coming to a Domestic Dispute and the family thats fighting, they train their guns on the outsider. Ahead, even before any of these trials commence, might donald trump already be ineligible to run for president . Thats the argument two conservative Law Professors advance. They say his conduct already has violated the 14th Amendment Banning candidates who encourage in insurrection or rebellion. How about this one . A catholic massachusetts couple alleges that their Foster Parent application was denied due to their religious views including on lgbtq issues. They contend this violates their First Amendment rights. Might this prove to be yet another repercussion of the recent Supreme Court decisions. Should perspective adoptive parents be required to pledge a willingness to be affirming of a child who may later identify as lgbtqia . And theres this. Toga, toga, toga, the rallying cry of that 1978 frat comedy animal house, i admit to having seen it at least 15 times in the 45 years since it was released, but i never considered the societalhange it unleashed. Im going to discuss with a film critic. Mr. Dorfman. Hello. 0. 2. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. And this future chchamp. And if we proffer it, we know youull proffer it to. Hes cocky for a nineteen year old. Hit it it t takes two to make a thing go right it takes two to make it outta sight o, two, get loose now it takes two to make a. Stay two nights anget a 50 best western giftard. Book now at bestwestern. Com. I was born on the south side of chicago. It has been a long road, but now im working for schwab. I love to help people understand the world through their lens and invest accordingly. You can call us Christmas Eve at four oclock in the morning. Were gonna always make sure that you have all of the financial tools and support to secure your financial future. That means a lot for my community and for every community. Our ears connect us to the moments that matter. Give them the nutrients they need with lipo. Its formulated with ingredients clinically shown to protect your ears from dizziness, ear ringing, and even hearing loss. Never miss a moment with lipo flavonoid. Rsv can be a dangerous virus. [sneeze]. For those 60 and older. Its not just a cold. And if youre 60 or older. You may be at increased risk of hospitalization. [coughing]. From this highly. Contagious virus. Not all dangers come with warning labels. Talk to your pharmacist or doctor. About getting vaccinated against rsv today. My Heart Failure diagnosis changed my priorities. I want time for the people i love. My heart doesnt pump enough blood. So my doctor gave me farxiga. Farxiga it helps my heart do its job better. Farxiga helps keep me living life. And out of the hospital for Heart Failure. Farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, Urinary Tract or genital Yeast Infections in women and men and low blood sugar. Ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. A rare lifethreatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. Stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. More time with her . Sounds good to me. Ask your doctor for farxiga for Heart Failure. If you cant afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. Farxiga he snores like an angry rhino. Youve never heard an angry rhino. Baby i hear one every night. Every night. Okay. Ill work on that. Save 50 on the sleep Number Limited Edition smart bed. Plus, free Home Delivery when you add a base. Shop now only at sleep number. Is donald trump right now ineligible to run for president , meaning, before any of these four trials play themselves out, due to the 14th amendment which bans candidates who engaged in insurrection or rebellion . Thats the provocative thesis in a University Of Pennsylvania Law Review article. The author is Professor William baud of and Michael Stokes paulson are active members of the conservative legal group the federalist society. They are proponents of originalism which aims to determine what the original meaning was intended by the constitutions framers. The 14th amendment was ratified in the civil war. It says no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector of president and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who, having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But congress may, by a vote of twothirds of each house, remove such disability. The authors argue this section disqualifies donald trump and potentially many others because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 president ial election. Joining me is ned foley, constitutional law professor at ohio state university. Hes also a columnist for the Washington Post, where he recently wrote this piece. Forget the trump trials, he might already be ineligible for 2024. Nice to have you back. There has been no such finding, no due process for donald trump. So according to you, what now needs to happen . Good to be with you. I think timing is crucial here. If donald trump is allowed to be on the ballot and then wins, i think he needs to be permitted to take office. Thats only fair to the voters. On the other hand, if hes already disqualified constitutionally from being president even if he wins, then he shouldnt be on the ballot, also to be fair to the voters, because voters need to be able to choose between eligible candidates. There needs to be a trial. Doesnt have to be a criminal trial, could be a civil trial to adjudicate the relevant factual issues of does this constitutional provision apply to trumps conduct. How practical is it . Now were talking about trial number five. This issue could be litigated and reach the Supreme Court of the United States before the Republican Convention next july in wisconsin. Its going to happen anyway. The question is how orderly it happens. Some private groups have already said theyre going to try to lit g litigate this issue. I think it would be much more orderly if a Legislature Set