 Like most Americans I didn’t know much about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz until Kamala Harris picked him as her running mate last week. From what I have read he is a decent man with a long and proud record of public service. He has strong mid-western roots and seems to be a regular guy who can appeal to both urban and rural voters. This has got the Trump campaign worried, and it didn’t take long for it to go on the attack. Swiftboating: This term was coined in 2004 to describe an unfair or untrue political attack and was first used during the 2004 presidential race against the Democrat nominee John Kerry. Kerry was an officer in the U.S. Navy, served a tour of duty in Vietnam in charge of a Swift boat, and received several combat medals for that service. A partisan group called the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” attacked Kerry’s war record during the 2004 campaign, claiming that Kerry had embellished it. The claims were later discredited and proved to be politically motivated, but the damage to Kerry’s campaign was significant. The architect of the “Swift Boat” campaign against John Kerry was political operative Chris LaCivita who happens to be a co-manager of the Trump campaign. Is Tim Walz the victim of swiftboating? Let’s take a look.  J.D. Vance Levels Accusations Against Tim Walz’s Military Record: Within days of Walz being picked to be Kamala Harris’ running mate, the Trump campaign rolled out its vice presidential nominee to go on the attack. Vance served for four years in the Marine Corps, so he was tasked with attacking Walz’s 24 years of service in the Army National Guard. Vance accused Walz of abandoning his unit right before they went to Iraq. Tim Walz filed papers to run for Congress on February 10, 2005, and retired from the National Guard that May. In August of 2005, the Department of the Army issued a mobilization order for Walz’s unit in preparation of deployment to Iraq. The timing might look suspect to some, but there is no proof that Tim Walz timed his retirement to avoid being deployed to Iraq. He did nothing improper in how and when he retired. J.D. Vance also accused Tim Walz of “Stolen Valor” for claims he made in 2018 while speaking to a group about gun control. In support of common-sense gun control laws Walz said that “we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.” Tim Walz never served in a combat zone, so according to J.D. Vance it was a mortal sin for Walz to claim that he had carried a weapon in war. It is true that Walz never served in combat, and therefore did not carry a weapon into battle. But Walz certainly trained with weapons of war in preparation of going into a combat zone during a time of war. The argument is purely semantics, and the Harris campaign was quick to scrub any of its campaign materials referencing Walz’s “weapons of war” comments. The final allegation against Tim Walz’s military record is that he claims to have retired at the rank of Command Sergeant Major. The truth of the matter is Walz did serve as a Command Sergeant Major, but he did not complete the requirements to retire with that rank. He retired at the lower rank of Master Sergeant. The Harris campaign’s website has been updated to reflect that Tim Walz did not retire as Command Sergeant Major, but only served as one. Tim Walz has held political office for nearly two decades. Like any politician running for office he may have embellished his record to cast himself in a more favorable light. In a vacuum that doesn’t look good. In the context of the current political race, it is insignificant and downright laughable when you consider who is leveling the charges. Donald Trump as head of the Republican ticket has no standing in the military community and has an aversion to telling the truth.  What has Trump to Say on the Matter: Donald Trump has been silent on the matter, and for good reason. He has no credibility when it comes to military service, and that’s why J.D. Vance was tasked with the attacks on Tim Walz’s military record. Trump avoided military service during the Vietnam War through dubious means. He received a deferment helped by a medical examination by a private foot doctor who diagnosed bone spurs in his heal. A New York Times investigation in 2018 revealed that the doctor who performed the medical evaluation was a tenant in a building owned by Trump’s father, and that the deferment recommendation was done as a favor to the family. In addition to not serving in the military Trump has often disparaged those who have served. He belittled John McCain’s military career because he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. When Trump visited a French cemetery for Americans killed during World War I he said it was filled with losers and suckers. Trump lacks any understanding of the service and sacrifice that our veterans have made in defense of our country. Comparing the Public Service Records of the Candidates: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have spent nearly their entire careers in public service, not so for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Let’s compare the public service records of each candidate and you decide which record is more deserving of your vote.  Donald Trump: Trump was never in the military and never held a public sector job. The only elected position he held was a four-year term as President of the United States. J.D. Vance: Vance served in the US Marine Corps for four years. He was a combat correspondent in a non-combative role, including a six-month deployment in Iraq with the Public Affairs Department. He has served as a U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2023.  Kamala Harris: From the time of her graduation from law school in 1989 to the present-day, Harris has worked in the public sector. From 1990 to 2003 she worked as a prosecutor, first as a Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County, then as an Assistant District Attorney for San Francisco, and finally as a special prosecutor with the San Francisco City Attorney’s office. In 2003 she was elected to the office of District Attorney of San Francisco and served in that role from 2004- 2011. In 2010 and again in 2014 she was elected to serve as the Attorney General of California. She successfully campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2016 and served in that capacity from 2017-2021. She became Joe Biden’s vice president in January of 2021 and serves in that role to this day. Tim Walz: Walz started his career in public service when he enlisted in the Army National Guard at the age of 17. During his 24 years of service, he acquired a college degree and went on to teach and coach in public high schools for approximately 15 years. Waltz left teaching to run for Congress where he served for 12 years. In Congress he sat on the Agriculture, Armed Services, and Veteran’s Affairs committees. Tim Walz is now in his second term as governor of Minnesota.  Let’s hope that the American people can see through this blatant attempt by the Trump campaign to discredit Walz’s honorable military career by spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions. Donald Trump is not even in the same league as Tim Walz when it comes to honesty, integrity, and dedication to public service. Disparaging Tim Waltz’s military career is a losing hand for the Trump campaign and is the height of hypocrisy.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected].
Thanks, Armchair American
0 Comments
 In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, there has been a lot of speculation that Donald Trump’s involvement would disqualify him from ever holding public office again. The legal justification for disqualification is spelled out in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first legal action to test whether or not Donald Trump can be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment took place in a Colorado District Court last week. The nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on behalf of six Colorado voters, filed a lawsuit against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. The lawsuit was filed to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s Republican presidential primary election ballot and any future election ballot based on his disqualification to hold public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also seeks to prevent Colorado’s Secretary of State from taking any action that would allow Donald Trump to appear on the ballot. Does the lawsuit in Colorado have any merit, and will it prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot? Before we can answer these questions let’s first exam Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to see if it has any application to Donald Trump and the 2024 Presidential election.  Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: It was adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent military officers, federal officers, and state officials who served in the Confederacy from holding any future public office. Sometimes referred to as the disqualification clause, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows: “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, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”  Ambiguities Exist: Like many sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is a lot of ambiguity in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its applicability in the aftermath of January 6th is uncertain. After about 1869 there has been very little case law to provide clarity about this section of the Constitution. Some of the issues yet to be resolved include:
 Recent Court Action: There was a court case last year in New Mexico which merits mention due to its relevance to January 6th. Couy Griffin, a New Mexico County Commissioner, was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. As a result of his conviction a group of New Mexico voters sued to have him removed from office on the grounds that he violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state judge agreed and had him removed from office and disqualified him from holding any office in the future. The New Mexico Supreme Court refused to overturn the ruling. Griffin vows to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The removal of Couy Griffin from public office was the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since 1869. The significance of this case is that it was the first time a judge has formally ruled that the events of January 6, 2021 were an “insurrection”.  Applicability to Donald Trump: Donald Trump has called the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to keep him off any election ballot simply “election interference”. In a recent social media post, he stated that “almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election”. Many of us watched the attack on the U.S. Capitol live on television or at least read about it. No one can dispute that there were crimes committed at the Capitol on that day and perhaps on the days leading up to January 6, 2021. Millions of Americans believe that Donald Trump incited the Capitol riot and fanned the flames of insurrection. But there are millions of other Americans who believe that Donald Trump isn’t guilty of any crimes, and is not responsible for the violence that took place at the Capitol. Therefore, there is no clear consensus on Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th Capitol riot.  The Department of Justice has charged more than 1,100 defendants with various crimes related to January 6th, and over half have pleaded guilty. The most serious charge any of the defendants has been convicted of is seditious conspiracy. Seditious conspiracy does not rise to the level of a Section 3 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. More to the point, Donald Trump has not been convicted of any crime related to January 6th and none of the indictments that he currently faces are for insurrection, rebellion, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. I am not a lawyer, but is seems improbable that any State could keep Donald Trump off of an election ballot based on violations of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Final Note: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued its final report on December 22, 2022. Recommendation 4 in the report addresses the need to clarify the provisions of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how it may be used against Donald Trump and other defendants. The Select Committee referred Donald Trump and others to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution “for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.” The final report also makes note of the fact that two members of the committee have introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to declare the January 6th assault an insurrection, and legislation “to establish specific procedures and standards for disqualification under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” The recommendations in the final report are going nowhere in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. The pending lawsuit in Colorado to keep Donald Trump off of the Republican presidential primary ballot will not be the last case of its kind. Other states will be following this case closely and are already considering similar legal actions against candidates or officials who were involved in the January 6th Capitol riot. But without further guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court or the Congress, these cases have little chance of succeeding. It is important to remember that despite his numerous criminal indictments, Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of any federal crimes. Therefore, he should be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. Further use of the judicial system to prevent Donald Trump from running for president will only feed into his narrative that the legal system is being weaponized against him. It will also foster more distrust of the judicial system and further embolden Trump and his supporters. The only way to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box.  Let the American voters decide. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American |
AuthorThe Armchair American. 
Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed