Are criminals not allowed to be elected?

They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure. He was also awaiting trial for interference in the previous election. The irony would be amusing if it weren't so seriously wrong.

>They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is not be a cudgel with which to eliminate political opponents. The infamous "34 felonies" were from a state trial in New York; the state of New York does not get to arbitrarily deny the rest of the country their choice in president. Evidently the rest of the country does not consider these to be serious enough to disqualify him from holding office.

I'm aware the felonies were from New York. Despite that, he still made it on the ballot in New York, didn't he?

Do you not find it _insane_ that he was awaiting a federal trial to determine whether he was guilty of interference in the previous election, was allowed to run, won, and will now make that trial just disappear?

I agree that it could be abused by an authoritarian to silence political rivals. But there are plenty of laws that can and already are abused, including to prevent justice from being served. For example, the several people close to Trump that were pardoned by him right before he left his 1st term.

Convicted felons cannot legally run for office

No. The Constitution doesn't bar convicted felons from running for office. Perhaps it should but that would require an Amendment.

He was convicted of 34 felonies.

I mean, he'd be ineligible to join the military, but can run it. He'd fail a security clearance, but can hand them out. Many states forbid felons from even voting.

"You can be president from a jail cell" is likely to be a "well that wouldn't happen" oversight on the Founding Fathers' plate, not an intentional design.

dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown. They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively. If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election.

> dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown

Because they objected to a powerful, unaccountable ruler with absolute immunity to the law.

> They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively.

And that's why they set up checks and balances, three branches of government, the Bill of Rights, etc. instead of a monarch. Asserting this means they wanted a monarch is... odd.

> If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election.

I mean, yeah - the criminal justice system is clearly flawed here, as he's fundamentally getting away with the crimes. Garland fucked up by waiting too long; a judge Trump appointed successfully delayed the most serious criminal proceedings until they became meaningless, etc.

The election reflects poorly on the people. Which wouldn't have come as a big surprise to the Founding Fathers, who didn't really trust the people all that much - that's why we have the electoral college, after all.

If people want him in, maybe those laws aren't great?

I'm no Trump fan, but I'd much sooner trust an election over a judge and jury to decide who should be in charge

To use an example from history, Hitler was convicted and served prison time for attempting a coup. He was able to use the trial to spread his ideas. He rose back to power over the next several years due to his and the Nazi Party's popularity, and became Chancellor. I'm no historian but, logically, if he was convicted of treason, he should never have been allowed to hold any position in the German government ever again, regardless of how popular he was.