After his conviction on 34 charges, everyone is wondering about the fate of the political future of former US President Donald Trump, who is preparing to enter into a fierce competition with Joe Biden in next November’s elections.

A report published by the New York Times confirmed that despite these convictions, Trump's election campaign does not face any official restrictions, but the problem will be raised sharply next July 11, the date of the pronouncement of the ruling in the New York court convictions file.

According to the New York Times, the United States Constitution specifies few conditions regarding the eligibility of presidents, stressing that they must be at least 35 years old, be natural citizens and have lived within the country for at least 14 years.

But most importantly, there are no restrictions based on criminal records, noting that only some states prevent criminals from running for state and local offices, but these laws do not apply to federal offices.

The newspaper adds that it is possible - in theory - to remove Trump from the ballot by passing legislation requiring a clean criminal record to run for the presidency, but this issue will be on a shaky foundation from a legal standpoint.

The reality is governed by other legal and political details, and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not prevent Trump from voting under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars people who “participated in insurrection” from running.

The American newspaper added that lawsuits attempted to confirm that Trump's actions before and during the events of January 6, 2021 meet this condition, and therefore he must be removed from the candidacy.

But the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority — three of whom were appointed by Trump himself — concluded that only Congress had the authority to apply Section 3 against candidates for federal office.

Given that Republicans have control of the House of Representatives, this condition will not be met.

The New York Times quoted Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, as saying, “Whether Trump is tried and convicted, or acquitted, is a separate issue from the story of whether he is qualified to run in the elections or not.”

Note that Trump - the newspaper adds - received the majority of delegate votes at the Republican Party convention, and the party has no mechanism to nominate another person, and prominent figures within the party have not expressed interest in any candidate other than Trump.

Another issue that observers consider important comes to the surface, which is that Trump is registered to vote in Florida, and those convicted of crimes there are deprived of voting in the place, and most of the convicts regain their rights after completing their sentence. Regarding this point, Trump will not have enough time to finish all the files before Election Day.

Because election rules in New York are described as more lenient, so that convicts can vote while on parole or probation, if Trump succeeds in taking advantage of the right to vote there, Florida will follow the same approach.

But New York also adopts depriving the convict of his electoral rights if he remains in prison, so if Trump is imprisoned, he will be deprived of the right to vote.

The American newspaper explains that electing an imprisoned president would create a legal crisis that would be up to the courts to resolve.
In theory, Trump could be stripped of his power under the 25th Amendment, which details the transfer of power to the vice president if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” But this would require the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that Trump is unable to perform his duties, and this is an unlikely possibility.

Also, if Trump is convicted in one of the two federal cases before the election and then wins the presidency, he may seek a self-pardon, or at least a reduced sentence.

This - according to American law - leaves his conviction valid, but prevents his imprisonment, and the problem will remain for the Supreme Court at that time, which is to examine the constitutionality of the self-pardon.
According to the New York Times, the Department of Justice does not bring charges against serving presidents, a policy that was outlined in a 1973 memorandum during the era of former President Richard Nixon, the owner of the Watergate scandal.