By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Readers are encouraged to submit news tips to The Daily Beast. The submission process is streamlined for ease of use. All tips are treated confidentially. This allows readers to contribute to the publication’s investigative journalism. Contributions are valued and help maintain rigorous reporting.
Read the original article here
Steve Bannon’s recent pronouncements regarding a potential Donald Trump presidential run in 2028 are, to put it mildly, eyebrow-raising. Bannon’s assertion that Trump could run again hinges on a rather loose interpretation of the 22nd Amendment, seemingly ignoring the plain language of the text. The amendment clearly states that no person shall be elected president more than twice. There’s no loophole, no hidden clause, no clever legalistic argument that can realistically circumvent this straightforward limitation.
The very notion of an 82-year-old Trump campaigning and potentially governing the country for another four years seems almost fantastical. Even without considering the constitutional bar, Trump’s age and apparent decline in health raise serious questions about his fitness for office. Images circulating online only serve to reinforce concerns about his physical and cognitive capabilities. The sheer implausibility of this scenario is staggering.
Bannon’s claim, however, isn’t simply a whimsical prediction. It represents a calculated strategy to keep Trump relevant and maintain a loyal following within the Republican party. The constant drumbeat of speculation surrounding a 2028 candidacy serves to distract from current legal battles and keeps Trump at the center of the political conversation. It’s a cynical ploy designed to maintain power and influence.
Adding another layer of complexity is the underlying implication that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, might be complicit in facilitating this outcome. The suggestion that somehow Trump could be deemed “not a person” to circumvent the term limits is absurd, yet the sheer audacity of this claim speaks volumes about the perceived willingness of some to manipulate legal interpretations for political gain. The potential for further erosion of democratic norms is disturbingly clear.
This isn’t just about Steve Bannon’s outlandish statements. It’s about the broader political climate that allows such pronouncements to be made and seriously considered. It reflects a growing disregard for constitutional norms and a troubling willingness to entertain scenarios that undermine the democratic process. The casual dismissal of clear legal limitations highlights a disturbing pattern of eroding respect for established rules and institutions.
The potential for legal challenges is immense. Even if a presidential candidate were to somehow secure the nomination and receive sufficient votes, the legal obstacles to Trump’s eligibility would be formidable. The sheer volume of lawsuits likely to ensue could further paralyze the already strained political system. The potential for protracted legal battles would cast a considerable shadow over the election itself.
Beyond the constitutional and legal considerations, the practical implications are equally concerning. The idea of an elderly, potentially incapacitated former president seeking the highest office in the land is a deeply worrying prospect. It raises fundamental questions about leadership, governance, and the well-being of the nation itself.
The suggestion that this is all a deliberate effort to provoke and distract liberals is a valid point. The sheer absurdity of the claim might indeed be intended to galvanize supporters and keep adversaries off balance. However, even as a strategy of calculated provocation, the underlying message—that constitutional limitations can be ignored—remains a dangerous and destabilizing element in the political discourse.
Ultimately, Steve Bannon’s claims, however outlandish they may seem, warrant serious attention. They serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the potential for those in power to exploit legal ambiguities and public sentiment for personal and political gain. The disregard for the clear text of the Constitution, coupled with the apparent belief that established legal processes can be manipulated or ignored entirely, represent a grave threat to the future of American democracy.