• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Idiocracy

Nik said:
Hobbes said:
In the grand scheme of things does it even matter?
Click to expand...

Not to get too Aaron Sorkin-y about it, yes, it does matter. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that America is a perfect nation but I think making a strong and powerful statement that nobody is above the law, even a President, needs to be made when one breaks the law as consistently and flagrantly as Trump does. If Trump fanatics want to camp out underneath his prison window, fine. But he should be in jail not because I think his politics are repellent but because he's a criminal and that can't be laundered through political popularity.
Click to expand...
Don't you think the ship sailed on this a long time ago? It's not like there hasn't already been a litany of illegal activity perpetrated both overtly and covertly by Trump. The mechanisms in place in the USA for bringing a rogue President to heel failed because the people entrusted to do so deliberately chose not to.

The DoJ refused to do its job because the Attorney General (duly appointed by a duly elected president) took the stance that the president is above the law and answerable only to the people via election or via repudiation by the House and Senate.

The House did finally do its job but the sham of a "trial" conducted by the Senate -- again, duly elected representatives of the people -- decided not to. These are extensions of/expressions of The People...

So really Now The People have had their chance to respond resoundingly to the last 4 years' shenanigans and nearly 50% have stood up to say loudly that they don't give a [pile of manure] and are perfectly happy to have another 4 years of it. That feels kind of like all bets are off....
 
Supposedly Fox News is instructing its broadcasters to not call Biden President-elect even if he reaches 270.

The Fairness Doctrine needs to be brought back during this administration.
 
Hobbes said:
When Ford pardoned Nixon:
...
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
...
Click to expand...
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740061.asp

That's basically a blanket pardon for anything and everything, whether it was known about or not.

Trump could do the same for himself (although yes, that is subject to some debate so maybe he'd have to hand off the presidency to Pence first and then have Pence do it) but I've read a number of legal scholars suggest that he could try it. Yes, as Nik says that could be challenged to the Supreme Court but I'm not as confident as he is that they wouldn't side with him. All three of the justices he's nominated have been strong proponents of the President having nearly absolute rights. They don't seem concerned with consistency either so they can just make up some sort of exceptional rule as to why no Democrat President would enjoy the same rights.

In the grand scheme of things does it even matter? It's not like America repudiated Trump's presidency. Very nearly 50% of the public supports Trump and everything he stands for to the hilt. Having Biden as the nominal head of the nation doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

While that pardon was broad reaching, it was limited only to crimes committed while Nixon was in the Whitehouse - and, it's unclear whether it would have stood up to any challenges in court, as, with Nixon out of office, there was a strong feeling around the country to move on and put Watergate in the past. A good number of the criminal cases Trump could be facing involve acts from outside his time as President, and I'm not sure he's be able to issue himself that wide a blanket pardon.

It's all probably moot, any ways. I doubt they bother with the Federal offences until they've exhausted all the State level crimes. They might try to go after in the hopes of establishing a precedent that a sitting President can't pardon himself or that pardons have to have a more limited scope, but it won't be the focus of the criminal proceedings.
 
bustaheims said:
While that pardon was broad reaching, it was limited only to crimes committed while Nixon was in the Whitehouse - and, it's unclear whether it would have stood up to any challenges in court, as, with Nixon out of office, there was a strong feeling around the country to move on and put Watergate in the past.
Click to expand...

Not only that, Nixon at least had the decency to resign and go into quiet private life. I don't know what the future has in store for Trump but you can bet that neither of those things are involved.

But really, it's incredibly important that you don't set the precedent that Presidents can commit whatever crimes they want in office so long as they pardon themselves or get their VP to pardon them. If a stacked and near-illegitimate Supreme Court want to set that precedent, that's up to them but the DoJ has a real responsibility not to normalize the Trump administration.
 
Something that I think is pretty important to note is that right now it looks like Biden will win with at least 290 EC votes and of those states all his wins look like they will be by at least 20,000 votes. All of the noise about lawsuits will still be judged on whether or not they actually make a different which means finding 20,000 cases of fraud which, you know, they won't.
 
Nik said:
Something that I think is pretty important to note is that right now it looks like Biden will win with at least 290 EC votes and of those states all his wins look like they will be by at least 20,000 votes. All of the noise about lawsuits will still be judged on whether or not they actually make a different which means finding 20,000 cases of fraud which, you know, they won't.
Click to expand...

My guess is they will try to force the results reported on "Election Day" and ask to disregard votes tabulated after November 3rd.
 
Dappleganger said:
My guess is they will try to force the results reported on "Election Day" and ask to disregard votes tabulated after November 3rd.
Click to expand...

Even a very conservative Supreme Court won't be willing to set that precedent/overturn the way every election in American history has been tabulated, so, no worries there.
 
Dappleganger said:
My guess is they will try to force the results reported on "Election Day" and ask to disregard votes tabulated after November 3rd.
Click to expand...

They may try but there are two big problems with that. One, there's no such thing as "results" on election day. Very specifically and legally, the only result is what gets certified by each state.

Secondly, while the Supreme Court made it very clear that they may in the future decide that certain laws passed by state legislatures aren't "fair" because they might create the perception of funny business as the votes are counted, to do it retroactively and invalidate a legally conducted election would basically end the United States as we know it. Even this Supreme Court wouldn't engage in what is just a straight up coup.
 
https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1324770334491500548
https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1324785764237017088
https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1324806575597461504

89c.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top