MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
IANAAL* but having read a little around the US constitution there are just two parts/phrases of it that cannot be amended. Amendments need to get through both houses and then be ratified within a given time frame by 2/3rds(?) of the individual states. There's a couple of amendments in that latter part of the process.
AAAO I doubt any self-pardon would be anything but a dog whistle to his supporters.
*I Am Not An American Lawyer
*As An Alien Observer
Does anyone know how long a presidential pardon takes to go through
I think it can be formalized in an afternoon. It's not something that needs a committee meeting to approve, just the President has to sign it.
My understanding is that it needs to go thru others hands and thus can be slowed
It’s in the Constitution. That was deliberately designed to be difficult to change. The President cannot just change it, no matter how silly the pardon power is.
But like I said, it is not a difficult sell, anyone opposing that reform has a lot of explaining to do.
The constitution has been "amended" bloody loads of times, pretending it can't be done so lets not try is just an excuse, but an excuse I am expecting rather a lot from this Democrat term for doing not a lot.
The president can't pardon himself anyway, that has been gone through several times in legal arguments, and that probably extends to pardoning his own direct family, but that is more contestable.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-capitol-riot/index.html
Trump throws some more supporters under a bus
Refers to those that broke the law in the demo/riot with “you will pay” amongst other things.
Reading between the lines I think he may have been threatened with something.
Douglas Murray of the Spectator / Telegraph
That's enough for me - Murray has cheerled Trump, the Spectator & Telegraph have pushed the boundaries of misinformation to a new low.
Contrast:
After the 2016 election, many US Democrats refused to accept that Donald Trump won legitimately. They spent four years trying – and failing – to prove it.
With this:
In response to the ‘accusations ‘ of the democrats not accepting the result last time, the US intelligence agencies (that well known hotbed of committed antifa!) concluded that there was Russian interference in the election.
If a Telegraph/Spectator "journalist" acknowledges this then they're acknowledging that their own hallowed Brexit vote might not be as valid as they'd like to assert.
It’s certainly an interesting one. As a very angry Remain voter, I do wonder if a more populist Remain leader could have whipped up support in a Trump style, and those marches might have turned ugly?
I went to all of the major London protests. It wasn't just middle aged hand-wringers like me, there were families with kids, lots of pensioners and the mood was peaceful. In October 2019's march I was stood outside Parliament and there were a number of far right agitators doing their best to provoke confrontation - some mingling with crowds and pushing people. No-one took the bait. We were nice to the police and they were very nice to us, we also made a point of clearing up after ourselves too.
Five deaths seems very high for a relatively low grade building based protest, even for America. I know it was their Capitol building but the protesters were mainly white. What do you think the x3 deaths from medical emergencies were all about?
The president can’t pardon himself anyway, that has been gone through several times in legal arguments, and that probably extends to pardoning his own direct family, but that is more contestable.
This is not a certified fact. There are certainly some legal scholars who believe he may legally be able to pardon himself.
I think probably more relevant is whether it would be politically sensible for Trump. I know there's a lot of talk of locking him up, but I don't see it. The guy is like Teflon and locking him up will only embolden his supporters more against the 'deep state'. They'll cling to whichever guy Trump pledges support for. In a particularly unpleasant dystopian future, that could be Don Jr. So I don't think it necessarily makes sense for the Dems to go down that route. (Almost) half the country voted for Trump, and half of them think the riots were a good thing. It seems completely bizarre to me, but he has somehow achieved this crazy demi-God status.
I think Trump is much more likely, in true Trump style, to aim for an under-the-table deal with someone where he makes some sort of concession for a promise of immunity - or perhaps a pledge from the AG or someone not to prosecute.
Impeachment is more interesting since it would mean Trump would become ineligible to hold office again which would obviously destroy his 2024 plan. He cannot pardon himself from impeachment. The Dems would probably support this, and we may see that the Republicans want rid of him for 2024 too.
What do you think the x3 deaths from medical emergencies were all about?
Couple of strokes from overexcited obese seditionalists, and one lady who they crushed in their eagerness to pile into the Capitol.
Douglas Murray was much more scathing about left-wing peaceful protests against Boris Johnson in the UK. Funny that.
“During demonstrations in Westminster on Friday night, other sore losers congregated to attack the police and insult our democracy”.
What do you think the x3 deaths from medical emergencies were all about?
At least one of them was a 53 year old man who apparently tazered himself. I haven't been able to find a verified source for this. It sounds a bit too... poetic.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErKLjaUXEAUUBgh?format=jpg&name=large
^^A lovely traditional American Christmas scene there.
Christmas tree, tinsel, assault rifles.
Definitely good will you all men... Of a certain colour.
This is not a certified fact
is that a special type of fact? And how does one tell the difference between a fact that’s been certified and one that hasn’t? Does it come with an actual certificate. Or a guarantee of authenticity?
enquiring minds want to know...
But like I said, it is not a difficult sell, anyone opposing that reform has a lot of explaining to do.
The constitution has been “amended” bloody loads of times, pretending it can’t be done so lets not try is just an excuse, but an excuse I am expecting rather a lot from this Democrat term for doing not a lot.
Look up the history of the Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment process is designed to favour opponents of amendments, the proponents really have to get huge momentum behind it and convince the other party to support it. The most recent proposed amendment that was adopted was in 1971, for the 26th Amendment. The 27th amendment was ratified later, but it had been in limbo for 200 years. Basically, nobody has managed to amend the Constitution in 50 years. It's not for want of trying, it because the process is designed to make it hard to do.
If Biden proposed amending the Constitution, that would instantly become a rallying point for Trumpists. No Republican from a red state could support it because it would a death sentence for their political career. You cannot amend the Constitution without getting a lot of Republicans on board. So, it's dead in the water and not worth wasting energy on.
is that a special type of fact? And how does one tell the difference between a fact that’s been certified and one that hasn’t? Does it come with an actual certificate. Or a guarantee of authenticity?
Well, I initially wrote "This is not true" that seemed a bit antagonistic. I didn't want to sound antagonistic. Perhaps 'this is not universally accepted fact' would have been more correct.
But then since our society apparently can't universally accept whether the moon even exists, there's no such thing as 'universally accepted facts'.
I’ve been informed that impeachment to ban from future office instead of removal, requires a straight majority in the senate instead of 2/3. Any experts care to comment?
So, it’s dead in the water and not worth wasting energy on.
Complete bullshit, an excuse of defeatists who wouldn't even try to make change, so fully representative of current democrats.
Removing political interference from the judicial system is an easy sell to all parties supporters, it is selling an argument their is universal agreement for, but it is a power I suspect the politicians want to weld, so that is the only reason they won't try, not because it can't be done.
I’ve been informed that impeachment to ban from future office instead of removal, requires a straight majority in the senate instead of 2/3. Any experts care to comment?
I checked Wikipedia and it seems that's correct, although it seems like it's a separate vote after the "removal from office?" vote. I suspect this second motion requires the defendant to have already been removed from office, otherwise it's self-contradictory.
Certainly in the Trump Impeachment trial (part I) they didn't vote on barring him from future office.
I.e. the Senate would have to vote to remove from office (2/3rds majority) and then only if that passes, hold a second vote to prevent future office (simple majority). Perhaps the interesting thing is that impeachment can apparently occur after 20th Jan - meaning the first vote need not be passed (since Trump would no longer hold office at that point). In theory that could mean that a vote could pass along party lines with the newly-tied Senate.
I imagine the decision of the Spectator to print that article must have been very difficult for them, most of the writers there have done love in pieces about trump since way back. He's the kind of RW arse they can get fully behind.
I'm guessing Murray drew the short straw in the office to send up that distress flair, like Tory HQ now it'll be like a scene from The Thick of It with folk running around wondering which bandwaggon to board next, who's coat tails to grab onto because they possess no solid moral direction themselves, other than follow the money
Does anyone know how long a presidential pardon takes to go through and how easy it is to slow down? Ideally if Donny issues all these parsons and they get stuck in bureaucracy for say two weeks then Biden can then dispose of them.
A pardon has to be delivered, from what I can understand from a BBC article - criminals have had a pardon, it got lost on the prison governors desk and the new president has overturned it.
From the BBC article, no one knows if Trump can pardon himself. The Constitution that gives him the power does not exclude it. There have been several theoretical legal arguments about it, but until he does, and it goes all the way through to the Supreme Court, no one knows.
It's clearly not in anyone's interest to make a President above the law, though it does only to federal offences and not state prosecution.
What do you think the x3 deaths from medical emergencies were all about?
I was assuming heart attacks as going up the stairs was probably a new thing for many gravy seals.
But then since our society apparently can’t universally accept whether the moon even exists
I always thought it was the same thing as the sun.
At least one of them was a 53 year old man who apparently tazered himself. I haven’t been able to find a verified source for this. It sounds a bit too… poetic.
He should have just complied with himself, then he would have been OK.
I've looked into it. Apparently one heart attach, one stroke and one person crushed. There is also the report of someone tazering themselves, not sure how that fits in to the numbers.
There is also the report of someone tazering themselves, not sure how that fits in to the numbers.
I think the taser is the 'heart attack' guy.
Getting tasered can potentially lead to an instant cardiac arrhythmia (VF). Which consistently, incorrectly, is reported as a heart attack.
Complete bullshit, an excuse of defeatists who wouldn’t even try to make change, so fully representative of current democrats.
Or it’s an indication not just how broken the US political landscape is - hopelessly partisan without prospect of senators voting their conscience.
Removing political interference from the judicial system is an easy sell to all parties supporters, it is selling an argument their is universal agreement for, but it is a power I suspect the politicians want to weld, so that is the only reason they won’t try, not because it can’t be done.
Sure. Remove the influence those guys on the other side of the aisle have on the judiciary!
Complete bullshit, an excuse of defeatists who wouldn’t even try to make change, so fully representative of current democrats.
Removing political interference from the judicial system is an easy sell to all parties supporters, it is selling an argument their is universal agreement for, but it is a power I suspect the politicians want to weld, so that is the only reason they won’t try, not because it can’t be done.
Look at the history of Obamacare. It was basically copied from what Mitt Romney did as Governor because it was assumed that adopting a Republican policy would help to get bipartisan support. There was fairly strong public support for the actual policies of Obamacare, but Republicans united behind opposition to it. Not because they opposed it on its merits, but because it came from a Democratic President and they were desperate to prevent him from succeeding. Donald Trump campaigned simultaneously on ending Obamacare and protecting the things it did, which are actually very popular among Republican voters, especially older people.
Things now are even worse. Probably about 30% of the U.S. population will be utterly dead-set against anything that Biden attempts to do. Not on the merits of the policies, but because they just do not want to give him any victories. Getting a constitutional amendment passed in that environment is pretty much impossible. Not because the pardon power isn't ridiculous, but because Republicans will oppose it out of sheer bloodymindedness. The constitution cannot be amended without fairly solid bipartisan support, so Biden would be wasting his time trying to go down that route.
Not on the merits of the policies, but because they just do not want to give him any victories.
That's one of the saddest things about modern partisan politics;
Genuine progress where everyone wins is resisted to make sure the 'other side' lose/don't win.
Sure. Remove the influence those guys on the other side of the aisle have on the judiciary!
But it's not is it, it is sacrificing the power "we" currently have to cement the independence of the legal system.
The Republican's ploy has been to prevent the legislation being voted on, now they can't do that, bring it to a vote and let the people decide on the voting records at the next election.
Or just give up without trying, the systems broken, we are in power but we won't try and fix it, because it is broken. FFS is this really all we are going to hear as an excuse for failure to take any action from now on.
When the right wing fanatics win, they don't hesitate to enact their cruel and greeedy agenda, the centrists* need to stop running scared and at least try to bring some balance, otherwise we really will just keep[ marching rightwards until the system collapses under its own avarice.
*the dems are a right wing party mind you, just not as extreme as the republicans.
The Republican’s ploy has been to prevent the legislation being voted on, now they can’t do that,
They can filibuster it in the Senate. You need 60 votes to break the filibuster. You will not get 10 Republican Senators defecting to help out Joe Biden.
The recent 4 years in the UK and US have made something apparent to me that in my 52 years I'd never really considered.
Democracy really isn't the default option of government that we can just depend upon to always be there. It really is fragile and easily usurped if enough people allow it to be.
Just as shocking to me is how fast it can happen.
Turns out being an antimasker has other downsides too.😁
Democracy really isn’t the default option of government that we can just depend upon to always be there. It really is fragile and easily usurped if enough people allow it to be.
A year younger and feel the same.
Keeps being said but the BBC's Rise of the Nazis on iPlayer is an incredible and worrying series.
Sure. Remove the influence those guys on the other side of the aisle have on the judiciary!
Sorry. My sarcasm should have been more heavy handed. Or emojied somehow.
To say “it’s an easy win to get rid of political influence” sounds great.
The reality is more likely to be that both parties are extremely happy that their opponent’s influence is diminished. But less gung-ho about their own being affected.
Repeat for both sides of the political divide. End up back a square one. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
So you agree, it's not that it can't be done that's the problem, it's not the republicans stopping them from trying, but because they don't want to fix the system.
This election was not won on the center ground by flipping moderate republicans, Trump increased his turnout from 2016. There was a groundswell of voters (previously disenfranchised non voters) energized to vote against Trumps corruption. If the Dems want to win the midterms and the next election they need to fight to fix the system, they need to fight for these people and prove that they have their backs and not just be corporate puppets. Then next time they can increase that groundswell and break more records, win more seats and do the right thing.
Or they can do nothing, just continue business as usual politics, suppress the turnout and hand the presidency over to Trump mk2.
Democracy really isn’t the default option of government that we can just depend upon to always be there. It really is fragile and easily usurped if enough people allow it to be.
Yeah I've been thinking about this - people hold up 'democracy' as the ideal end situation, the perfect place from which we can stray by being 'less democratic'. But democracy is only as good as the thought people put into their votes. Otherwise it's less than worthless - it's too easy to abuse.
That's why, as with almost everything, education is the bottom line. And in the UK, as far as politics goes, we get nothing at all.
Whats he going to pardon himself from?
But democracy is only as good
It also struggles when the people shift to the extremes instead of the middle.
Democracy requires co-operation and majority agreement.
As soon as you end up too close to a 50/50 split you end up with an issue. Not only is there no genuine majority, but due to the fragile and close nature of the split it pushes people further into their corners and makes co-operation less likely, rinse and repeat until you have half the people working against the other half and no path out of it.
Fundamentally what needs to happen is that people, and the governments that represent them, need a stark reminder that they need to be working for something, and not always against it.
Lasting progress comes through shared goals and compromise on how to get there, not (barely) overpowering the opposition to get your way until the next time 2% swing the other way and it all gets undone.
So you agree, it’s not that it can’t be done that’s the problem, but because they don’t want to fix the system.
The system is working well for Republicans from rural areas. They are in a position to obstruct nearly anything. Democrats want to change things, and I agree with most of what they want to do, but it is not as simple as assuming they just aren't trying. The U.S. system is set up so that rural states have disproportionate power. Wishful thinking won't make that go away.
What Biden can do now that he has a majority in the Senate is get cabinet ministers, judges, etc. confirmed. That allows him to run the government and issue executive orders and regulations. His administration can also appoint special investigators to look into the Trump administration's misdeeds. There will also be Republicans who have reasonable policies they want implemented, but that aren't Democratic priorities. Biden can threaten to veto any legislation related to that.
Stuff like that is how U.S. Presidents get things done. Boldly trying to amend the constitution is not. It might be possible to have the pardon power limited, but it will take years of bipartisan work to make that happen. Biden can't just walk in and demand that it be amended.
probably extends to pardoning his own direct family, but that is more contestable
Which hole did they all disappear down anyway? I know the daughter piped up about daddy but her husband and those other shit bags seem notoriously quiet (I don't follow them on social media, but their deluded thoughts generally get propagated to the mainstream). It'll be tough for them to escape this sinking ship.
Pardon for what?
That Douglas Murray article is the epitome of fake news.
The whole purpose of the article was to smear and draw false equivalence with BLM.
His main assertion is that BLM protesters would have been treated exactly the same as these domestic terrorists were.
That’s one of the saddest things about modern partisan politics; Genuine progress where everyone wins is resisted to make sure the ‘other side’ lose/don’t win.
Probably the biggest single thing (more than corruption and self-serving which has a far smaller impact) to cause me disillusion with politics.
After GravySeals say hi to MealTeamSix
That’s one of the saddest things about modern partisan politics; Genuine progress where everyone wins is resisted to make sure the ‘other side’ lose/don’t win.
The problem is that people don't see it as "everyone wins". They see people they disapprove of winning and assume that it's at the expense of themselves. Currently, the Trumpists are the major problem with this, but it's a universal human thing and right-wing nutters aren't the only ones who fall for this.
FPTP is the problem, it basically guarantees a polarized two party system.
Two party systems tend towards zero sum "I win, you lose" and consensus politics disappears.
Throw in disproportionate franchise and you have the hot mess that is the USA
Guardian reporting that elected republicans from states and off duty police officers were active parts of the mob yesterday. Openly sharing what they were doing on social media and utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause. That’s tragic and a bit scary.
It also struggles when the people shift to the extremes instead of the middle.
Democracy requires co-operation and majority agreement.
Agree. This is why PR is so important because it requires co-operation.
Exactly this ^^^.
Like here (to a lesser degree I guess), the US is all about being self-made and successful. if you start handing out free universal healthcare to people that did not pay for it, what incentive is there for others to do the same? Why am _I_ subsidising those workshy scavvers?
I think this has been pushed here with benefit cheats in the tabloids and is a big lever to pull for people that work hard and pay their taxes. It all falls into "commo n good" vs. "individual benefit" and people not being able to see past their own personal bubble. America is just wearing its colour closer to the surface that the UK.
active parts of the mob yesterday [...] utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause.
This is the problem for me, and it all falls back to the tide of fake news that Trump built his whole presidency on.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” (1984, George Orwell). It's not the stupid lying-your-way out of trouble that I naively thought it was in 2015. It's always been their policy and this was exactly the intended outcome.
Pardon for what?
This is apparently not important. Pardons can be written to pardon a person for a specific crime, but there is nothing that says they have to mention specific crimes. A 'blanket' pardon covering basically everything is thought to be possible.
This is apparently not important. Pardons can be written to pardon a person for a specific crime, but there is nothing that says they have to mention specific crimes. A ‘blanket’ pardon covering basically everything is thought to be possible.
****ing hell!??!!
Though it's still unclear if he can parson himself and it creates the problem that it sort of admits to having commited a crime, this then creates other issues. If he does pardon himself I can see long running legal battles in his future.
I wonder what on earth led to the whole pardoning "thing" being in the constitution?
I'm guessing that there was a genuine and benevolent intention but when the totally immoral are in power any tool can be repurposed for harm.
A ‘blanket’ pardon covering basically everything is thought to be possible.
Which is what Nixon received from Ford - basically a pardon for any offences committed between two specified dates.
Could a pardon even cover murder? I don't mean inciting I mean gun in hand, pull trigger murder, hypothetically?
It also struggles when the people shift to the extremes instead of the middle.
Democracy requires co-operation and majority agreement.As soon as you end up too close to a 50/50 split you end up with an issue. Not only is there no genuine majority, but due to the fragile and close nature of the split it pushes people further into their corners and makes co-operation less likely, rinse and repeat until you have half the people working against the other half and no path out of it.
I think the most depressing thing with our own democracy in the uk - despite our system being not as binary - is when we have a close election and parties have to look to form a coalition the one partnership thats never mooted is one between the two largest parties - each will look to make extraordinary concessions to small fringe parties to just give them the one extra seat they need knowing that the situation will be fragile and that those fringe parties would have them over a barrel - they wouldn't think for a moment to seek to work together and form a governement that represents the largest chunk of the electorate.
A ‘blanket’ pardon covering basically everything is thought to be possible.
I don't know the history of this, but the obvious case is Richard Nixon who was basically given a free pass. Nobody challenged that, but Nixon was disgraced and everyone just wanted to move on. So that was as much a political pardon as a criminal one.
Problem is, no president has tried the self-pardon, so there isn't any case history. If Trump tries it, it will definitely go to the Supreme Court because it defies common-sense.
Another potential problem will be potential charges of obstruction of justice based on Trump pardoning Roger Stone etc. in exchange for them not ratting on him. There is a view in the Department of Justice that sitting Presidents can't be indicted, but no real case history because this sort of thing has never happened in living memory. Also, there's no consensus on whether they can be charged after their term ends.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, including the pardons for his crooked buddies. Assuming the Supreme Court upheld a conviction on that, the question then would be whether the corrupt pardons were revoked or not. This stuff is all unprecedented, so Trump will probably die of natural causes before it's all resolved.
Could a pardon even cover murder? I don’t mean inciting I mean gun in hand, pull trigger murder, hypothetically?
Ten examples of murder and conspiracy to murder and a couple of manslaughters too and a couple of attempted assassinations - although in some instance the pardon is about commuting a sentence that was seen to be unconstitutional - where the sentence gave no prospect of release - so they didn't "get away with" murder but the nature of their sentence was later seen to be unfair. Tends to be military personnel too.
Could a pardon even cover murder? I don’t mean inciting I mean gun in hand, pull trigger murder, hypothetically?
You mean like opening fire on a street full of innocent Iraqi civilians, war crimes, etc? Do a quick news search on the pardons Trump has issued in the last few weeks. Utterly sickening.
Cheers, I'll have a read of that.
I'm guessing no president has ever attempted to pardon himself though. When Nixon couldn't/wouldn't have done that I suppose.
Hell, he makes Nixon look like a conventional president.
I wonder what on earth led to the whole pardoning “thing” being in the constitution?
Blatant miscarriages of justice can be corrected. I think most democracies use a review system, where petitions for pardons are reviewed at lower levels and not left to political considerations. The U.S. system is an anachronism, but it's written into the constitution. The constitution has had a few amendments, but Americans worship it like the Bible so most of it reflects 18th century thinking and it's close to impossible to amend it now.
There's a chance Biden may offer him a pardon.
It wouldn't be a bad idea, it could be seen as a way to end division in the US and at the same time, it taint Trump further, because if he was pardoned, he must have done something wrong.
It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the swivel-eyed loons from Qnon etc, but there are a lot of moderate Republicans in the US, some will have voted for Biden, but will likely not vote for Harris in 2024.
Though it’s still unclear if he can parson himself and it creates the problem that it sort of admits to having commited a crime
But is that a problem for him? The left know he's committed crimes, but his fans think he's a genius. See the whole 'tax returns' debacle.
He would play it along the lines of:
"I'm sad to be leaving the presidency, but I'll be back and stronger than ever in 2024! Now, those deep-fake deep-state actors don't want me to run again, but I hereby promise you good folks that I will! Sure, they'll all try and stop me - they know what we've achieved so far and how much of a threat we are to their deep-state system. Sad! But I'm smart (so smart!) so I have a plan to own the libs. I'm going to pardon myself and all the hardworking folk in my administration. That way they'll never take me down! Make America Rise Again! <without irony> Drain. The. Swamp! #Trump2024
Hell, he makes Nixon look like a conventional president.
Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, John McCain, Romney, all look like raging pinko-liberals in comparison. Jesus, Romney's immigration policy was to just make immigrants so miserable they would self-deport. He was such a pussy he even supported granting human rights to refugees.
There’s a chance Biden may offer him a pardon.
Normally I would say that would be a good political move. In Trump's case, zero chance. The implication of a pardon is that the person is guilty. If Trump came out, confessed to everything, showed remorse, and apologized, then a pardon might be a good idea. Ain't gonna happen.
I Trump is pardoned in any way and then is called as a witness in any case he can no longer plead the 5th and if he is not 100% forthcoming or truthful then he goes to jail for contempt of court. thats the dilemma for him
This is interesting:
Maryland Governor repeatedly denied authorisation to send the national guard to DC.
It seems like it should be fairly easy to work out where the orders came from, and when. Someone’s got significant explaining to do.
The constitution has had a few amendments, but Americans worship it like the Bible so most of it reflects 18th century thinking and it’s close to impossible to amend it now.
They were happy to repeal the 18th amendment. They are up to 27 amendments, the last being made in 1992. So not a frequent occurrence but feasible nonetheless.
I Trump is pardoned in any way and then is called as a witness in any case he can no longer plead the 5th and if he is not 100% forthcoming or truthful then he goes to jail for contempt of court. thats the dilemma for him
But what if his pardon covers contempt of court? Either way, he'll try and stay out of court rooms through whatever means possible.
Imagine if all the off duty police that were part of the mob had stopped their rioting and decided to help their fellow officers out.
They are up to 27 amendments, the last being made in 1992. So not a frequent occurrence but feasible nonetheless.
The 27th Amendment was proposed along with the Bill of Rights way back in the 18th century. It sat on the shelf for 200 years before it was ratified in 1992.
The 26th Amendment was proposed and ratified in 1971. It is currently the most recently proposed amendment. That was 50 years ago.
The 25th amendment was proposed in 1965 and ratified in 1967. That was four years before the 27th.
The 24th amendment was proposed in 1962 and ratified in 1964. That was three years before the 26th.
So, it used to be fairly easy to amend the constitution. Now, it's not. That's for political reasons, not legal reasons. It hasn't happened in 50 years and Republicans are not going to support an amendment proposed by Joe Biden.
It hasn’t happened in 50 years and Republicans are not going to support an amendment proposed by Joe Biden.
Then Biden should still do the right thing and let them vote it down, highlight that the Dem's would concede presidential powers for the good of the nation when they are in control and have the power not just calling for it from opposition. Let the republicans humiliate themselves trying to argue against it.
But what if his pardon covers contempt of court? Either way, he’ll try and stay out of court rooms through whatever means possible.
That would be pardoning for future crimes not past ones which cannot be done. a pardon does not give you blanket immunity for ever.
It looks like the normal service of caps and exclamation marks has been resumed
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1347555316863553542?s=20
That would be pardoning for future crimes not past ones which cannot be done. a pardon does not give you blanket immunity for ever.
I'm sure he would state something along the lines of the pardon can be used for any crime, but that he will use it for a specific charge. He can only be compelled to answer questions about that crime, but he will argue that
I.e. His narrative would be that they'd have to charge and convict him of a crime, and only then be able to compell him to answer further questions. But, oh no, he can't comment on that because it might reveal a different crime. State court, bounced to a higher court, back down, back up, maybe to the Supreme Court. All over the space of a few years, by which point he's an old man.
We still haven't seen the guy's tax returns.
It looks like the normal service of caps and exclamation marks has been resumed
Good. Impeachment was always going to be harder to justify when he was pretending to be conciliatory.
Let the republicans humiliate themselves trying to argue against it.
Have you read the news in the last 15 years? Do you seriously think Republicans care about humiliation in front of liberals. Check out Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. Both are graduates from elite law schools and understand the law. Supported the insurrection because they don't care about humiliation, just whether rednecks will vote for them.
The gold plated bawbag has just tweeted that he won't be attending Biden's inauguration. Completely expected classy move there Donald