U.S. Presidential Election 2020

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.

@thols2 thanks for your contributions, you’ve owned this thread

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.

This video of the siege of the Capitol on TikTok is crazy and different than I had seen pic.twitter.com/JXwvKVLjxB

— Matt Jones (@KySportsRadio) January 7, 2021

So much truth in this statement.
This is the Capitol during the BLM protest. They were over-prepared and ready to attack peaceful protesters while being intentionally, negligently lax when violence was demanded by their leader.
Does anyone wonder why there was such a difference? pic.twitter.com/FS2hkEt3iK

— ❄️ Aiming Higher ❄️ (@AimingHigher11) January 7, 2021

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?