nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 23/9/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
lawrencesummers
RIGOLO

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

duploelabs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A few Republican Reps were on CNN and other media the last few days saying that Trumpism (not just specifically Trump, but his enablers) has done long-term damage to the Republican party. That kind of wording would suggest the internal rift is much larger than it appears from their behaviour the last 4 years.

I wonder what the amount of republican senators would vote to remove trump should impeachment pass the house vote

Windmill100000

Reading stories about Trump wanting to pardon himself, or at least enquiring about it.

Anyone think he may be concerned about what is going to be found out about his time in office when he goes?

FreudianSlippers

duploelabs wrote: »

I wonder what the amount of republican senators would vote to remove trump should impeachment pass the house vote

Assuming the 2 GA seats are empty during the trial, you'd need what... 18 or 19 to agree? I don't see that it's likely unless Trump has really burned the Graham / McConnell bridge.

IMHO even filing the articles at this stage is a significant message even if nothing comes of it.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Assuming the 2 GA seats are empty during the trial, you'd need what... 18 or 19 to agree? I don't see that it's likely unless Trump has really burned the Graham / McConnell bridge.

IMHO even filing the articles at this stage is a significant message even if nothing comes of it.

I *think* that Warnock may take his seat immediately as it was a special election - Same reason why Loeffler was still there yesterday but Perdue wasn't.

If both Loeffler and Perdue concede (which I suspect they will now) then the two new guys should come in immediately - The new Senate/House took office on the 3rd.

Either way though, going through the process forces the GOP to pick a side , clearly Cruz and Hawley and a few others have already done so.

But what about people like Tom Cotton , Graham etc. who were vocal in their disapproval of the votes against the EC etc.

JohnFalstaff

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I *think* that Warnock may take his seat immediately as it was a special election - Same reason why Loeffler was still there yesterday but Perdue wasn't.

If both Loeffler and Perdue concede (which I suspect they will now) then the two new guys should come in immediately - The new Senate/House took office on the 3rd.

Either way though, going through the process forces the GOP to pick a side , clearly Cruz and Hawley and a few others have already done so.

But what about people like Tom Cotton , Graham etc. who were vocal in their disapproval of the votes against the EC etc.

Loeffler has already conceded.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I *think* that Warnock may take his seat immediately as it was a special election - Same reason why Loeffler was still there yesterday but Perdue wasn't.

If both Loeffler and Perdue concede (which I suspect they will now) then the two new guys should come in immediately - The new Senate/House took office on the 3rd.

Either way though, going through the process forces the GOP to pick a side , clearly Cruz and Hawley and a few others have already done so.

But what about people like Tom Cotton , Graham etc. who were vocal in their disapproval of the votes against the EC etc.

I doubt they both Loeffler is just an empty suit working for oil and securities interest and has no character whatsoever. Probably hangs on until the next gig, like hosting a show on Fox or OANN (the "Senator Kelly show") opens up at the right salary level.

EDIT: damn, Loffler conceded. I guess she's escaping the tarnish of Trumpism now that it's not a good look. I stand corrected.

Perdue at least was elected once and pretends to be a politician. He *might* concede at the last minute. Not before. They all need their next gigs lined up and see how conceding would play into it.

FreudianSlippers

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I *think* that Warnock may take his seat immediately as it was a special election - Same reason why Loeffler was still there yesterday but Perdue wasn't.

If both Loeffler and Perdue concede (which I suspect they will now) then the two new guys should come in immediately - The new Senate/House took office on the 3rd.

Either way though, going through the process forces the GOP to pick a side , clearly Cruz and Hawley and a few others have already done so.

But what about people like Tom Cotton , Graham etc. who were vocal in their disapproval of the votes against the EC etc.

That point in bold is exactly why I think it's a good idea to file impeachment proceedings no matter the outcome.

Quin_Dub

Igotadose wrote: »

I doubt they both Loeffler is just an empty suit working for oil and securities interest and has no character whatsoever. Probably hangs on until the next gig, like hosting a show on Fox or OANN (the "Senator Kelly show") opens up at the right salary level.

Perdue at least was elected once and pretends to be a politician. He *might* concede at the last minute. Not before. They all need their next gigs lined up and see how conceding would play into it.

I just can't see how either of them could stand up and claim voter fraud and demand recounts or court cases etc. etc. now given all that has happened in the last 48 hours.

That's not to say they won't but I see it as very very unlikely...

froog

Trumps last video not going down well with the cult.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/trump-incites-anger-among-acolytes-let-down-by-lack-of-support?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

He may end up alienating every single person in the world.

Beautiful.

Water John

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That point in bold is exactly why I think it's a good idea to file impeachment proceedings no matter the outcome.

Nancy Pelosi has in fact run with that, force the GOP to either own or disavow Trump.

Quin_Dub

froog wrote: »

Trumps last video not going down well with the cult.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/trump-incites-anger-among-acolytes-let-down-by-lack-of-support?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

He may end up alienating every single person in the world.

Beautiful.

That video more than any other action of his to date may be the final nail in the coffin of his political career.

The "bond of trust" between him and his base as it were, has been broken.

They are clearly no longer "In this together"

You'd imagine that that was part of the plan by whomever wrote the speech.

Water John

The main purpose of the concession speech is to keep Trump out of jail.

Carfacemandog

Water John wrote: »

The main purpose of the concession speech is to keep Trump out of jail.

Not gonna do much for those pending SDNY charges, mind you.

banie01

Water John wrote: »

The main purpose of the concession speech is to keep Trump out of jail.

I think that ship may well have sailed.
There is a huge amount of litigation that will arise from Trump's fall from grace IMO.
Both Criminal and Civil.

Trump's perfidy, treachery and malfeasance all amount to an example of criminality and racketeering that in any other office, public or private would lead to RICO charges aswell as actual dereliction of his office.

The pardons already issued and those planned are all tainted, and afaik the only way to overturn the pardons is to impeach.
Not got a lot of knowledge on US codes but over the course of the last year or so have been reading more and more

There needs to be a shift in Justice Dept position regarding prosecution of sitting president and charges either lain as soon as evidence is considered appropriate for conviction is secured.

America needs to face the stain of Trumpism, it needs to put aside the notion of deals and actually litigate.
The courts are the place to allow this.

The political approach to the 1st impeachment needs to be addressed too.
Voting for party, announcing a not guilty verdict before even hearing the evidence!
The GOP senate and House have much to atone for.

looksee

I don't think pardons can be overturned, can they? Unless they are not legal in the first place, and only pardoning himself or pardoning someone for something directly related to himself would be not legal? I am not certain of any of that.

There is also a point I have heard made, that if he is impeached there will be an enquiry, which might affect any attempt to just deal with him legally as a Joe Soap. Why not just push papers around for two weeks till he is no longer president then throw the book at him for incitement, etc.

Tippex

I've a question about what happened with the poor officer the got beaten and I think I know the answer.

It is pretty clear that there are going to be some charges coming down on Trump for incitement (or at least they will try) but could the family of the officer take a civil suit against Trump for his wrongful death or does the fact he was president at the time make him immune to those sort of cases?

banie01

looksee wrote: »

I don't think pardons can be overturned, can they? Unless they are not legal in the first place, and only pardoning himself or pardoning someone for something directly related to himself would be not legal? I am not certain of any of that.

There is also a point I have heard made, that if he is impeached there will be an enquiry, which might affect any attempt to just deal with him legally as a Joe Soap. Why not just push papers around for two weeks till he is no longer president then throw the book at him for incitement, etc.

Pardon can be reversed by a sitting President as per Bush Jr's action in '08.
Now there are issues with that example, as while the pardon was granted per se, it had not been signed by the pardon lawyer.

The issue of revocation has also not yet been litigated at SC level as yet so I don't know how to parse a prediction there.

The issue would likely fall to were the pardons issued as part of a criminal scheme?
If they were, they would have to fall as a criminal act cannot lead to legal outcome beneficial to its participants IMO.

FreudianSlippers

looksee wrote: »

I don't think pardons can be overturned, can they? Unless they are not legal in the first place, and only pardoning himself or pardoning someone for something directly related to himself would be not legal? I am not certain of any of that.

There is also a point I have heard made, that if he is impeached there will be an enquiry, which might affect any attempt to just deal with him legally as a Joe Soap. Why not just push papers around for two weeks till he is no longer president then throw the book at him for incitement, etc.

They can't be overturned but can be revoked by the President that gave the pardon.

EltonJohn69

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I doubt Pence cares that much with 12 days to go... at this point Pence has done all he can in the last few weeks to do damage control, but he may even know a run at 2024 is just a non-starter after the events of the last few days.

Pence took the job to boost his profile so he can run in the future..... didn’t quite work out as he hoped....

FreudianSlippers

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Pence took the job to boost his profile so he can run in the future..... didn’t quite work out as he hoped....

No, but it actually wasn't going too badly until after the election. Even then, Pence was shrewd enough to stay as far away from Trump as possible until last week.

EltonJohn69

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, but it actually wasn't going too badly until after the election. Even then, Pence was shrewd enough to stay as far away from Trump as possible until last week.

He seemed so impotent/ compliant... but yeah maybe that strategy was working....now Trump supporters thinks he is deep state/Antifa

FreudianSlippers

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

He seemed so impotent/ compliant... but yeah maybe that strategy was working....now Trump supporters thinks he is deep state/Antifa

Pence has no problem winning the "traditional Republican" base of right-wing conservative Christians and people who honestly don't give a **** about anything but paying less taxes. That's bread-and-butter for someone like Pence. What Pence cannot win (and clearly neither could any of the others like Pence who ran in the primary) are the new Trumpists (formerly mainly but not exclusively the Tea Party) branch of the Republican party... at least not without Trump by his side at and rallying with him.

Quin_Dub

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

He seemed so impotent/ compliant... but yeah maybe that strategy was working....now Trump supporters thinks he is deep state/Antifa

True but the rest of the GOP see him as a good guy and he may have bought himself some (undeserved) credit with the Democrats as well.

He's probably going to come out of this far cleaner than he ever deserves to.

aloyisious

Fox News has a two-part story on Chad Wolf, acting DHS chief, that he released a statement yesterday condemning the violence at the U.S Capitol AND an hour after it was released, the White House announced the withdrawal of Wolf’s nomination to be DHS secretary in a nonacting capacity. Fox headlines it as retaliation against Wolf. The flag on the Capitol building is lowered to half-mast in honour of the CPD death there, with a murder probe commenced into the death. I assume th FBI will be handling that, as it's a civil federal building.

aloyisious

Looking back at Trump's televised statement about the violence in the Capitol building, the wording of his condemnation is [after a fashion] amusing, telling them they do not represent the nation. They are his team followers so the wording reflects on him as their violent actions followed from his speech to them about the senators and the Capitol building. Maybe he didn't understand the reflection of his condemnation. Certainly [IMO] it didn't strike him that it might include the deaths of the CPD officer Brian Sicknick [a 1st responder] and the USAF veteran-cum-rioter.

Rjd2

StringerBell wrote: »

No, it isn't exactly destroyed but whatever damage has been done to it has been done by plenty more people than trump.

McConnell, Pence, McCarthy, Ryan, Graham, Paul, Hawley, Cruz, Gaetz, Sessions, Jordan, Goehmer, Collins etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc have played their part, some of them more so than others and hopefully they are remembered.

Hawley has ensured he will anyway when even after that disgrace the other day he didn't back off his lying position he merely softened it.

On the other side, number wise they aren't worse off then they were after Obama won in 2008.

The GOP rot does go back a long way, its not had anything original to say rather than "MUH ZOMBIE REGANISM" for decades and how Bush governed the party was always vulnerable to a Trump.

Its amusing that in the aftermath of Georgia, all the blame went to Trump, which is understandable , but never did they consider two billionaire country club republicans accused of inside trading last year were weak candidates.

Never have they paused for reflection that they refused to give people 2k stimulus and the only thing that seemed to animate the party was when Trump floated withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Bush criticised the loons after the coup,,,,has he considered his role in this ?
Doubtful.

aloyisious

looksee wrote: »

I don't think pardons can be overturned, can they? Unless they are not legal in the first place, and only pardoning himself or pardoning someone for something directly related to himself would be not legal? I am not certain of any of that.

There is also a point I have heard made, that if he is impeached there will be an enquiry, which might affect any attempt to just deal with him legally as a Joe Soap. Why not just push papers around for two weeks till he is no longer president then throw the book at him for incitement, etc.

Thinking about that, if he's stood down on the grounds of mental illness after he issues any pardons in the next few days, they may well be worthless on a "the president was of unsound mind at the time" basis. Ditto on the impeachment probability as they could be challenged as self-serving prior to a quid-pro-quo pardon for him.

Thargor

Did anyone see Adam Boltons interview with that looper on Sky News just now lol?

EltonJohn69

Thargor wrote: »

Did anyone see Adam Boltons interview with that looper on Sky News just now lol?

Link/video ?

Thargor

It just happened Ill throw up a link later.