Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

933 replies

AcrossthePond55 · 04/10/2023 13:20

Roll up, roll up for the GOP Mystery Tour!! Trump thread lost-the-count!!!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
99
BruceAndNosh · 29/12/2023 23:13

Slightly old news, but Lauren Boebert has announced that she will be switching districts and running for Colorado 4th in 2024, not the 3rd that she currently represents.
Nothing to do with the fact that she won the 3rd by less than 600 votes and the 4th is very very safely Republican, no sirree!

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 29/12/2023 19:40

It's clear that the states do not interpret the 14th identically; if they did they would all have reached the same decision, and they patently have not done so. Whether they will all accept an arbitrary decision by the current SCOTUS might be open to question. They don't all seem to be prepared to give up gerrymandered maps on that basis...

SerendipityJane · 29/12/2023 19:07

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 29/12/2023 17:48

Won't it depend quite a lot on individual states' law about eligibility? I know Colorado and Maine decided to ban him on different points of law. And I know several states have already decided not to ban him because that state's law doesn't allow for it, or has been interpreted as not doing so.

All states have to respect the constitution. Even if their own laws make no provision, they are still bound by the 14th amendment at the SCOTUS level.

You can't force SCOTUS to take a case though. So already you have the makings of the arbitrary hand of tyranny the US was build against.

I am wondering if this incarnation of SCOTUS is dim enough to sanction presidential immunity, and then be surprised when they are summarily executed.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 29/12/2023 17:48

Won't it depend quite a lot on individual states' law about eligibility? I know Colorado and Maine decided to ban him on different points of law. And I know several states have already decided not to ban him because that state's law doesn't allow for it, or has been interpreted as not doing so.

Original poster
AcrossthePond55 · 29/12/2023 17:31

I wouldn't be surprised to see more states pull Doofus from their primary ballots since SCOTUS is now involved. It'll all be decided by them 'in due course' and that'll be used as precedent of the rest of the states.

OP posts:
Spandauer · 29/12/2023 08:53

Maine rules he should removed from the ballot.

Trump has five days to appeal the determination to Maine’s Superior Court.
https://wapo.st/485hl1n

Hope his lawyers are billing weekly.

Original poster
AcrossthePond55 · 24/12/2023 18:07

@SinnerBoy

The consensus seemed to be that, in order for a pardon to be granted, there must first have been a conviction, or a detailed confession to a specific crime / crimes.

I don't remember that as a consensus as far as Trump/a POTUS being pardoned by a future POTUS, due to the Nixon pardon. Nixon was never convicted of anything nor did he ever admit any wrongdoing (in fact, the opposite). He resigned 'for the good of the Country'. We all know the real reason, but that's what he stated as his reason. He was then 'preemptively' pardoned by Ford for any and all wrong doing. This 'preemptive pardon' was never tested in a court of law. Link below is the actual wording of Nixon's pardon. Trump did preemptive pardons/granted pre-trial clemency for Steve Bannon, Kenneth Curson, and Aviem Sella to name a few. None of these were ever challenged in court. As I say, it's just all uncharted territory.

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740061.asp

The main issue that was being debated re Trump IIRC was whether or not a POTUS could pardon himself, whether before or after a conviction. IIRC the consensus on that was that there is something in US law (don't ask me where) stating that 'one cannot serve as their own judge' in a court of law. The issue was, in pardoning himself, would a POTUS 'technically' be serving as a judge. Once again, never been tested in a court of law.

If, God forbid, Trump was to be reelected (spin around three times, spit on the ground, and stomp on it to prevent that from happening), I'm positive that both preemptive pardon and self-pardon WILL be tested!

Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/740061.asp

OP posts:
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 24/12/2023 12:30

I think it was deemed that Nixon accepting a pardon was tantamount to a confession, wasn't it? Which would still be the case for anyone not actually a felon, pardoned by Trump....

SerendipityJane · 24/12/2023 10:11

SinnerBoy · 24/12/2023 02:55

AcrossthePond55 · 22/12/2023 22:16

The issue of a POTUS pardoning themselves has never been tested so no one knows if it's legal or not. But suffice it to say that Doofus certainly WILL grant himself (and any cronies he chooses) an unconditional pardon for 'all crimes both known and unknown'...

I remember reading several articles when this was first mooted, not long after the January 6th attempted coup. The consensus seemed to be that, in order for a pardon to be granted, there must first have been a conviction, or a detailed confession to a specific crime / crimes.

(Dash it! Formatting fail!)

Edited

Which doesn't explain Fords pardoning Nixon .... to use an apposite phrase "Alea iacta est"

SinnerBoy · 24/12/2023 02:55

AcrossthePond55 · 22/12/2023 22:16

The issue of a POTUS pardoning themselves has never been tested so no one knows if it's legal or not. But suffice it to say that Doofus certainly WILL grant himself (and any cronies he chooses) an unconditional pardon for 'all crimes both known and unknown'...

I remember reading several articles when this was first mooted, not long after the January 6th attempted coup. The consensus seemed to be that, in order for a pardon to be granted, there must first have been a conviction, or a detailed confession to a specific crime / crimes.

(Dash it! Formatting fail!)

SequentialAnalyst · 23/12/2023 19:41

I would think in this instance it could be important that due process has been followed so I agree with Beau.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 23/12/2023 17:41

Yes, I saw that; seemed cogent.

Spandauer · 23/12/2023 17:21

Oh - just seen he calls her 'Birdbrain' 🤷‍♀️

MsMaturio · 23/12/2023 00:18

AcrossthePond55 · 22/12/2023 20:09

Just pisses me off that they did this without providing any explanation. Cowards.

Link to full CNN article:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

Edited

Cowards, yes, absolutely.

I felt a slight chill when I got the notification though. Declining to hear the request favours Trump significantly. We know how the bench is stacked, but still.

Original poster
AcrossthePond55 · 22/12/2023 22:16

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

The issue of a POTUS pardoning themselves has never been tested so no one knows if it's legal or not. But suffice it to say that Doofus certainly WILL grant himself (and any cronies he chooses) an unconditional pardon for 'all crimes both known and unknown' (I think that's what Ford's pardon of Nixon specified). And then it will have to go through the courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS.

I don't think he could willy nilly order the DoJ to drop the case(s) as the DoJ as quite a bit of 'independency' in their doings. But what he could do would be to fire the whole kit and caboodle and replace them with 'his people' who would then shut down any investigations and withdraw any criminal or civil complaints.

You are correct, he can't touch the GA case as it's a state case. And a POTUS can only pardon federal crimes so if he's convicted he can't pardon himself or anyone else. But who knows what he'd attempt to do to expand POTUS powers over the states when he's a 'dictator, but only on Day One'. Hopefully the 'state's rights' sections of the Constitution would prevent that.

OP posts:
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 22/12/2023 21:55

As for instance "If elected, Trump could order the Department of Justice to drop the case, or simply pardon himself." That is the one I have seen most recently.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 22/12/2023 21:23

I dislike the way that reports about the Fart's various criminal cases seem to be saying as if it were fact that they have to be brought to trial and conclusion fast because "if Trump becomes President he can simply pardon himself". There is no reason to suppose that he could do this, is there?

The one that he couldn't even if he can is Georgia, because the President does not have the power to pardon someone at that level of court.

Spandauer · 22/12/2023 21:11

It feels like it's constantly one step forward and two steps back in all the criminal cases against Trump. Very difficult to keep on top of what is good , bad or just what's to be expected. I don't know if it's actually the case or not, but it seems like the Georgia prosecution is the one that has the most legs?

OP posts:
Original poster
AcrossthePond55 · 22/12/2023 20:08

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.
The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.

Above per CNN via Apple News

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 22/12/2023 17:54

Trump supporters are very upset

That's purely because that are also very dim.

I mean not just "I wonder where the sun goes at night ?" dim. More like "It's an international conspiracy telling us we'll drown when everyone knows the sea is just wet air" sort of dim.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 22/12/2023 17:35

Trump supporters are very upset because The New York Post reported on the online YouGov survey which shows that 54% of respondents either “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the court’s ruling that the Fart should not be allowed onto the primary ballot in Colorado, while 35% said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” disapproved.

In fact some of them said supporters outright claimed that the NYP must have made it up.

But anyway, put not your faith in polls; all they actually show is that someone took a poll.