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

[AcrossthePond55]

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

@Darkandstormynite

I'm afraid to get my hopes up, at least as far as Trump vs Colorado goes. We've been here before, thinking "Hurrah, this is the beginning!", only to have our hopes dashed.

I really don't see SCOTUS upholding the CO decision. Not simply to do Doofus' bidding, but because they don't want to set the precedent and at heart, they are a Conservative majority court. There is no way Justice 'My wife keeps my balls in her purse' Thomas and Justice 'I like beer' Kavanaugh are going to agree with the CO decision.

An opinion was offered by a pundit that this may be a perfect way for the more moderate majority of the GOP to rid themselves of Doofus without having to take a 'visible' action so it might be possible that this more moderate faction of the GOP might try to 'influence' the Court to let the ruling stand. I don't see that happening either.

I'm in the USA right now, reading a south Florida local paper (triumverate state). I listen to a lot of US law podcasts & am staying with 2 retired lawyers.

Everyone is unsure if SCOTUS will agree to hear the CO appeal. There needs to be min. 4 votes to hear the case, and maybe only Alito & Thomas will reliably vote to hear it. Even if SCOTUS votes to hear it, no definite bets on how they might vote in final decision. Someone has to write a majority & minority decision, with a pretence of legal justification. It doesn't fit with "power to the states" for SCOTUS to start saying how states decide who can get on the ballot.

I have a question that never really seems to get discussed in the media (or maybe I just missed it!).

If Jack Smith manages to get a conviction against Trump, how can Trump feasibly stand for president and hold office if he's behind bars?

Are people assuming the verdict will be given after the election or that if he wins he would automatically pardon himself and therefore be released?

If he's convicted, surely the 14th Amendment is fully applicable and emergency petitions can be submitted to say he cannot be on the ballot?

Or are people just holding their breath to see what happens and how a justice system which never dreamed of this situation would react!?

I do take @Wallaw's point though. Given the situation it may be better to beat Trump at the election box not by court rulings. Then the question is settled once and for all.

Trump can still run from behind bars. Depends which charge he's convicted of, whether that conviction will have weight in stopping him being on a ballot.

Given the history of the US and it's terror of "tyranny" (mentioned goodness knows how many times in the declaration of independence) there is a scholarly legal view that the fact a felon can run for (and become president) is a deliberate feature of the constitution.

After all if you are a corrupt regime then it's trivial to lock up your opponents and thus remove them from the political process.

However, I suspect that all of this frothing is really disguising an attempt to "disappear" the 14th amendment. Already I have read some "experts" describe the clause as "dormant", suggesting the supremes can safely ignore it.

Luckily we don't have a 14th amendment in the UK. After all we aren't all equal so why waste time with a stupid law pretending we are ?

@Darkandstormynite

We are in such uncharted (and unimaginable to our Founding Fathers) territory that concrete answers to many questions can't really be given.

All we know is that the only Constitutional requirements for POTUS are to be 35 years of age, be a 'natural born' US Citizen, and having been a US resident for 14 years. I think the FF simply couldn't imagine that a convicted criminal would ever stand for POTUS.

A conviction AND removal from office by the Senate after impeachment in the House 'bars' a return to the presidency and is the only 'sure fire' bar as it is not appealable. Any other 'bars' to holding office are in other parts of the Constitution (specifically Article 14), don't specify the Presidency, and have never been tested in a court of law. Removal/bar based on the 14th are appealable (as we are currently seeing).

FWIW here's the basis of all the 'wrangling'. Article 14, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think the FF simply couldn't imagine that a convicted criminal would ever stand for POTUS.

As far as the British were concerned they were traitors and should have hanged. Maybe that gave them a bit of insight into how easy it is to corrupt the state.

Considering the scope depth and ambition of the constitution, I find it rather hard to believe it's authors "forgot" to disbar criminals from running for president.

Anyway, it's all moot, because it is where we are.

I am far more fascinated by how foreign countries are supposed to view the US, if a jailbird becomes POTUS. And I am aware I write that in a country that has had successive criminals in no. 10.

An opinion was offered by a pundit that this may be a perfect way for the more moderate majority of the GOP to rid themselves of Doofus without having to take a 'visible' action so it might be possible that this more moderate faction of the GOP might try to 'influence' the Court to let the ruling stand. I don't see that happening either

My optimism is pointing in this direction (sort of) - that the uncrazy GOP (and the other presidential hopefuls) need to publicly make the right noises about The Outrage Of It All, while quietly looking at leveraging the situation.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Interesting. Trump will be on her case pronto I expect. Which anti-female 'bon mots' will he pull out if his impressive insult bag for her? Although I have no time for her, at least she's not Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/23/nikki-haley-polls-surge-trump-republicans?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

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

My ol' chum Beau has a more nuanced view of the SCOTUS decision - worth a spin for 4 minutes.

s

Yes, I saw that; seemed cogent.

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

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!)

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

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....