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!!!

@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!

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.

Applicable to the UK too.

https://www.rawstory.com/voters-to-blame-for-republicans/

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.

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.

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...

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!

Can't be much help, but can whole-heartedly do this:
<does twirly, spitty, stompy thing a la @AcrossthePond55 >

Presumably she has displaced the original candidate ? Will they still run and split her vote ?

None of the Tories gerrymandering tactics this side of the pond appear to have any discernible effect on their journey to electoral irrelevance.

Answering my own question ....

https://www.rawstory.com/boebert-cling-to-power-trickery/#:~:text=Rep.%20Lauren%20Boebert's%20(R%2D,publicly%20vowing%20to%20trounce%20her.

The sooner Congress is free of Boebert and Taylor Greene, the better. We need more female politicians, but not ones like them

Trust me, it really works!!!

Except when it doesn't. But I didn't do it in 2016 because I thought Doofus would have no chance in hell and look what happened then!!!!!

The Boebert switcheroo will be an interesting election to follow. I don't know how she managed to get elected in the district she was previously elected in to start with.

I think if the 'new' district can come up with ONE viable candidate and the rest of the GOP candidates get behind that candidate, she'll be SoL. Unless by 'a redder district' they mean a highly Trump cult district.

I would think the electorate in the new district might find her parachuting herself in to take over Ken Buck's old seat rather objectionable, for two reasons:

One, They seem to have liked him, and he has made no secret of having resigned because of the antics of some of his party, of whom Boebert is a glaring example, though he couched it more diplomatically than that and mostly spoke of "looking to the future rather than harking on about the past" or wtte. And he has distanced himself from Trump's nonsense about the "stolen" election. I doubt that he will endorse her: they clashed in Congress over various things.

Two, She has been seen through by the electorate in her previous (safe red) seat but thinks the electorate in the new (safe red) seat is too stupid to have noticed her shenanigans and her uselessness as a representative. Nobody wants to have a candidate who despises them as stupid, I wouldn't've thought.

Seems Trump has had a very sudden change of heart about (other peoples) freedom of speech

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-legal-problems-2666843671/

I thought he was making money off the marks on the back of his many legal cases.

Appeasement never works.

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

https://www.rawstory.com/14th-amendment-2666867662

I am still trying to work out how the President, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is somehow not an officer of the armed forces, which is what Trump and his coterie of thugs are arguing.

If a commander-in-chief is not an officer, albeit one at the top of the chain of command, what the blue thundering blazes is he? A civilian? If he is a civilian, can he be in the chain of command?

Being 'Commander In Chief' is a role granted by the Constitution, it's not a military rank like General or Field Marshal. It's unique unto itself and there is only one CiC at a time, that being POTUS. Sort of like the King/Queen being 'Head of the Church'. They aren't a member of the clergy (like the Pope is), it's a unique role granted to them by virtue of simply being monarch.

Oh, and two more states have joined the 'Trump off the ballot' brigade, Illinois and Massachusetts. Well, I guess it's more accurate to say that voter's groups have filed challenges that will end up in court.

So far, the states that took Trump off are all firm blue (non-swing?) states anyway, right?

It's when OH, FL, MI or PA take Trump off ballot that fur will fly. Maybe GA too.

Trump: "My Hero !"

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/president-belarus-immunity-prosecution-limits-potential-challengers-106107419

The orange skid mark would love to be able to do that.