you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 217 points 3 years ago (40 children)

"Resources that would have gone into Ads and Rallies, will now have to be spent fighting these Radical Left Thugs in numerous courts"

Or you could spend your own money

“It is Election Interference, & the Supreme Court must intercede,”

That isn't how the court works you file in whatever court has jurisdiction then appeal if you have cause. It would be contrary to standards for them to even comment at this juncture.

If he wanted to campaign unimpeded he could have simply not committed the crimes he has openly admitted to on TV

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 132 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Wait…

    “Resources that would have gone into Ads and Rallies, will now have to be spent fighting these Radical Left Thugs in numerous courts”

    Did he just admit to another crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think so. You can put your own money into running a political campaign.

    However, the IMPLICATION that he uses campaign donations for his legal defense is there. And stupid MAGA donors will believe that's how their money could be spent and that it's OK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago

    It’s all super PAC money that has very little rules about its use. They’ve been using it thus way all along and openly raising money for legal defense. He may be admitting to exerting control over the super pac, which is supposed to be against the law, but seems to be practically unenforceable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Meh....sorta? I'm pretty sure he can legally use campaign funds to pay legal bills relating to the election interference cases, since the cases are sort of tied to actions made during his 2020 campaign. But AFAIK he cannot do so with the classified documents case, since it has no direct connection to his election campaign.

    But even if part of it IS legal, given his propensity to break the law whenever possible, it probably should warrant another investigation if nothing else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 43 points 3 years ago (20 children)

    There's a part of me that believes he only ran again because, aside from his ego, he believed it would make him immune to indictments.

    Unfortunately Mango Mussolini could even be arrested and still win the presidency from prison... (Although it is a good thing the rules exist in that way)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Horrible hypothetical: he wins and pardons himself of all federal crimes, but he’s still convicted of state crimes in NY and GA and has prison sentences. What happens?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Constitutional crisis. Decent band name, horrible time to live through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Reminds me of the old Chinese curse, ”may you live in interesting times.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Nixon was apparently warned against trying to pardon himself because no man can be judge over his own case. Clear conflict of interest.

    Idk how well that would hold up now as a reasoning, considering…. gestures broadly

    https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nixons-justice-department-warned-that-the-president-can-t-pardon-himself-f70228c8b9ef/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    So my question is, if he won the presidency from prison, would they let him out of prison during his presidential term? Would the White House temporarily have some black bars on it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    There is neither precedent or written rules for it. Whatever happens will be a case of 'made up as we go along'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Imho that’s reason enough not to find out.

    Imagine the global reputation hit from a convicted treasonous felon being the leader of the country… woof. So much worse than him just having the support of such a huge swath of the country..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Imagine if every presidential public appearance, he has to do it wearing his orange jumpsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Thank God he's not smart because if I were him and doing these things on purpose I would wear that orange jumpsuit as a Red badge of courage and end up becoming emperor or at least Hitler part 2 electric boogaloo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago*

    There’s a part of me that believes he only ran again because, aside from his ego, he believed it would make him immune to indictments.

    He should have listened when Liz Cheney, and more importantly her father, said he wouldn't be allowed near the Presidency again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago

    If he wanted to campaign unimpeded he could have simply not committed the crimes he has openly admitted to on TV

    For being the party that supposedly represents "law and order", Republicans really seem soft on crime (at least on the ones they continually committed).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Can't the SCOTUS adopt cases they think have some sort of importance outside of the apeal system? I thought I heard of them just recently doing that on a case they ruled on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Yeah, basically the attorney general of some states claims that there was a business that was harmed by certain laws, which the business deny that they were harmed, but the supreme Court heard the case anyways and ruled that the business was actually harmed by said law so it was overturned.

  • source
  • parent