Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
He would need the Supreme Court to twist the law to let him go free. They could possibly be corrupt enough, but these Supreme Court judges will be on the bench long after Trump is dead.
I feel their future conservative causes will be worth more to them than Trump ever could be.
Conservatives and the Republican party's goal since the 1930s has been to set up a fascist dictatorship. If they believe they can crystallize it around Trump. And then in a few years cast him aside. They will do it in a heartbeat. They care about how they can use and enable Trump for their use.
Yeah, they have no fealty to Trump and no incentive to thrust their reputation further into the trash by helping him. I would say 2% chance SCOTUS helps him, and that's only because I try to avoid speaking in absolutes.
This has been my perception as well. I think overturning a conviction in the short term would have the highly probable rubber-band effect of limiting their power in the long term. Since many of them will likely be on the bench long after Trump is dead and gone, I see zero upside for them in risking this kind of action. If there is one thing history has taught me it is that no governmental body is coming to your rescue if doing so would correlate to a reduction in their own authority or power.
Edit: Sweet username!
Ha, right back at you on the username. I just rolled the R on yours just like Gerardo did in his song. Not sure if that's where you got it, but I'd like to think you're aware of the song and artist I'm talking about :p
I am indeed, and that is precisely where it came from. I used to play that song over Ventrilo back in my CS 1.6 days to annoy my buddies, which then lead to it being my WoW character name, and now it has become my general anon-username.
The SC won't help him.
And if some other Republican signals that they'd pardon him if they won, they likely won't. Because Trump would run against that president in the next election cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong but as another method, I believe he just needs one fuckstick on each jury to force a mistrial which would push everything past the election, feed into the "it's all political" narrative, and hand him what will become the emperor's throne. And there is currently no shortage of fucksticks.
how do they even find jurors for this anyway? you'd have to be blind and deaf in order to not be aware of what's going on.
I just read a thing on the subject https://news.northeastern.edu/2017/07/03/how-do-lawyers-handle-jury-selection-with-high-profile-clients-like-shkreli-or-cosby/
Basically the selection process (voir dire) is more like an interview than what you'd see in your low level petit courts where they just ask questions to the room. They focus less on familiarity with the case and more on impartiality and dedication to rule of law. I'm sure they go through hundreds.
Now I want a TV show where they actually summon a dozen people from remote villages of sane countries who actually have zero idea who Trump is and retell them all he did with a straight face.
If that is the case, and it absolutely could be, blame the prosecution lawyers.
Striking jurors during selection is their responsibility, both defense and prosecution can say no to a juror selection until you get a jury that both have agreed is fair. Incidentally it's how you get out of jury duty, say something crazy on purpose and they'll throw you out.
The fact remains that this process can fail, you can still get a juror who will not hear facts and will not make a decision based on rule of law. But it's supposed to work, it's supposed to weed out any juror that will not reach a fair decision.
I thought Trump floated a self pardon when he was still in office as a “just-in-case” measure and he was advised that he couldn’t?
It would be ridiculous to be able to pre-pardon yourself of crimes.
It's ridiculous that a president can pardon themselves as at all, but a pre-pardon is another level of stupid.
We don't know if a president can pardon themselves. Has never been done. Trump would surely try, though.
The fact that we're even talking about this is completely embarrassing. I'm not sure any other country can really take this country's democracy serious anymore.
I find it confusing how we don't know if it's legal or not. Seems like we should push a bill and decide that it is or or isn't. Perhaps this hasn't been done because publicizing a bill that permits self-pardons would likely be unpopular, so they haven't touched it so that the back pocket option stays around?