DOZENS OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR TRUMP TO BE REPLACED AS GOP NOMINEE FOLLOWING GUILTY VERDICT
John Russell »
Groups »
NEWSMucks »
Discussions » DOZENS OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR TRUMP TO BE REPLACED AS GOP NOMINEE FOLLOWING GUILTY VERDICT
In fact - and sadly - they can't condemn the verdict or the process fast enough. They're tripping over each other to be the first or loudest to cry "foul!"
These people, who on any other day would want us to respect the law, and justice, etc. are already saying that the whole business is fixed. It's the laziest - but perhaps, most effective - of conspiracy theories.
I think the Republicans are so corrupt they'll stick with Trump even if he were in jail (which everyone in the world knows will not happen) - Trump will get a slap on the hand - a $100 fine and a year's probation.
Of course, if he's elected he'll pardon himself, and if he's not elected we'll go through the "rigged election" and "the big steal" again. The ketchup, sorry. I mean the writing is on the wall.
Trump and his lackeys have already signaled they will not accept any result to the election other than a Trump win. How that refusal would play out is at this point an unknown.
And after the election a complete overturning of the conviction,
Would you approve of Trump violating the rule of law?
Also, a PotUS (via the DoJ) cannot overturn a state case. The SCotUS could. Is that what you mean ... you expect the SCotUS will do more than merely delay a trial but will actually overturn a state decision because Trump became PotUS?
If so, you have envisioned a corrupt system and apparently would approve of it.
This question is under legal debate. The CotUS does not explicitly prohibit self-pardon and we have never had this situation in our history until Trump came along.
I think that when the dust settles it will be determined that it would be a direct contradiction for a person to pardon oneself since they would ipso facto be their own judge.
Thanks for the info, George, my education in Canada didn't include all the American legal and political aspects so perhaps I shouldn't make assumptions.
I was just imagining a scenario here. If the SCOTUS doesn't reverse the conviction but just delays providing judgment until after the election, and the Democrats take all 3 levels of government, it would give the Democrats a chance to pack the SCOTUS to prevent the Trump justices from being a majority.
A president has not yet pardoned himself so that law is for now underdetermined. But should Trump do that if elected and found guilty in either of the two federal cases, with our politically divided country and the extremists being the loudest, I think that would cause a great uproar and potentially a constitutional crisis. But as both federal trials keep getting pushed back, I think it's much more likely that should Trump win the WH that the DOJ would just stop everything, possibly withdraw the charges. What could happen with the next president, I'm not going to guess.
If the SCOTUS doesn't reverse the conviction but just delays providing judgment until after the election, and the Democrats take all 3 levels of government, it would give the Democrats a chance to pack the SCOTUS to prevent the Trump justices from being a majority.
To do that, Congress would need to change a law that sets the number of seats in SCOTUS. So to do that, the Dems would need to take the House, have 61 sets in the Senate and hold the Oval Office. That's a big reach in today's political arena.
Yep, being one of the main reasons for my not creating them these days. At least for me, there is as much fun watching the American political circus these days as there was for me creating a movie game.
I am against packing the court. As much as I find the current court to be partisan, packing is not the solution. As with impeachment abuse, packing will be abused. Anyone up for a 17 person SCotUS in the future?
I agree that 9 is a good number, and when I take a look at the line of judges of the International Court of Justice I also realize that too many can boondoggle any proper decision being reached. It just bothers me, perhaps because I'm a Canadian and truly admire Canada's truly unbiased judicial system wherein from the lowest magistrate's court to the Supreme Court of Canada the comparison with the American system is like white vs black. As well, in Canada, a judge would recuse himself from a trial for lesser reasons than American judges refuse to do.
hMMM
LOL, Marco ''Little Hands" Rubio.
oops, looks like nikki haley jumped the gun...
In fact - and sadly - they can't condemn the verdict or the process fast enough. They're tripping over each other to be the first or loudest to cry "foul!"
These people, who on any other day would want us to respect the law, and justice, etc. are already saying that the whole business is fixed. It's the laziest - but perhaps, most effective - of conspiracy theories.
lock step with their cult leader...
I think the Republicans are so corrupt they'll stick with Trump even if he were in jail (which everyone in the world knows will not happen) - Trump will get a slap on the hand - a $100 fine and a year's probation.
And after the election a complete overturning of the conviction,
Of course, if he's elected he'll pardon himself, and if he's not elected we'll go through the "rigged election" and "the big steal" again. The ketchup, sorry. I mean the writing is on the wall.
Trump and his lackeys have already signaled they will not accept any result to the election other than a Trump win. How that refusal would play out is at this point an unknown.
Good evening/night Buzz, trump can’t pardon himself, a least not for the NY or Georgia charges. He can only pardon himself for federal crimes.
Would you approve of Trump violating the rule of law?
Also, a PotUS (via the DoJ) cannot overturn a state case. The SCotUS could. Is that what you mean ... you expect the SCotUS will do more than merely delay a trial but will actually overturn a state decision because Trump became PotUS?
If so, you have envisioned a corrupt system and apparently would approve of it.
By law, Trump cannot pardon himself only others.
This question is under legal debate. The CotUS does not explicitly prohibit self-pardon and we have never had this situation in our history until Trump came along.
I think that when the dust settles it will be determined that it would be a direct contradiction for a person to pardon oneself since they would ipso facto be their own judge.
Thanks for the info, George, my education in Canada didn't include all the American legal and political aspects so perhaps I shouldn't make assumptions.
I was just imagining a scenario here. If the SCOTUS doesn't reverse the conviction but just delays providing judgment until after the election, and the Democrats take all 3 levels of government, it would give the Democrats a chance to pack the SCOTUS to prevent the Trump justices from being a majority.
You know what? Playing with American politics is getting to be more fun than playing solitaire.
A president has not yet pardoned himself so that law is for now underdetermined. But should Trump do that if elected and found guilty in either of the two federal cases, with our politically divided country and the extremists being the loudest, I think that would cause a great uproar and potentially a constitutional crisis. But as both federal trials keep getting pushed back, I think it's much more likely that should Trump win the WH that the DOJ would just stop everything, possibly withdraw the charges. What could happen with the next president, I'm not going to guess.
To do that, Congress would need to change a law that sets the number of seats in SCOTUS. So to do that, the Dems would need to take the House, have 61 sets in the Senate and hold the Oval Office. That's a big reach in today's political arena.
And now you know why your movie quiz's kept getting bumped off the Front Page.
But who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Yep, being one of the main reasons for my not creating them these days. At least for me, there is as much fun watching the American political circus these days as there was for me creating a movie game.
I am against packing the court. As much as I find the current court to be partisan, packing is not the solution. As with impeachment abuse, packing will be abused. Anyone up for a 17 person SCotUS in the future?
I agree that 9 is a good number, and when I take a look at the line of judges of the International Court of Justice I also realize that too many can boondoggle any proper decision being reached. It just bothers me, perhaps because I'm a Canadian and truly admire Canada's truly unbiased judicial system wherein from the lowest magistrate's court to the Supreme Court of Canada the comparison with the American system is like white vs black. As well, in Canada, a judge would recuse himself from a trial for lesser reasons than American judges refuse to do.
"April fools has already past. So you're the biggest fool at last."
Author unknown.
I dont know, I think its an all purpose phrase in this case.