The trials and tribulations of an ex-president (including SCOTUS on the 14th amendment)

191012141566

Comments

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    There is a theory that many leaders are characterised either by controlled paranoia or controlled psychopathy. It fits with the speculation that business and public service hierarchies resemble septic tanks. The choicest pieces of shit float to the top.

    Of course you can argue this is pure cynical speculation. But I'm not so sure. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And some personalities both desire power for its own sake and seem more likely to be corrupted by its temptations.

    I've always liked Frank Herbert's observation about how this works, found in his novel 'Dune Messiah'.
    If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections.

    I don't think these ideas are cynical, I think they are cautionary. People who think they can make and enforce their own truth are not normal and if they attain power can be very dangerous. As we have daily proof.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    There's an idea (speculation? meme? an actual promise?) that T will somehow be back tomorrow (March 4th). Reportedly, this is being taken more seriously by security this time.

    If a leader is going to come back, I'd much rather have King Arthur.
  • Jesus would be nice...
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Sure. At the moment, though, I'm more in the mood for meeting King Arthur.
    ;)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Gaaaa. Searched for more info. Different bits in different sources, but this is good:

    "QAnon believers think Trump will be inaugurated again on March 4. Law enforcement is preparing for potential threats, including from other violent extremist and militia groups, on Thursday. " (Vox)

    President Grant (yes, Ulysses); the sovereign citizens' movement; Biden and T switching bodies (!); "an unidentified militia group’s possible plot to break into the Capitol"...oh, and the gold standard.

    Yikes.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I'm going to regret asking this but... what's Ulysses S. Grant got to do with it? What is wrong with Rutherford Hayes in their opinion? Why do they think Lincoln, Johnson and Grant were legitimate but not Hayes?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    edited March 2021
    Check the article. There's something about a constitutional amendment or something. It happened during or just after Grant's term in office.

    ETA: I wonder if any holders of these ideas are also believers that there hasn't been a legit pope in a very long time?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    If a leader is going to come back, I'd much rather have King Arthur.
    Do I sense a Heaven thread coming on?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited March 2021
    And apparently you-know-who has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Republican Party concerning usage of his name and image for fundraising. I just need to keep the popcorn out permanently.

    Fixed broken link. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • hmmm, interested in that broken link LC. I bet he wants payment.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    And apparently you-know-who has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Republican Party concerning usage of his name and image for fundraising. I just need to keep the popcorn out permanently.
    I think the one in the quote above now works. Or this one.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Yep if he is not getting a cut, he is not playing the game.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    The rates at his DC hotel were reportedly raised to coincide with the false March 4th inauguration.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I'm going to regret asking this but... what's Ulysses S. Grant got to do with it? What is wrong with Rutherford Hayes in their opinion? Why do they think Lincoln, Johnson and Grant were legitimate but not Hayes?

    The theory is that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 changed the United States from a constitutional republic into a corporation. (This comes from a willful/ignorant misreading of the term "municipal corporation" in the law.) In other words the last legitimate, constitutional U.S. president was Grant, inaugurated in 1869. The second Grant term probably doesn't count under this theory since it began in 1873.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm going to regret asking this but... what's Ulysses S. Grant got to do with it? What is wrong with Rutherford Hayes in their opinion? Why do they think Lincoln, Johnson and Grant were legitimate but not Hayes?

    The theory is that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 changed the United States from a constitutional republic into a corporation. (This comes from a willful/ignorant misreading of the term "municipal corporation" in the law.) In other words the last legitimate, constitutional U.S. president was Grant, inaugurated in 1869. The second Grant term probably doesn't count under this theory since it began in 1873.

    That's all well and good but was Grant a boat?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm going to regret asking this but... what's Ulysses S. Grant got to do with it? What is wrong with Rutherford Hayes in their opinion? Why do they think Lincoln, Johnson and Grant were legitimate but not Hayes?

    The theory is that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 changed the United States from a constitutional republic into a corporation. (This comes from a willful/ignorant misreading of the term "municipal corporation" in the law.) In other words the last legitimate, constitutional U.S. president was Grant, inaugurated in 1869. The second Grant term probably doesn't count under this theory since it began in 1873.

    Urggh.... "straw-clutching" doesn't begin to cover it. I suppose any argument that appears to support one's favoured conclusion looks good... I suppose too that it's not a unique phenomenon... just a depressing reflection on the general human capacity for rational thought...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Did anything happen on 4 March? I must have missed it.
  • *crickets*
  • Meanwhile, the loser-in-chief loses another one.
  • Meanwhile, the loser-in-chief loses another one.

    I have to wonder about the cost of all these court cases and who is paying the bill?

  • Since when did you-know-who pay any bill?
  • ... which is why he has trouble attracting lawyers who are worth their hire.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The loser always pays the cost of civil court in the United States, I believe.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The loser always pays the cost of civil court in the United States, I believe.
    No. Like so many other things, this varies from state to state.

    And “costs of court” are not the same thing as legal fees.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Just a quick bump to this thread in light of this.
    New York Attorney General Letitia James is joining the Manhattan district attorney's office in a criminal investigation of the Trump Organization, James' office said Tuesday.

    The attorney general office's investigation into the Trump Organization, which has been underway since 2019, will also continue as a civil probe, but the office recently informed Trump Organization officials of the criminal component.

    "We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature. We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA," James' spokesman Fabien Levy told CNN. "We have no additional comment."

    Additional coverage from the BBC.

    Lots of speculation about this one. My guess is that, having finally gotten their hands on the tax returns for the Trump Organization, the various prosecutors have decided that the discrepancies between what's there and what the Trump Organization told various banks is egregious enough to indicate intent.
  • You mean we're finally going to see you-know-who led away in handcuffs? About time!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    You mean we're finally going to see you-know-who led away in handcuffs? About time!

    Maybe, maybe not. It may be part of a strategy to get Alan Weisselberg (the guy who runs the day-to-day operations of the Trump Organization) to flip. Of course the only reason to get Weisselberg to flip is the assumption that he knows where all the (likely but not certainly metaphorical) bodies are buried. America is usually pretty squeamish about criminally prosecuting or punishing the rich and/or powerful, but they've never had a president* so blatantly involved in shady stuff before.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited May 2021
    The Devil looks after his own. His stranglehold on the GOP is stronger than ever. The States will do his Fascist dirty work with voter suppression. That's a 2024 shoo in. What can possibly stop that? Hawley for Veep?
  • I'm trying to decide if there's going to be one musical or two. The first musical could possibly end with the Q-anon shaman howling at the moon or whatever Q-anon shamans howl at.

    It might be worth getting up a list of possible songs for a musical. The one which comes to mind is when trumpy phoned up Georgia to change the vote: The Devil Went Down to Georgia (Charlie Daniels). Probably in there should also be Mike Pence singing "They Don't Make Jews Like Jesus Anymore" (Kinky Friedman and The Texas Jewboys).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The Devil looks after his own. His stranglehold on the GOP is stronger than ever. The States will do his Fascist dirty work with voter suppression. That's a 2024 shoo in. What can possibly stop that? Hawley for Veep?

    You are such a negative nelly Martin. Voter suppression efforts are likely to work in favor of the Democrats as the targets of suppression get more and more pissed off. They will need to put people in fear of their life to stop them voting.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The Devil looks after his own. His stranglehold on the GOP is stronger than ever. The States will do his Fascist dirty work with voter suppression. That's a 2024 shoo in. What can possibly stop that? Hawley for Veep?

    You are such a negative nelly Martin. Voter suppression efforts are likely to work in favor of the Democrats as the targets of suppression get more and more pissed off. They will need to put people in fear of their life to stop them voting.

    Don't. Give them. Ideas.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Its old fashioned southern-style democracy. :cry: :cry:
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Voter suppression efforts are likely to work in favor of the Democrats as the targets of suppression get more and more pissed off. They will need to put people in fear of their life to stop them voting.

    Baloney. Many engaged voters, especially less engaged ones, will be put off from voting if obstacles are put in their way. And if you don't find out till election day that you've been purged from the election rolls, no amount of energy will help you. Republican strategists aren't stupid, they're evil.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    In other news, the District Attorney for Manhattan has impaneled a grand jury to look at the business practices of the Trump Corporation in the way it manipulated real estate values to obtain loans and insurance values while at the same time decreasing those values for tax purposes. Trump, of course, is calling it a witch hunt. His likely defense will be his auditors did the paperwork, he just signed them. Story Here.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    And if he's found guilty and jailed for more than three and a half years that would stop him being president! Huzzah! ...
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I can't help thinking that the supposition behind claiming that this or that campaign is a witch hunt - that witch hunts are unnecessary, and vicious and wrong - ignores the fact that in the metaphorical world, where there are no actual witches, there certainly are people who absolutely deserve to be hunted down as if they are.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    I can't help thinking that the supposition behind claiming that this or that campaign is a witch hunt - that witch hunts are unnecessary, and vicious and wrong - ignores the fact that in the metaphorical world, where there are no actual witches, there certainly are people who absolutely deserve to be hunted down as if they are.

    Yep, the metaphor implies hunting for people who are demonised even though they are innocent. Trump's problem is that he isn't remotely innocent.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And if he's found guilty and jailed for more than three and a half years that would stop him being president! Huzzah! ...

    Not necessarily. It's never come up before, but technically incarceration is not a bar to the presidency. In a reasonable world it would fall under the rubric of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but as has been thoroughly illustrated lately our world is far from reasonable.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And if he's found guilty and jailed for more than three and a half years that would stop him being president! Huzzah! ...

    Not necessarily. It's never come up before, but technically incarceration is not a bar to the presidency. In a reasonable world it would fall under the rubric of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but as has been thoroughly illustrated lately our world is far from reasonable.

    While the Federal Constitution does not disqualify convicted felons from running for the presidency, mainly because the writers assumed only upper-class men would be able to run and upper-class men do not commit crimes, many states have laws prohibiting felons from running for elective offices. If Trump can't get on enough state ballots to win the electoral college, he is out.

    If Trump is found guilty of anything and has to spend 365 + 1 days in jail, he will be classified as a felon.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    If Trump is found guilty of anything and has to spend 365 + 1 days in jail, he will be classified as a felon.
    Not exactly. The federal law definition and New York State law definition of a felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more, not whether a convicted person actually does time for a year or more. (Definitions of felony in other states may be different.)

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited May 2021
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And if he's found guilty and jailed for more than three and a half years that would stop him being president! Huzzah! ...

    Not necessarily. It's never come up before, but technically incarceration is not a bar to the presidency. In a reasonable world it would fall under the rubric of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but as has been thoroughly illustrated lately our world is far from reasonable.

    Wow, you can't vote if you're banged up but you can be voted for? Bobby Sands was here, so why not? So, what with voter ID & antidemocratic gerrymandering, 2024 it is, whether he's in the pokey or not.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    If Trump is found guilty of anything and has to spend 365 + 1 days in jail, he will be classified as a felon.
    Not exactly. The federal law definition and New York State law definition of a felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more, not whether a convicted person actually does time for a year or more. (Definitions of felony in other states may be different.)

    The difference here used be that a felony was punishable by death (in the days before the death penalty was abolished) or penal servitude, while misdemeanours were punishable by imprisonment. Sounds good, but of course the different terminology made no difference in practice.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    If, Trump is found guilty of anything and has to spend 365 + 1 days in jail, he will be classified as a felon.
    Not exactly. The federal law definition and New York State law definition of a felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more, not whether a convicted person actually does time for a year or more. (Definitions of felony in other states may be different.)

    I stand corrected. He is subject to New York State law and federal law. I should have reviewed my statement.

    I do note the DA Vance Cyrus has brought in Mark Pomerantz who is known as a specialist in white-collar and organized crime. We are talking about more than one year imprisonment if Trump can be convicted.

    And there is the DC investigation of Trump's involvement in the conspiracy to commit sedition in the attack on the capitol.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    No chance. Absolute waste of taxpayer's money. Trump will make financial and political capital from it all for his assured comeback.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    We are talking about more than one year imprisonment if Trump can be convicted.
    Again, the length of an individual’s imprisonment is not the issue. The issue is whether the crime is one that by statute is punishable by more than a year in prison.

    New York, like many states, has different classes of felonies, from more serious to less serious. The common denominator is that even for the lowest class of felony, a sentence of over a year may be imposed.

    If Trump is charged with a crime classified as a felony, then he is charged with a felony. If he is convicted of such a crime, then he is convicted of a felony, even if he gets a suspended sentence and never spends a day in prison.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    *crickets*

    No it’s to early in March, that s football season. Cricket is a summer game.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    *crickets*

    No it’s to early in March, that s football season. Cricket is a summer game.
    May I point you in the general direction of your coat?
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    I genuinely don't understand why you're all talking about the prospect of Trump being convicted of something. While Trump slathers his name all over anything and everything, in law an organisation with the word 'Trump' in its name is not synonymous with the man.

    A grand jury investigating the Trump Corporation is not investigating Donald Trump.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    From the descriptions in the news, a grand jury can investigate more than one thing at a time. What makes you think they're not investigating Donald Trump as well as the Trump Organization?
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Um... the fact that every single story says they are investigating the Trump Organization?

    If there was actually consideration of charges against Donald Trump, it would be huge news. But the only place I've yet seen any talk about convicting Trump is right here on this thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.