Arrests are being made for some of the insurrectionists at the Capitol. As long as he's in office, Trump can pardon them. I don't think even the staunchest Republicans want that. That's the argument Pelosi should be using re calling the Senate back for a trial - they believe there safeguards against any military or nuclear actions Trump might take.
Following his very half-hearted post-insurrection speech, pardoning these types would make him a hypocrite of mammoth proportions. It's the correct size, but still ...
I thought about that. Don't think Trump cares about being called a hypocrite. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but can't put it past him.
Heard something about why they aren't in session this weekend. If anyone in the House objected they couldn't do it? I don't know exactly the reasoning, believe it was Eric Swalwell explaining why they can't do anything until Monday.
At this point, by the time it takes to get it all done, I'm not sure it makes much difference. I know even just a few days leaves time for something undesirable and bad to happen...I'm just not sure it's feasible to get done in time.
Arrests are being made for some of the insurrectionists at the Capitol. As long as he's in office, Trump can pardon them. I don't think even the most staunch Republicans want that. That's the argument Pelosi should be using re calling the Senate back for a trial - they believe there safeguards against any military or nuclear actions Trump might take.
I read that Pelosi spoke to General Milley of the Joint Chiefs and he assured her Trump cannot on his own initiate a nuclear action. However, if a foreign country launches a strike on us or an ally we would have to respond. Israel has been bombing Iranian a controlled areas in Damascus, Syria so Anything of a retaliatory nature could occur.
One analyst who shall remain identity protected said it was his feeling we could be hit with a hypersonic missile soon. He did not specify the sending country [but how many actually have that technology? Only YS, Russia, China and India - Japan is working on it] but said our current Defense capabilities cannot stop that because of the speed with which they come in. It would have to be taken down with a laser but there would not be enough time to do that, and the lasers are deployed from space.
I thought about that. Don't think Trump cares about being called a hypocrite. Hopefully that doesn't happen, but can't put it past him.
Heard something about why they aren't in session this weekend. If anyone in the House objected they couldn't do it? I don't know exactly the reasoning, believe it was Eric Swalwell explaining why they can't do anything until Monday.
At this point, by the time it takes to get it all done, I'm not sure it makes much difference. I know even just a few days leaves time for something undesirable and bad to happen...I'm just not sure it's feasible to get done in time.
They are on recess until after the Inauguration but could be called back as an emergency, though after the Electoral vote finishing at 3:30 a.m. it is doubtful any of them want to come back early from recess.
In my opinion Trump should not pardon those who broke into the Capital. Pardons can only occur after a conviction. With the short amount of time left for him in office, their trials and convictions would likely not occur before January 20th.
2021...same Gina. Are you protecting the analyst's identity?
Of course I am protecting his identity.
Even if current events do not cause one of the country's who have the weapons to launch one on us we could be brought into war for another reason. WATER. The Indus River between India and Pakistan. Both these are nuclear armed countries. Jim Rickards brought up the problem of the water shortage for Pakistan and said that a war would occur because of it. There is prophecy that Pakistan will wage war on India and be successful. It is Islamic prophecy.
Wars can come from many places.
The Dailymail.co.uk reports Mitch McConnell has circulated a memo regarding impeachment. The House of Representatives can receive the proceedings and vote on it January 19th, the Senate will get it January 20th, and then they can impeach Trump banning him for life, so he can never be in office again. They are worried he might run for election and win.
This happens on Inauguration Day.
Does anyone expect peaceful protests?
One analyst who shall remain identity protected said it was his feeling we could be hit with a hypersonic missile soon. He did not specify the sending country [but how many actually have that technology? Only YS, Russia, China and India - Japan is working on it] but said our current Defense capabilities cannot stop that because of the speed with which they come in. It would have to be taken down with a laser but there would not be enough time to do that, and the lasers are deployed from space.
—————————————
Our Space Force was unveiled to great acclaim in 2019, it should be able to deter any interplanetary strikes on our country
It’s not new war tech, heck in the 1980s we had our AWACS, airplanes equipped w/technology capable, Dutch & others said at the time, of intercepting-&-disintegrating incoming missiles
Here is a chance for the Space Force to help avoid mass destruction, that’s why it’s out there
Of course I am protecting his identity.
Even if current events do not cause one of the country's who have the weapons to launch one on us we could be brought into war for another reason. WATER. The Indus River between India and Pakistan. Both these are nuclear armed countries. Jim Rickards brought up the problem of the water shortage for Pakistan and said that a war would occur because of it. There is prophecy that Pakistan will wage war on India and be successful. It is Islamic prophecy.
Wars can come from many places.
If there is info you are referring to & then saying that you are protecting this person's identity...think about this. If you know the identity, then 1000's of others do. You don't really expect people to believe that you are privy to info that others aren't, do you?
In my opinion Trump should not pardon those who broke into the Capital. Pardons can only occur after a conviction. With the short amount of time left for him in office, their trials and convictions would likely not occur before January 20th.
Not at all true. Ford pardoned Nixon before he was even charged. Carter issued a blanket pardon for Vietnam War draft dodgers. I don't think this has ever been challenged, but presidents have historically issued pardons for people who have not even been charged yet.
Of course I am protecting his identity.
Even if current events do not cause one of the country's who have the weapons to launch one on us we could be brought into war for another reason. WATER. The Indus River between India and Pakistan. Both these are nuclear armed countries. Jim Rickards brought up the problem of the water shortage for Pakistan and said that a war would occur because of it. There is prophecy that Pakistan will wage war on India and be successful. It is Islamic prophecy.
Wars can come from many places.
If there is info you are referring to & then saying that you are protecting this person's identity...think about this. If you know the identity, then 1000's of others do. You don't really expect people to believe that you are privy to info that others aren't, do you?
There's a lot of persecuting people going on. I saw videos of at least 70 reporters being shot during BLM protests. Certain groups did not want the truth to be known. Freedom of the press does not exist anymore.
First they labelled truthers- as conspiracy theorists to dissuade and discredit them. Then they tried to call some domestic terrorists and claim they were inciting people.
Remember Wikileaks? They just had a big release of more documents but if you pass them on then you are guilty under federal law. Nobody's allowed to expose corruption anymore.
Evil reigns supreme nowadays.
When asked about Trump's self-pardon as a reason for requesting Pence invoke the 25th amendment and/or initiate impeachment proceedings, Pelosi stated she was more worried about Trump pardoning the insurrectionists. Stahl on 60 minutes didn't follow-up, but that's the fear. Those people caused the death of 5 others, including a Capitol Police officer, and had a noose at the ready for the VP. As long as Trump is in office, he can pardon them.
My opinion: pardoning the insurrectionists would be further political suicide for Trump. I don't think he could win the Republican primary again now.
Since I don't believe he has any appetite to run again after a 4 year hiatus, I don't think he cares about political ramifications. He's more interested in showing off his power in his final days than what may or may not happen years from now. Even he knows Eric & Jr couldn't win anything.
Agree. Trump isn't worried about anything other remaining relevant and liked (by some) after he leaves office. This guy isn't going away. He'll probably get a TV show on cable news. We'd only be so lucky if he has a heart attack or something. That's probably the only way he's going away after he leave office.
I was hoping for the orange jumpsuit version of his future.... 
I was hoping for the orange jumpsuit version of his future....
Well...that is true. He will certainly be very busy in a multitude of court cases.
In prison, he wouldn't have hair & makeup people so orange wouldn't be so bad w/white & pasty.
He's said to have confided to unnamed aides that prison is his worst fear. I believe that. It's not the money he owes or trials, it's conviction & time in a cell. That's the reason I'm still holding out for the resignation option so that Pence will pardon him or he'll self-pardon to avoid at least federal charges.
Alec Baldwin needs to return to SNL for one final skit: "Coming this Fall to NETFLIX: "Orange is the New Trump"!
I’m curious how the whole self-pardon attempt would shake out in the courts. It’s never been tested and I can’t see how, given the fears of the founding fathers about a monarch, the checks and balances written into the constitution, etc. that any president can pardon him/herself from crimes they’ve committed.
Thoughts?
Both the WH Counsel & Barr cautioned Trump against it, but there's absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents it & it's never been tested. Nixon's team of lawyers researched the issue & concluded he could self-pardon while the DOJ at the time research & concluded he couldn't. Clinton is remaining mum, but his former aides have said his lawyers researched it & concluded he could.
Bottom line: The only real legal argument (aside from the "moral" argument of self-dealing, above the law, blah, blah usually ignored by all courts except in France) is that the constitution gives POTUS the power to "grant" pardons. Literalists insist "grant" means the grantor/grantee have to be 2 different people; others say constitution doesn't require it.
So, while the courts debate the meaning of "grant" after the fact, Trump is out of office & most likely, headed to state courts. It's the kind of legal stuff I have zero patience for.
Whatever happens in the next few days, one thing is certain, that Congress needs to codify a whole host of things that future presidents should not be allowed to do.
Self enrichment, the pardon process, etc....Obviously the courts ultimately may rule on such laws, but we’ve got to begin to build a set of laws to prevent another president to do the sort of things Trump engage in the past four years.
There are constitutional prohibitions about what you suggest. No one ever called him on it. When he was impeached, there could've been a laundry list of charges, but they chose to go w/Ukraine & what was considered the easiest to prove & was the most egregious of his crimes. McConnell was completely responsible for keeping him in office. I don't know why or how he did it, but he kept all 50 of those senators in his grip & they dared not go against him.
All of this wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't some DOJ memo (going back to Clinton & perhaps further) that claims sitting presidents can't be indicted. There's absolutely no legal basis for it and it's a memo. It's not law. Trump could've been indicted multiple times for crimes were not everyone quaking from this memo. He could've been indicted for inciting a riot last week were it not for this memo. We wouldn't be wringing our hands over resignation, impeachment, or invoking the 25th. He'd have already been indicted.
Congress can certainly pass a law that allows a sitting president to be indicted by the appropriate prosecutor - at least for serious crimes (& exclude claims like Paula Jones not getting a job because she had an affair w/Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas). That stuff can wait until he's out of office - it's already waited 25 years. The memo hasn't been taken up by the courts because no one's actually indicted/arrested a sitting president.
Exactly my point, Cyclone....Trump has done tons of sh@t any other federal official, elected or otherwise, would have been impeached for or faced immediate criminal charges for. His violation right from day one of the emoluments clause alone would have been a big issue for any other president...Could you imagine Barak Obama getting away with such obvious criminality?
Again, the congress in a bi-partisan manner (if that's even possible anymore) should codify and strengthen the guard rails around the Executive branch to prevent these kinds of things from occurring ever again. Then let the courts decide should they be challenged by the next president who violates them.
Again, the congress in a bi-partisan manner (if that's even possible anymore) should codify and strengthen the guard rails around the Executive branch to prevent these kinds of things from occurring ever again. Then let the courts decide should they be challenged by the next president who violates them.
I seriously doubt there will be such a thing as a bi-partisan Congress ever again. Too many far left Dems, too many far right GOP. Not enough in the middle ground to come to a consensus about what is right for the country, not for their party.
I say again, we need a third, fourth, and maybe a fifth party viable enough to get voted into office. We no longer can afford it to be when we vote, it's for the lesser of the two evils. No party should ever again be able to command the Senate or House with majority rule. To pass legislature all parties would have input, and then the rules of "checks and balances" would be in effect. Think of it, just getting 3 Senators that are neither GOP or Dem elected would change the entire power structure.
Again, the congress in a bi-partisan manner (if that's even possible anymore) should codify and strengthen the guard rails around the Executive branch to prevent these kinds of things from occurring ever again. Then let the courts decide should they be challenged by the next president who violates them.
I seriously doubt there will be such a thing as a bi-partisan Congress ever again. Too many far left Dems, too many far right GOP. Not enough in the middle ground to come to a consensus about what is right for the country, not for their party.
I say again, we need a third, fourth, and maybe a fifth party viable enough to get voted into office. We no longer can afford it to be when we vote, it's for the lesser of the two evils. No party should ever again be able to command the Senate or House with majority rule. To pass legislature all parties would have input, and then the rules of "checks and balances" would be in effect. Think of it, just getting 3 Senators that are neither GOP or Dem elected would change the entire power structure.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party split into two. It seems the Trumplicans are going postal on anybody who doesn't support Trump 100% of the time, and the first time you don't you've committed an unforgivable offense. I would love to see additional parties, with the caviot that if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, it goes to a runoff with the two top vote getters. Otherwise, we could see extremists win with just 15% of the vote.
One thing I would love to see is that any bill passed by one house in congress MUST get voted on by the other. No longer should a McConnell or Pelosi get to kill a bill on his or her own. Also, any presidential appointee must get a vote on. Again, no holding back judicial nominees because a majority leader makes a unilateral decision.
I would love seats in Congress belonging to numerous political parties rather than just two. Shedding two "big tent" parties who try to be all things. Why does a politician have to have strong views on abortion when stating "I support decided law is sufficient" - instead they grandstand on it stumping for votes? Why does a politician have to a certain view on gun legislation, or energy or foreign policy or immigration or whatever in order to fit neatly into the D box or the R box. It is a disservice to us. Would be better if we had men and women believing any number of different things on various issues representing us, some of those people could have their bread-and-butter issues that they are both principled and educated on and then others they need not have a strong opinion otherwise allowing debate to persuade their support.
But you know what. In order to get there, to get to that, to abolish the duopoly system, to do that something that looked like what happened on Wednesday is what it would take. Who has the appetite for that? Who wants what that looks like? The uncertainty that would bring economically, the insecurity that might bring socially. That day might come, but man I don't know how it all goes down. The power structure that is the Republican and Democrat power structure would do everything in their power to oppose it. There is no way it just happens and they amend the constitution to establish a new system whereby they lose all their power.
