Donald Trump

[Irrev-Black]

Shardy-froydy time!

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-w ... -it-2021-3

[stylofone]

Shardy-froydy time!

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-w ... -it-2021-3

It's a terrible likeness, it looks like they put a blond wig on the Paul McCartney doll.

[pipbarber]

So that's it, we've reached the end game, it's do or die for Trump now! That may be literally be all accounts!

At the trial on absolute presidential immunity the Trump legal team was asked, "if Trump ordered the Seal Team 6 top secret task force to kill his political rivals would be be immune in that case?"

The answer was "yes!" Don't believe me? Here it is;

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six?” Judge Florence Pan asked.

Trump lawyer John Sauer dithered, invoking the founding fathers and what they would intend in such a situation.

“I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan interrupted. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

“My answer is qualified yes. There is a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our Constitution which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.”

It extends further, as he would need to be impeached first, so the argument goes, if Trump in the last few days of his second term, just orders his secret teams to go around killing people, then faced with impeachment just resigned from the presidency, because you can only impeach a sitting president, then yes he could quite literally have anyone killed and get away with it. The argument is of course the judges to demonstrate the absurdity of absolute presidential immunity, I don't think on this basis they are going to rule in his favour!

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... al-team-6/

Not sure about 'make or break,' to be fair. If he is found not to be immune from prosecution then a trial can proceed. Would it conclude before November? Would he be found guilty? Trump's polling seems to increase after court appearances, such is the crazy world of US electoral politics, court appearances are not 'court appearances' but presidential campaigning.

What we remember to be political death blows are not that any more. This is 2024, 40+ years of neoliberal madness, 30 years of internet. This is not the 20th century, the same conventions don't apply. We, as a democratic mass, are not tethered to facts and rules and history, 'we' are the people of our own curated digital bubbles.

He said he could shoot someone in full public view and people would still vote for him, 8 fucking years ago, and that is even truer today. Trump is a concept, at this point. Legal constraints will not make any difference.

I hope i'm wrong.

[stevebrooks]

His poll numbers increase "among republican primary voters," This is an essentially artificial statistic being used to bolster him among Republicans, his total voter numbers don't rise the same way at all, and it's the total voter numbers that count.

[pipbarber]

His poll numbers increase "among republican primary voters," This is an essentially artificial statistic being used to bolster him among Republicans, his total voter numbers don't rise the same way at all, and it's the total voter numbers that count.

Good point, although we have seen reputable polls that put Trump ahead of Biden, but of course total voter numbers don't actually count at all. The election is decided on the basis of 5 or 6 key states so overall polling is irrelevant.

I guess i'm continually amazed at reporting around Trump being 'finished' this time, after saying or doing something stupid or yet another court appearance, and it never materialises. Really, this has been going on for 8 years, and he's still likely to win the GOP nomination and who knows about election day!

It's a curiosity, election day. Voter intimidation from Trump's goons, various fraudulent election day shenanigans, anything is possible. And ironically, if Trump does somehow manage to win the election with questionable or outright illegal actions, what would the Dems do? Start a 'stop the steal' campaign? That'd be a bit tired, i'd have thought, even if it were true this time.

[stylofone]

It's a curiosity, election day. Voter intimidation from Trump's goons, various fraudulent election day shenanigans, anything is possible.

This reminded me of elections in India, where it's pretty much accepted that there will be violence, bombings, shootings, corruption etc.. They have an electoral commission which is authorised to deal with all these complications, all this craziness... or at least try to deal with it.

I think the US is introducing the craziness but they're in denial, they're not dealing with it, it's left to the states. They haven't yet worked out that Trump has done more than anyone to turn the USA into what he categorises as a "shithole" country. But it's pretty clear in my mind, the USA is a shithole, I'd never go there.

[Irrev-Black]

(Megasnip)

But it's pretty clear in my mind, the USA is a shithole, I'd never go there.

I am deeply concerned that we have economic and defence ties with what could, any tick of the clock, turn out to be the equivalent of an upset chimp with a case of rabies.

[stevebrooks]

Personally I think polls are only as useful as the population is sane, they have become less and less useful in predicting who will win what, I mean the GOP were predicting a red wave in the midterms.

[Loki]

lots of posts about absolute immunity

While the argument is absurdly fascist on the face of it and the approbrium is warranted that kinda misses the genius of the question which goes to another point altogether.

This is a case at law and law is innordinately concerned with words and how they are used.

The phrase that Trump and his minions have been bandying about is "absolute immunity".

This is their phrase. This is how they have been characterising the issue.

Pan asked whether a president could murder at will with no come back.

Trump's lawyer answered that there was a way said president could be held accountable.

Never mind how ludicrous or laughable or outright offensive the proposed solution is.

Trumps own team declared "absolute" immunity existed, then, without proding, declared it didn't.

Case closed.

Was a perfect trapped question Trump's team walked right into.

That is why Pan is a judge on an appeals court and Trumps team are temporarily lawyers with no credibility.

[Irrev-Black]

$400K shardy-froydy.

Fifteen quatloos says Malodorous Clown tries to dodge paying.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-yo ... 1f9f336215