US Politics Thread

yankblue said:
I think it's one of those things that's technically legal because it's so fucking stupid that nobody ever thought to make a law against it.
Click to expand...

I think technically he can't pardon himself but he could resign get one from his poodle deputy (whoever it is) and then rule by proxy.
 
Elbow beards said:
What does that mean in English?
Click to expand...
Trump and his cult members are claiming he can say and think whatever he wants about the election — it was stolen, rigged, a do-over is needed, etc. That’s not what the case is about — and the indictment recogniz(s)es Trump’s right to say and think those things — but about what he told/asked/ordered others to do. That’s the “conspiracy”.

Now he wants to argue that asking others to commit crimes is protected speech as well. And the Supreme Court already ruled in 2008 that it isn’t. Again, it’s the asking that’s the conspiracy. You can’t ask someone to commit a crime — like, say, election fraud. That’s illegal. And not protected speech under the First Amendment. So saying it is free speech won’t work as a defense either.

And I doubt very much even this Supreme Court would overturn that 2008 decision (US vs Williams) if it came to that (which it may, knowing Trump). It was decided 7-2 with the opinion written by the most conservative justice on the bench, Antonin Scalia.
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Trump and his cult members are claiming he can say and think whatever he wants about the election — it was stolen, rigged, a do-over is needed, etc. That’s not what the case is about — and the indictment recogniz(s)es Trump’s right to say and think those things — but about what he he told/asked/ordered others to do. That’s the “conspiracy”.

Now he wants to argue that asking others to commit crimes is protected speech as well. And the Supreme Court already ruled in 2008 that it isn’t. Again, it’s the asking that’s the conspiracy. You can’t ask someone to commit a crime — like, say, election fraud. That’s illegal. And not protected speech under the First Amendment. So saying it is free speech won’t work as a defense either.

And I doubt very much even this Supreme Court would overturn that 2008 decision (US vs Williams) if it came to that (which it may, knowing Trump). It was decided 7-2 with the opinion written by the most conservative justice on the bench, Antonin Scalia.
Click to expand...
Cheers for that. Bloody hate twitter sound bites, can never make head nor tail of them.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
I know it’s part of a very old constitution, and understandable why Americans would stick to it, but the fact that he could go to jail but then pardon himself and then sit in the Whitehouse seems absolutely crackers.

Could somebody from the US tell me that I’m reading it wrong, this couldn’t really happen?
Click to expand...

yankblue said:
I think it's one of those things that's technically legal because it's so fucking stupid that nobody ever thought to make a law against it.
Click to expand...

Mr Kobayashi said:
I think technically he can't pardon himself but he could resign get one from his poodle deputy (whoever it is) and then rule by proxy.
Click to expand...

It’s even worse than that: he doesn’t even need a pardon to become president from prison, nor resign to have himself pardoned so he can govern freely, as there is no law against an incarcerated person being elected to the highest office in the land and no constitutional test of a President pardoning himself. If he pardoned himself the Supreme Court would most certainly get involved to interpret what the founding fathers intended… and we know how that has gone with these idiotically crazy originalists he installed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.