Illuminati-R-Us

g-one wrote:

Lance wrote:What could be greater than that?!?

What's the longest sentence ever 'awarded' to a former US President?

I don’t think any of them have even been charged.

Now in South Korea, for the president to go to prison is just normal.

The current Malaysian PM did things backwards - he went to prison first, then became PM.

Now, maybe three time's a charm.
.

Arneb wrote:Now, maybe three time's a charm.

So far, all the criminal charges against him are Federal. Once he's elected, he can pardon himself from prison and move back to the white house.

I'm waiting for the state charges from Georgia. Those he can't pardon himself from.

First indictment was New York charges, not federal.

Lance wrote:

Arneb wrote:Now, maybe three time's a charm.

So far, all the criminal charges against him are Federal. Once he's elected, he can pardon himself from prison and move back to the white house.

I'm waiting for the state charges from Georgia. Those he can't pardon himself from.

There was someone on the news a few years ago who pointed out that pardons don’t have to be announced, and raised the possibility that Trump has already pardoned himself.

Can you be pardoned for a crime of which you have not been prosecuted, let alone convicted? As would have been the case at the time.

But yes, the State of Georgia indictment is the interesting one. Falsifying business records is one thing, incitement of a state official to commit election fraud is another. Although the idea of him doing time in New York and then being sent down to Georgia to do further time there (or vice versa) is also pleasing.

Richard A wrote:Can you be pardoned for a crime of which you have not been prosecuted, let alone convicted? .

If nothing else, it seemed that many republicans believed so, asking for pardons pre-emptively for their actions on Jan 6. also Matt Gaezt asked for one for 'anything he might have done...'

And I seem to remember Trump pardoned one of his cronies after an indictment but before the trial.

Well the precedent on all of this was Gerald Ford providing a blanket, prospective pardon for Richard Nixon.

I don't think it was ever tested in court, because I don't think any charges were ever brought against Nixon. And the reason charges were not brought might have been, the prosecutors were afraid the pardon would hold up - all that work for nothing.

wring wrote:First indictment was New York charges, not federal.

For some reason I was thinking those were civil, but you are correct.

Third World Jungle Justice.

Some guy on the interwebs is claiming that Jack Smith plans to indict several dozen members of Congress - specifically, the ones who Trump contacted during the Jan 6 Special Insurrection Operation.

I can find no confirmation of this on any news site.

Now, there are all kinds of things that I used to regard as perfectly ordinary everyday events, that are now criminalised in the US. However, I think receiving a telephone call from Donald Trump is not a crime, at least not yet. So if this report is actually true, what sort of case is there?

Q: Did you or did you not, on January 6th as protesters were breaking into the capitol building and searching for the chamber where congress and the senate met, receive a telephone call from Donald Trump?

A: Yes I did.

Q: And what did Donald Trump say?

A: He asked for my help in overturning the election result.

Q: And what did you do?

A: I told him we don't have to like the election outcome, but we do have to respect it, and also asked him to make a public appeal to the protestors to stand down. He immediately hung up the telephone.

If there are no witnesses or recordings, I'm not sure there is any case to be had here. Unless they confess themselves. Marjorie Taylor-Greene might be dumb enough for that, but then again, she might get off on insanity and return to her job in congress.

It's time, place and context. There were, unquestionably, people who Trump looked to for support in overturning the election result and didn't get it. Mike Pence for one - hence the insurrectionists chant to deal with him. Famously, state election officers in Georgia also. But if: an attempted coup is taking place; A is charged with orchestrating it; and B is found to have had a phone conversation with A at the time it was going down, it's not unreasonable for B to have some questions to answer. Whether it will hold up enough sufficiently strongly for a conviction in court is another matter, but it doesn't look good.

Richard A wrote:But if: an attempted coup is taking place; A is charged with orchestrating it; and B is found to have had a phone conversation with A at the time it was going down, it's not unreasonable for B to have some questions to answer. Whether it will hold up enough sufficiently strongly for a conviction in court is another matter, but it doesn't look good.

Well the source I found specifically states "indict" - it's not referring to some sort of investigation. I still cannot find any confirmation of this on the news sites, so I think there's a good chance it's BS.

But if they go to court, I can only assume these people are going to have modestly competent attorneys, who advise them to keep their big stupid mouths shut until they've been carefully coached on what they should and should not say. (Better Call Saul reference - Didja say anything stupid? And by "anything stupid" I mean anything at all!)

But given that they're politicians, maybe they'll feel like they need to speak out. And if this story is actually true, perhaps that's what the prosecutor is relying on - the politicians' tendency to shoot their mouths off might lead them to incriminate themselves.

Lance wrote:

Arraigny Night.jpg

I’m also inclined to insert a Charlie Daniels Band reference.

I didn't know that one. But "The Devil Went Down To Georgia" also came to mind.

Colorado Supreme Court orders Trump stricken from the ballot. Order stayed until the day before the ballot must be finalised, to give an opportunity for Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As I understand it, the lower court determined that Trump had indeed engaged in insurrection, but did not rule him ineligible for the presidency, since the wording of the 14th amendment did not specifically cite the presidency as one of the covered offices. (So somewhat bizarrely, under this interpretation, a person who engaged in insurrection, could be ruled ineligible to be an elector for the presidency, but not ineligible to be president.) The Supreme Court apparently disagreed. I have not seen the details of their legal reasoning.

So, non-lawyer speaking here - is it risky to appeal to the Supreme Court? Currently, this is a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which applies to Colorado only, which has ten of the 538 electoral votes. But, what if Trump appeals to the US Supreme Court, and they agree with Colorado? That sets a national precedent, does it not?

It does, but the US Supreme Court will vote along party lines so will vote for Trump. They're bought and paid for.

Possibly - except that the Republican Party has fractured. Conservative Supreme Court Justices who favoured De Santis or any other candidate for "Trumpism without Trump" could endorse the Colorado decision in order to clear the way for them.

Also don't forget the Obamacare case (officially National Association of Small Businesses v. Sebelius. (No, autocorrect, I don't mean the long-deceased Finnish composer!) Chief Justice Roberts had been appointed by George W. Bush as a safe conservative pair of hands. But when it came to it, he proved to be a judge first and a conservative second - even saying explicitly that the merits or otherwise of the Affordable Care Act was not the point; the only question being, did Congress have the power under the Constitution to pass it? And he held that it did.

But back to the question. Appealing the Colorado decision to the Supreme Court would indeed be a risky move. As Mactep says, if Trump loses, that sets a national precedent. But if he wins, that will be an open invitation to claim that Trump has politicised the Supreme Court even more than his predecessors did. And that cry will be taken up not only by the Democrats but also other Republican contenders in the primaries. It could also persuade moderate Republican voters - of which there are a fair number - to stay home. So I would think that a safer course would be to follow the established tactic - cry "They're being mean to me!" and raise more funds on the back of it.