Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What's more concerning is now one of his lawyers calling up for violence against an ex-government official who dared to call out the BS that Trump et. al are spewing, over here you would get disbarred for something like that but our freedom of speech laws do not allow for calls to commit acts of violence or other serious crimes. 

I agree that's was unnecessary. Rhetorical, yet still unacceptable in a political/decorum sense. I believe that certain US laws do exist to deal with serious threats of violence.

[digitaldog]

Hey, I thought you said a couple of weeks ago that you were ignoring me. How come Andrew gets to be the first?

Maybe he needs us to send him a tutorial on how to do so.🤔

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I agree that's was unnecessary. Rhetorical, yet still unacceptable in a political/decorum sense. I believe that certain US laws do exist to deal with serious threats of violence.

Already happening:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fired-election-security-official-suggests-he-may-sue-trump-campaign-lawyer-who-said-he-should-be-shot

[faberryman]

I agree that's was unnecessary. Rhetorical, yet still unacceptable in a political/decorum sense. I believe that certain US laws do exist to deal with serious threats of violence.

This is the same guy who said on conservative talk radio that Sidney Powell had never been a part of Trump's "elite strike force" legal team even though Trump had tweeted that she was.

https://welovetrump.com/2020/11/24/joe-digenova-now-sidney-powell-can-do-what-she-needs-to-do-i-am-100-confident-she-has-it-all/

Speaking of Sidney Powell, she was on Hannity the other night saying that her massive voter fraud witnesses can't come forward because they work in government and would lose their jobs, and others couldn't come forward because they would be harassed and threatened.  “One witness we know of got beaten up and is in the hospital." We're probably not going to be able to verify that. Sounds a lot like that list of communist sympathizers that was in a certain senator's briefcase to me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/hannity-credulously-buys-sidney-powells-excuses-for-lack-of-evidence-and-witnesses/ar-BB1bvFJz

Powell did get an order from a judge in the Georgia lawsuit that the state couldn't wipe or reset the voting machines, so that is a little bit of forward motion. The state has objected, and has until tomorrow to file its objections to the order. I wonder how many voting machines are covered by the order. Presumably hundreds if not thousands. That's a lot of voting machines to inspect for signs of fraud, and could take quite a bit of time, certainly well past January 20th. The judge in the Michigan lawsuit has yet to rule on anything.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-30/georgia-ordered-to-file-brief-in-voting-machine-conspiracy-suit

And how is she going to explain thie one:

A witness in Trump ally Sidney Powell's lawsuits says the voting results in 'Edison County' indicate fraud. No such place exists.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-election-lawsuit-witness-vote-problems-edison-county-2020-12

[pegelli]

Already happening:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fired-election-security-official-suggests-he-may-sue-trump-campaign-lawyer-who-said-he-should-be-shot

That's great! You only need one alt-right proud boy nutcase to come up with a "rhetorical answer" and the misery starts.

[Robert Roaldi]

Rudy and Trump seem to have discussed pardons, https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/528131-giuliani-has-discussed-possible-pardon-with-trump-report. But the article never mentions what Rudy needs to be pardoned for? Is he under threat of indictment for something? Worried he might be under investigation? I too easily lose track of the details.

Taken to an extreme this begins to sound pretty cynical. Spend an administration doing iffy things, then in the last few weeks get pardoned for everything. It's a little convenient, not that different than what kings and princes used to get away with back in the day. Might be a lot of people serving time for some minor offences that would object. Not a good look for a democracy and it certainly doesn't foster respect for the rule of law.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Spend an administration doing iffy things, then in the last few weeks get pardoned for everything...

Someone with more legal knowledge might correct me, but I do not think one can be pardoned, or offer a pardon, preemptively, i.e., even before one is indicted or sentenced.

[Alan Klein]

Hey, I thought you said a couple of weeks ago that you were ignoring me. How come Andrew gets to be the first?

Unoffical ignore.  He's now official. 

[faberryman]

Rudy and Trump seem to have discussed pardons, https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/528131-giuliani-has-discussed-possible-pardon-with-trump-report. But the article never mentions what Rudy needs to be pardoned for? Is he under threat of indictment for something? Worried he might be under investigation? I too easily lose track of the details.

Giuliani is under federal investigation for campaign finance violations, money laundering, and obstruction of justice.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/25/rudy-giuliani-money-laundering.html

I expect a very long list of people receiving pardons between now and January 20th.

[faberryman]

Someone with more legal knowledge might correct me, but I do not think one can be pardoned, or offer a pardon, preemptively, i.e., even before one is indicted or sentenced.

Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon from any crimes he might have committed. Of course, a pardon only applies to past crimes, not future crimes. So if Trump tells any of his cronies that he will pardon them on his last day in office, now would be a good time to rob a bank or shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Haha yes - in the UK lockdown means rich people staying at home while poor people bring them things!!

This shouldn't be happening in a rich, developed, civilized society. Brings tears to my eyes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-55133081

[Robert Roaldi]

Someone with more legal knowledge might correct me, but I do not think one can be pardoned, or offer a pardon, preemptively, i.e., even before one is indicted or sentenced.

A previous reply many pages back on this same topic indicated that, effectively, you can be pardoned pre-emptively, that is, before indictment. I can't remember the legal wording needed to accomplish that, but I seem to remember that it has the effect of stopping an investigation.

But as others have written, it didn't sound as if you could be pardoned for a crime you may commit in the future. I guess THAT is beyond the pale.

I can see the purpose of a pardon for someone in jail, for humanitarian reasons maybe, or to have a trivial crime expunged so you can live a normal life, but being pardoned for something for which the investigation is not yet completed, so you don't even know how serious it is yet, seems odd to me. Doesn't sound like the kind of absolute power you want anyone in a democracy to have.

[Chairman Bill]

.

[digitaldog]

Unoffical ignore.

Unoffical and unofficial. Hilarious and nonsensical.

[faberryman]

Wisconsin certified their election results yesterday. Trump filed suit to de-certify today. These next two weeks before the electoral college meets on December 14th will be interesting.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-files-lawsuit-challenging-wisconsin-election-results

[Alan Klein]

Giuliani is under federal investigation for campaign finance violations, money laundering, and obstruction of justice.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/25/rudy-giuliani-money-laundering.html

I expect a very long list of people receiving pardons between now and January 20th.

I hope he doesn't forget me.

[Alan Klein]

A previous reply many pages back on this same topic indicated that, effectively, you can be pardoned pre-emptively, that is, before indictment. I can't remember the legal wording needed to accomplish that, but I seem to remember that it has the effect of stopping an investigation.

But as others have written, it didn't sound as if you could be pardoned for a crime you may commit in the future. I guess THAT is beyond the pale.

I can see the purpose of a pardon for someone in jail, for humanitarian reasons maybe, or to have a trivial crime expunged so you can live a normal life, but being pardoned for something for which the investigation is not yet completed, so you don't even know how serious it is yet, seems odd to me. Doesn't sound like the kind of absolute power you want anyone in a democracy to have.

As we see here, politics creates a lot of anger.  When parties change hands, there could be a lot of revenge going on and lives and money lost unnecessarily.    In the case of Nixon, VP Gerald Ford who became president when Nixon resigned, pardoned him from future prosecution with the reason that the country had gone through enough.  We had to move on.  Many say Ford lost when he was up for re-election a few years later because of that pardon. 

[Craig Lamson]

Hey, <insert usual suspects here> please explain why you, to the tune of $170M (so far) agree with Trump’s attempts to subvert democracy and thwart the will of the American people? 

After all, you are, in fact, part of the American people.

I do understand that this is a leading question, but we are truly interested in your explanation.

What Trump is doing IS democracy.

[Alan Klein]

Wisconsin certified their election results yesterday. Trump filed suit to de-certify today. These next two weeks before the electoral college meets on December 14th will be interesting.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-files-lawsuit-challenging-wisconsin-election-results

State courts will reject his arguments.  The US Supreme Court will let the state courts decide and stay out of it. There's no reason for them to get involved.  Plus they really don't want to give a Democratic congress a reason to pack the court.

[Craig Lamson]

Peter's right, though. Team Trump is, literally, trying to persuade their associates to disregard the law and "appoint" Trump to another term against the will of the people.  The only saving grace is that they're nuts (Rudy & Sidney) or stupid (Jenna).

Really? Trump is telling people to stage a Revolution or another Civil War?  I read a lot of news, I can't believe I missed that one.