Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

On Pardons -I was unable to access the New Yorker article, but found this one, and this expert seems to me have a good reason why it cannot work, and not just because the President cannot be judge and jury in his own case-

"“In US v. Nixon, the Court basically said that Nixon as the subject of a criminal investigation did not speak for the government and therefore could not withhold the tapes from the prosecutor who did. This case teaches that the president cannot act in an official capacity to benefit himself against an authorized criminal prosecution."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/here...n-himself.html

Ie, there is a clear distinction between a legal case involving the Presidency, and a legal case involving the President. He might say 'numerous scholars' think he can pardon himself, but 'numerous scholars' don't regard Roe-v-Wade as settled law, would happily repeal the Voter Registration Act of 1965 and probably the 14th Amendment, after all, it was a legal scholar called Scalia who demonstrated his skills in sophistry rather than law when defending the 2nd Amendment, as if nothing had happened in the intervening 240 years to render it without purpose.

But I think a lot of this is just theatre, the rebel shouting 'FUCK' in the midde of Mass, or exposing himself to women on the Subway, just because he can. And doesn't care about the consequences.

[Stavros]

Another thought which Broncofan alluded to earlier -

A) A pardon can only be given for a crime committed and judged and sentenced in a court of law, so the President would first have to identify what the cimes were, and have them prosecuted and a legal judgment made before he could pardon himself.

so

B) Is it not the case that what the President actually wants is an Exemption from Prosecution? That is not a Pardon, and I doubt it is legal, and let us not forget, it is merely conventional that a sitting President is not indicted for a crime, and that as we have seen in the last 4 years, conventions can become redundant -why some and not others, and does the elimination of one, not justify them all?

[sukumvit boy]

Very good read. It says the issue of a self-pardon is an undecided legal question. It might not hold up in court. The reason I ask how it's done is that pardons often state the crimes or acts that are being pardoned. I don't know if Trump knows all the sources of legal liability he faces that are within the statutes of limitation. I did just see online that Nixon's pardon by Ford was a "full, free, and absolute" pardon for a time period. I don't think that should be allowed nor do I think the self-pardon should be either.

The good news is that pardons don't reach state level crimes. In New York this is a major source of legal liability he faces and the only way to avoid it is to remain President where his second term might outlast the statutes of limitation. He has possibly committed crimes for the Stormy payments and in bank loan and/or tax documents.

I wonder how his Real Estate empire can be sustained if he really can't get loans like the quoted banker in the article says. He has lots of debt coming due and foreclosures on properties would be the coup de grace for his ego.

He can probably be successful starting a media empire but I don't know if he or the people around him have the organizational ability to exploit his popularity.

Thanks for the help on that broncofan . Perhaps the article can be accessed through this link if the other New Yorker link doesn't work for some people
https://muckrack.com/jane-mayer/articles

[broncofan]

Another thought which Broncofan alluded to earlier -

A) A pardon can only be given for a crime committed and judged and sentenced in a court of law, so the President would first have to identify what the cimes were, and have them prosecuted and a legal judgment made before he could pardon himself.

so

B) Is it not the case that what the President actually wants is an Exemption from Prosecution? That is not a Pardon, and I doubt it is legal, and let us not forget, it is merely conventional that a sitting President is not indicted for a crime, and that as we have seen in the last 4 years, conventions can become redundant -why some and not others, and does the elimination of one, not justify them all?

This is very well put. As you say he basically wants to have someone issue a decree giving him immunity from any unlawful act he has committed and may face jeopardy for. He would not want to state the sources of criminal liability to get clemency because it could open him to civil liability. But insofar as there is a reason to have a pardon power, it should not provide blanket immunity.

If there is a good reason to have pardon power, it should be where there is some incongruency between strict legality and morality. In the U.S. it has often been used in a corrupt way and allowed some people to get preferential treatment outside the typical judicial process.

It will be interesting to see what Trump faces in terms of lawsuits, in terms of his debts coming due, in terms of his aspiration to start a network (the New Yorker article Sukumvit posted said he needed 450 million to buy the weather channel as his vehicle). All of it I hope ends with him not taking office again.

[Stavros]

In this article, the author argues against Socialism, by advocating the sort of policies that have been associated in Europe for years.by its Sociialist parties in Government -and note he sees no role for markets or private enterprise -so what's wrong with Socialism?

"Republicans have traditionally been shy about opening the federal purse-strings for such monumental spending sprees, but this time might be different. Republican former governor John Kasich recently offered rural broadband as an alternative to socialism, and a modernized electrical grid might be sold the same way.
So the time may be right for government policies that boost jobs and reward work more highly. Unions and infrastructure don’t exactly fulfill the small-government libertarian dreams of previous decades, but they could represent a centrist alternative to the growing popularity of socialism -- and one that helps Republicans burnish their credentials with the working class they now claim to represent."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/socialism-...150002170.html

[sukumvit boy]

Perhaps the Biden transition team could use a few of these in Washington,I understand that they can swallow a medium sizes lawyer whole.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/timjhogan/status...62651287023624

Somebody I know asked me how Trump's lawsuits were going. I think this is the best answer I can give.

[filghy2]

I think the sight of Rudi's hair dye running with sweat was just as cringe-inducing. Was the aircon not working properly, or is this the sign of a man on the verge of meltdown?

[broncofan]

I think the sight of Rudi's hair dye running with sweat was just as cringe-inducing. Was the aircon not working properly, or is this the sign of a man on the verge of meltdown?

He hasn't been making sense for years. It doesn't seem like senile confusion but his behavior is bizarre and crazy. When people first saw that tar like stuff pouring out of his temples and didn't realize it was hair dye there was speculation that maybe he's a cyborg. I have to admit I was entertaining some of these theories. I've heard he was a respected prosecutor at one point so I was also considering demon possession because that could explain why he seemed like a typical human back in the day. To point out the obvious he's been completely bald for decades and I didn't know dyeing sideburns is a thing....it's a strangely particular form of vanity. Maybe he's doing it to hide bolts in his temples or something?

[holzz]

https://vocal.media/humans/trans-att...t-gay-or-weird

Yep, it IS beautiful!