the trials and tribulations of an ex-president

TukaiTukai Shipmate
Since T---p is no longer president of the USA (thank God!) , hosts and Lamb Chopped have closed that thread. Although there is one on the Biden-Harris administration very much still current, I personally would prefer to keep that focussed positive agendas and not retribution, as I believe Biden intends to do the same (i.e. keep himself aloof from impeachment and related proceedings).

So (hosts permitting, I trust) I've opened this new thread to cover impeachment, and the various courts and creditors who are now set to bedevil the former president.
Tagged:
«13456720

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    He'll likely be acquited in the impeachment, which(I believe) requires a two-thirds majority to vote guilty.

    Assuming long-term damage to DJT's reputation is to the benefit of all, regular criminal proceedings will probably be more effective toward that end.
  • Hey, I didn't close anything! I have no hostly or adminly powers, peace be upon them.

    As for You Know Who (hey, this could be fun!), I'm afraid it's going to be like a train wreck you can see coming--a very slow motion one. If the impeachment doesn't get him (and I fear you're right, the further we get from Jan. 6 the less motivated by outrage senators are going to be--though party politics may do him in, so there's that--)

    As I said, if the impeachment doesn't get him, there are any number of federal and state investigations crouched at the door, plus private lawsuits, staffers-turned-tell-all-authors, and what have you.

    Fascinating in a morbid kind of way. (I fear that means it's right up my alley.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    New information has come out how he was going to fire the last acting Attorney General of his administration and put someone in who would have gone after the Georgia election officials but he was told in no uncertain terms there would be mass resignations in the Justice Department. He backed off.

    He has lost several accounts now with the banks that he used to use for cash flow purposes.

    New York City is about to cancel a concession contract they have with him.

    The Trump Hotel in DC is in a building leased from the Federal Government. There is speculation that the new landlord is about to cancel that contract.

    I guess he owes a lot of back taxes in Scotland.

    The New York State Attorney's office is about to sue to get the tax records.

    The Democrats in Congress would also like to get their hands on them.

    I hear there is going to be a deep fire-sale of some properties.

    Maybe we can join in a conglomerate and take over Trump Tower.
  • Ewwww, COVID!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I've been enjoying some of the post-Seige humour making the rounds. For example...

    Y'all Qaeda(for the mob that attacked the Capitol).

    And MAGA being parodied as My Ass Got Arrested. Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.
  • We should also throw into the equation the possibility of legal action to prevent him taking up permanent residence at Mar-a-Lago, which would be in contravention of the agreement he signed.
  • stetson wrote: »

    Y'all Qaeda(for the mob that attacked the Capitol).

    That one's been around a while.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    I'm expecting a lot of schadenfreude on this thread!

    BTW, my apologies to Lamb Chopped for any implication that she is a host or admin. The fact is that , as foreshadowed on the Styx, she was invited by the hosts to play the Last Post for the demise of T---'s presidency.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »

    Y'all Qaeda(for the mob that attacked the Capitol).

    That one's been around a while.

    Really? Not surprising, I guess. Refering to Xtian conservatives, I'd imagine.

  • As for You Know Who (hey, this could be fun!), I'm afraid it's going to be like a train wreck you can see coming--a very slow motion one. If the impeachment doesn't get him (and I fear you're right, the further we get from Jan. 6 the less motivated by outrage senators are going to be--though party politics may do him in, so there's that--)

    As I said, if the impeachment doesn't get him, there are any number of federal and state investigations crouched at the door, plus private lawsuits, staffers-turned-tell-all-authors, and what have you.

    Fascinating in a morbid kind of way. (I fear that means it's right up my alley.)

    With no real knowledge, and no more of an axe to grind than anyone else across the pond in the UK, it seems to me that the chances of conviction in the Senate depend on what 17 or more Republican Senators think is the future of their party.

    Convict, and I think it will be inevitable that Mr Trump is banned from seeking re-election in 2024 - which opens the door to other Republicans seeking the nomination. But against that it virtually guarantees a Trumpist challenge to a sitting senator at their next Senatorial primary.

    Refuse to convict, and the Trumpists may be off your back, but you have passed a strong card to your Democratic opponents to appeal to ordinary decent Republican voters - you backed the man who invited murder in the Capitol.

    Or is it possible* - and in the interests of the Republican Party - to drive the Trumpists out of the party? Will some pain now lead to a gain later?

    * I sort of understand that the big US parties are looser and baggier creatures than we see in Europe: l guess that it's harder to expel a registered supporter than it is an actual member.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    His support will bail him out, he will suffer nothing meaningful. Fascism is waiting in the wings, is in the hearts of democracy denying, lying, unreconstructed, unrepentant, racist Republican senators. Joe MUST vastly enlarge representation. Nothing else matters. He's got two years. When will he start?
  • I think that NOW is the time for the Republican party to choose. This is their opportunity to reject Trump fully and maybe be a responsible choice in 2028 or 2032. There've just been further reports about his attempts to fraudulently overturn Georgia - there seems to be a crumbling dam of former loyalists breaking ranks (like Chris Miller who has just said that when he became acting defense secretary his three aims were (rough paraphrase) "no major wars, no military coup, no troops in the street, so I managed two out of three"). There will be no better opportunity to say "sorry, we were wrong, let us go away and take a good hard look at ourselves.". They can run Mitt Romney in 2024 under the slogan "We're Really Sorry About Last Time We Don't Expect To Win But Hopefully You Can Look At This Guy Without Feeling Physically Sick".
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Useless without massive electoral reform of this third class democracy.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @TurquoiseTastic

    I think it would be difficult for the Republicans to "reject Trump fully" at this point, as he still has something of a following among their base.

    I think the best strategy, and admittedly it's a bit of a tightrope, would be to subtly distance themselves from him(eg. ditch the MAGA hats, no loud praise of DJT in public), while with equal subtlty continue pandering to his followers(eg. vote to acquit in the impeachment, but using legalistic rather than hagiographic arguments).

    From the p.o.v. of Republican self-interest, 1/6 is probably best spun as "a few bad apples" who interpreted Trump's words in a way he never intended, and were attacking Republicans as much as anyone else. I'm also not as of yet convinced it's going to stay that long in the public consciousness: it's making for great political theatre right now, but people have short memories.
  • Trials and tribulations of an ex-president, eh? Can't come a moment too soon.
  • :mrgreen:

    I wonder if his jail sentences will run concurrently, or consecutively?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I think that NOW is the time for the Republican party to choose.
    They've apparently chosen, at least in Arizona. The AZ Republican Party has voted to censure Governor Doug Ducey, former senator Jeff Flake, and John McCain's widow Cindy McCain. The first for daring to enact emergency measures to combat the virus, the other two for failure to support you-know-who.

    The censure is merely a symbolic gesture and carries no weight, but it shows where their mindset is. Mrs. McCain has said she'll wear it as a badge of honor.

    If Mrs. McCain and Mr. Flake had any sense, they would abandon the Repugnicans and join the Democratic Party.

    The governor is another matter altogether. Widely despised, he is seen as doing too little, too late, indeed hardly nothing at all, to combat the virus. His claim to fame is that in civilian life he owned a chain of ice cream shops that sell a product priced three times what it is worth, and so loaded with sugar that it would give an ant diabetes.
  • If Mrs. McCain and Mr. Flake had any sense, they would abandon the Repugnicans and join the Democratic Party.

    But that's just silly. Neither person has political positions that come anywhere close to a typical Dem. Flake was a consistently unpopular senator whose opinions tended towards the conservative end of the Republican spectrum (just not the batshit crazy populist end). Cindy McCain is a fairly standard wealthy person who wants to keep her wealth and influence, but has something of a social conscience / sense of noblesse oblige.
  • Here, there have been a number of Republicans who have re-registered as unaffiliated. I have heard talk of those moderate Republicans forming a new party, but that is easier said than done.

  • If I were a Republican, I might be hoping Tehran would follow up on recent florid tweets and take him out on the golf course. It could be Reagan v Carter all over again.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.[/\b]

    *stares wordlessly*
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.

    *stares wordlessly*

    You and me both. So tired of this bullshit.
  • If Mrs. McCain and Mr. Flake had any sense, they would abandon the Repugnicans and join the Democratic Party.

    But that's just silly. Neither person has political positions that come anywhere close to a typical Dem. Flake was a consistently unpopular senator whose opinions tended towards the conservative end of the Republican spectrum (just not the batshit crazy populist end). Cindy McCain is a fairly standard wealthy person who wants to keep her wealth and influence, but has something of a social conscience / sense of noblesse oblige.

    And why should they abandon the GOP to the MAGA-heads? Much better that they should stay and try to wrestle it back to some sort of sanity.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.

    *stares wordlessly*

    You and me both. So tired of this bullshit.

    This is meant as a criticism of me? If so, no need to take offense. I didn't mean that Americans in particular deserve to have their country ridiculed. I just meant that jokes mocking a group are slightly edgier than those that merely target an individual. Hence the long and prosperous career of Don Rickles.
  • stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »

    Y'all Qaeda(for the mob that attacked the Capitol).

    That one's been around a while.

    Really? Not surprising, I guess. Refering to Xtian conservatives, I'd imagine.

    Are there Satanic Christians?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited January 24
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.

    *stares wordlessly*

    You and me both. So tired of this bullshit.

    This is meant as a criticism of me? If so, no need to take offense. I didn't mean that Americans in particular deserve to have their country ridiculed. I just meant that jokes mocking a group are slightly edgier than those that merely target an individual. Hence the long and prosperous career of Don Rickles.
    How you meant it is not how it came across. At all, given that the group you chose to expand to appeared to be all Americans. It wasn’t edgier, it was snide.

    Of course, I never found Don Rickles funny either.

    But thanks for letting us know there’s no need for us to take offense when you post something that on its face seems pretty offensive.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited January 24
    .
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Though personally I think More Americans Getting Arrested works a bit better, since it includes a slight dig at the nation as a whole.

    *stares wordlessly*

    You and me both. So tired of this bullshit.

    This is meant as a criticism of me? If so, no need to take offense. I didn't mean that Americans in particular deserve to have their country ridiculed. I just meant that jokes mocking a group are slightly edgier than those that merely target an individual. Hence the long and prosperous career of Don Rickles.
    How you meant it is not how it came across. At all, given that the group you chose to expand to appeared to be all Americans. It wasn’t edgier, it was snide.

    Of course, I never found Don Rickles funny either.

    But thanks for letting us know there’s no need for us to take offense when you post something that on its face seems pretty offensive.

    Well, for the record, I'm not even sure I made up that version of the joke. But my point wasn't that I personally am edgy, just that the joke would be edgier if it were group-directed.

    Plus, I'm basically just talking about quips that appear on YouTube comment sections. I'm not saying I want to see these jokes on the front page of the Times Of London.

    As for expanding the joke to all Americans, well, yes, that is the nature of ethnic and nationality-based humour. I don't think jokes about Canadians all being boring need to be footnoted with "But of course, some of them are wild-assed party animals." It would kinda break the rythym of the joke, no?

    Anyway, I'm not sure I can continue to enlighten all of you on the finer points of humour without resort to Hellish rhetoric, and I don't know how to post links on a cell phone, so any further discourse in this regard will have to wait until I get into work in a few hours.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Anyway, I'm not sure I can continue to enlighten all of you on the finer points of humour without resort to Hellish rhetoric, and I don't know how to post links on a cell phone, so any further discourse in this regard will have to wait until I get into work in a few hours.

    I doubt you can enlighten us at all, but feel free to try.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    With no real knowledge, and no more of an axe to grind than anyone else across the pond in the UK, it seems to me that the chances of conviction in the Senate depend on what 17 or more Republican Senators think is the future of their party.

    Convict, and I think it will be inevitable that Mr Trump is banned from seeking re-election in 2024 - which opens the door to other Republicans seeking the nomination. But against that it virtually guarantees a Trumpist challenge to a sitting senator at their next Senatorial primary.

    As a not-so-random observation, there are twenty Republicans in the U.S. Senate who won't have to face the voters again until 2026, plus Mitt Romney who has already burned his bridges with Trump supporters in the first impeachment trial. Unfortunately those up for election in 2026 were just elected in 2020 (Senators serve six year terms) and a lot of them ran on how much they loved Donald Trump.
  • This points to the issue that trump is a tumour, but there's still a serious disease. Excised perhaps. Metastisized widely.

    The country needs "healing" but how? You can't embrace the beast and invite it to walk with you. You have to kill it: no little speck of hell is welcomed in heaven.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 24
    The sort of thing that sparked this thread:

    https://twitter.com/amconmag/status/1353399572610109440?s=21

    Is what worries me - if it becomes a conservative position that democracy is optional. He won’t get convicted, and there will be serious problems going in the future if that becomes the case.

    I should warn you that as the thread continues it contains some descriptions and photographs of Salazar’s atrocities.
  • edited January 24
    The sort of thing that sparked this thread:

    https://twitter.com/amconmag/status/1353399572610109440?s=21

    Is what worries me - if it becomes a conservative position that democracy is optional. He won’t get convicted, and there will be serious problems going in the future if that becomes the case.

    I should warn you that as the thread continues it contains some descriptions and photographs of Salazar’s atrocities.

    We went on a walking tour in Portugal a bit more than a decade ago, reading up on Salazar. Thanks for the link: have read the initial article. Going to read the rest.
  • That took me off on some new and interesting reading - thanks. Even Salazars enemies seem to have described him as intellectual, ascetic, highly effective and with (his own view of) the good of the nation as his guiding principle. Franco suggested that his main fault was his modesty. So...comparsions with Trump seem...tenuous! I see where you are coming from with 'optional democracy', though.
  • That took me off on some new and interesting reading - thanks. Even Salazars enemies seem to have described him as intellectual, ascetic, highly effective and with (his own view of) the good of the nation as his guiding principle. Franco suggested that his main fault was his modesty. So...comparsions with Trump seem...tenuous! I see where you are coming from with 'optional democracy', though.

    Well, Robespierre was famed for his incorruptibility and zeal for the nation as well, so I'm not sure that's necessarily a good sign.
  • :smile: Maybe Salazar's wiki entry was largely written by a fan. I'll read more widely.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Oh, and the Chinese have sanctioned the big boys and girls of the Trump administration. Too, bad. Could not have happened to a worse group of people. Just saying.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 24
    @mark_in_manchester perhaps more pertinently, he ran concentration camps, murdered opponents and trashed the infrastructure of the country. The comments on the original tweeted article contain accounts from people in Portugal, along with story of one of his victims who wrote a letter in his own blood condemning Salazar as he was starved to death by his captors. (I say story, there are photographs.)

    And yet, a fairly prominent magazine seems to be holding him up as an example of a desirable leader and somehow apolitical - presumably because some of his more prominent victims were communists.

    They later retweeted that article without the 900 comments noting his atrocities, that appended their first tweet.

    It’s as if Trump’ shattering of norms has shifted the Overton window so far toward authoritarianism people are becoming blind to the risks of that, being entirely captured by the political complexion of a given government.

    A mob stormed the Capitol calling for the murder of elected representatives, and yet somehow it is managing to be controversial to try the alleged instigator.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Trump (second) impeachment schedule as it stands now.

    January 25 (today): House managers read article of impeachment in Senate
    January 26 (tomorrow): Senators sworn in for trial
    February 2: Trump's answer to article is due
    February 8: Trump's pre-trial brief is due
    February 9: House's pre-trial rebuttal brief is due; trial can begin.
  • I’m sure you’re right about secret police and all the oppression which comes with a long-running one-party state. The wiki article gives the impression that the ‘infrastructure’ comment is wide of the mark, though of course in the 30s admiration for Hitler ‘making the trains run on time’ has become a well-known joke. Interestingly Salazar seems to have had no time for Hitler, Mussolini or even Franco - if the wiki article is to be relied upon. It seems odd that no-one has addressed its bias, if that’s what it is, given favourable reviews of dictators are not generally what the mainstream internet lends itself to. I know Poles who admire Pinochet, but I wouldn’t call that a mainstream view.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It seems odd that no-one has addressed its bias, if that’s what it is, given favourable reviews of dictators are not generally what the mainstream internet lends itself to.

    William F. Buckley (and thus the National Review) always had a kind word to say about both Franco and Pinochet. That was pre-internet though, so I'm not sure it counts by your criteria.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @mark_in_manchester

    I believe the common cliche is that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, who made the trains run on time.

    Whether or not that was true, I suspect the reason it became such a popular pet-fact is that it played into stereotypes about Italians being disorganized.
  • Has Trump found a lawyer yet? For the impeachment, I mean.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 25
    There were reports here that Rudy Giuliani had refused the job, on account of not having been paid for previous work...

    Whoever takes on the task might need to accept that he may possibly never receive payment, at least from the citizen concerned.
    stetson wrote: »
    @mark_in_manchester

    I believe the common cliche is that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, who made the trains run on time.

    Whether or not that was true, I suspect the reason it became such a popular pet-fact is that it played into stereotypes about Italians being disorganized.

    The major Italian railways were nationalised as early as 1905, and with the rise of Fascism (from about 1924) came under a very centralised control. This may well have made it easier in some respects to impose a certain uniformity of operation across the system as a whole.
  • I'm sure he'll eventually dredge up someone--or possibly some idealist will have pity on him--but man. And there isn't much time left for preparation.
  • News reports say he has hired Butch Bowyers, a lawyer from SC who has represented other Republicans.

    I assume he will insist on payment in advance...
  • Better that than *No Win - No Fee*!
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Well, Trump got a little good news today. The Supreme Court dismissed two emoluments cases against him today ruling that since he is no longer president, the cases are moot. Story here.. The deal of it is, both cases were filed shortly after he became president, but they never got to the fact-finding state. The moral of the story, we need a quicker court review.
  • stetson wrote: »
    @mark_in_manchester

    I believe the common cliche is that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, who made the trains run on time.

    Whether or not that was true, I suspect the reason it became such a popular pet-fact is that it played into stereotypes about Italians being disorganized.

    As I recall the statement was ironic - the only train that ran on time was Il Duce's own, and that by clearing the tracks so the others were all delayed.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Well, Trump got a little good news today. The Supreme Court dismissed two emoluments cases against him today ruling that since he is no longer president, the cases are moot. Story here.. The deal of it is, both cases were filed shortly after he became president, but they never got to the fact-finding state. The moral of the story, we need a quicker court review.

    It could set up a Catch-22. You can't sue a sitting president for violations of emoluments, and once he's no longer president, you can't sue him because it's moot. Therefore presidents cannot be held responsible for breaking the emoluments rules/laws. BAAAAD precedent.
Sign In or Register to comment.