The trials and tribulations of an ex-president (including SCOTUS on the 14th amendment)
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.)
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.
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.
That one's been around a while.
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.
Really? Not surprising, I guess. Refering to Xtian conservatives, I'd imagine.
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.
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.
I wonder if his jail sentences will run concurrently, or consecutively?
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.
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.
*stares wordlessly*
You and me both. So tired of this bullshit.
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.
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.
Are there Satanic Christians?
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.
I doubt you can enlighten us at all, but feel free to try.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whoever takes on the task might need to accept that he may possibly never receive payment, at least from the citizen concerned.
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 assume he will insist on payment in advance...
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.
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.