"A criminal conviction will impact the ability to get licenses, to borrow money, to get insurance, to do business with anyone," said Cornell University law professor Randy Zelin. "Who wants to lend money to or insure a convicted felon organization? There will be statutory disqualifications because of the convictions."
No knowledge either, but at a guess, government contracts would be unavailable.
I'd be surprised if it were that, but more likely to range from not being appointed to any government board or advisory council to no invitation to pre-Christmas drinks.
No knowledge either, but at a guess, government contracts would be unavailable.
I'd be surprised if it were that, but more likely to range from not being appointed to any government board or advisory council to no invitation to pre-Christmas drinks.
I'll have an Old Fashioned--make it a double, with Jamison Dark, please.
No knowledge either, but at a guess, government contracts would be unavailable.
I'd be surprised if it were that, but more likely to range from not being appointed to any government board or advisory council to no invitation to pre-Christmas drinks.
I would not be surprised at all if it’s ineligibility for government contracts, grants and/or tax incentives, along with inability to get certain licenses or permits.
It is corporations, not individuals, that were tried and found guilty, so penalties like not being appointed to boards are inapplicable.
Plus those (drinks, board seats, etc) are likely to depend more on the various corporations' by-laws, except in fiduciary positions. Not statutes. But governments can and do set statutes about who gets to apply for government contracts--which are a major source of revenue for many companies.
If you had read the whole link, you would note the commentator was referring to the ability to get loans. After all, what bank would want to loan money to a corporation that has been found guilty of bank fraud? While a few companies have gotten through it, most companies will die on the vine. It appears as if Trump Org is trying to get money of the Saudi's. but no bank within the US will want to touch them.
Even before this court case, the Trump organisation was having serious difficulties getting loans. Deutsche were pretty much the only ones who would lend to them.
If you had read the whole link, you would note the commentator was referring to the ability to get loans. After all, what bank would want to loan money to a corporation that has been found guilty of bank fraud?
I did read the whole article. A lender not wanting to loan money to the Trump Organization is a decision by the lender (as the article makes clear, and as you say yourself), not a statutory disqualification. A statutory disqualification would be a penalty or consequence that a law imposes, not a decision of a bank or other private entity.
Even before this court case, the Trump organisation was having serious difficulties getting loans. Deutsche were pretty much the only ones who would lend to them.
Duetsche Bank cut ties with Trump Org back in 2021.
I am tempted to post these links without comment, but I suppose I should give some warning as to their content. Donald Trump was boasting about a "major announcement" he was going to make. It turns out, the announcement was just to try to sell NFTs of artwork featuring his image in such traditional presidential poses as being
depicted as a superhero with laser eyes, an astronaut, a John Wayne-like cowboy and a golfer – along with, of course, a dark-suited Trump surrounded by gold bars.
They're shocked that Donald Trump is engaging in a seedy and tasteless grift, trying to monetize his celebrity? Are they also amazed that water continues to be wet?
Hypothesis: Trump is flat broke, banks are refusing to roll over his loans and he's now trying to squeeze every last cent out of his grift before it all collapses around him.
Nah, he's always been a bargain-basement grifter, even when banks would still do business with him. Trump steaks, Trump vodka, selling the Trump name as a branding exercise . . . there's never been a grift too shoddy and ridiculous that Trump wouldn't pursue it so long as he thought there would be money for him at the end of it.
Now, he is trying to sell Trump Trading Cards. There are 45 of them. $99 dollars a piece. Buy the whole set for $4,555 you can enter a sweepstakes to have dinner with the man at Maralogo. Story here.
It's impossible to parody that which is already so ridiculous.
He knows he still has a bunch of stupid people who will buy anything with his name on it. So he's seeking to tap that goldmine for all it's worth before it gets worked out, probably in order to fund the legal costs that are in his near future.
It's basically a GoFundMe, Patreon or OnlyFans that offers digital rewards to those who subscribe. Except he's had to do it on his own webspace because those companies wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot bargepole.
Trump digital trading cards. Saves him the difficulty involved in actually printing the cards. Copying is prevented by the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). For those who are unfamiliar, NFTs are essentially cryptocurrency that's not pretending to be money. Apparently Trump decided that this moment is the right time to get into the blockchain business.
It's impossible to parody that which is already so ridiculous.
He knows he still has a bunch of stupid people who will buy anything with his name on it. So he's seeking to tap that goldmine for all it's worth before it gets worked out, probably in order to fund the legal costs that are in his near future.
It's basically a GoFundMe, Patreon or OnlyFans that offers digital rewards to those who subscribe. Except he's had to do it on his own webspace because those companies wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot bargepole.
And when OnlyFans considers you too objectionable to make money from you really have gone too far.
Trump digital trading cards. Saves him the difficulty involved in actually printing the cards. Copying is prevented by the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). For those who are unfamiliar, NFTs are essentially cryptocurrency that's not pretending to be money. Apparently Trump decided that this moment is the right time to get into the blockchain business.
You mean the cards are not real? And here I was, ready to drop $4,555 on something I thought I could give my grandson to finance his retirement. (Note to readers: this was typed in a sarcastic tone.)
I had some MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENTS the last couple of weeks, too…
✔️ Inflation’s easing
✔️ I just signed the Respect for Marriage Act
✔️ We brought Brittney Griner home
✔️ Gas prices are lower than a year ago
✔️ 10,000 new high-paying jobs in Arizona
Obviously Biden has someone else to manage his Twitter feed for him, but his coms team has proven remarkably adept at trolling Trump.
The January 6 Committee will hold its final public hearing on Monday, December 19 at 1:00 pm EST (6:00 pm UTC). For those who are interested the livestream will be here.
I had some MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENTS the last couple of weeks, too…
✔️ Inflation’s easing
✔️ I just signed the Respect for Marriage Act
✔️ We brought Brittney Griner home
✔️ Gas prices are lower than a year ago
✔️ 10,000 new high-paying jobs in Arizona
Obviously Biden has someone else to manage his Twitter feed for him, but his coms team has proven remarkably adept at trolling Trump.
None of these accomplishments will make my grandson independently wealthy. Well, maybe a job in Arizona. But he is only 10.
I am tempted to post these links without comment, but I suppose I should give some warning as to their content. Donald Trump was boasting about a "major announcement" he was going to make. It turns out, the announcement was just to try to sell NFTs of artwork featuring his image in such traditional presidential poses as being
depicted as a superhero with laser eyes, an astronaut, a John Wayne-like cowboy and a golfer – along with, of course, a dark-suited Trump surrounded by gold bars.
I am tempted to post these links without comment, but I suppose I should give some warning as to their content. Donald Trump was boasting about a "major announcement" he was going to make. It turns out, the announcement was just to try to sell NFTs of artwork featuring his image in such traditional presidential poses as being
depicted as a superhero with laser eyes, an astronaut, a John Wayne-like cowboy and a golfer – along with, of course, a dark-suited Trump surrounded by gold bars.
Quote from link: "We’re facing a threat to civilization from far left Marxist extremists."
Is she really that deluded, or just playing to the gallery?
It's incredibly hard to tell with the current GOP which of them are True Believers and which of them are Groucho Marxists ("these are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.") who'll say anything if it keeps the money and/or votes coming in. It's entirely possible that there is considerable drift and overlap between the two, with many failing to heed the maxim "never get high on your own supply".
Thinking further about this, one wonders whether it might occur to the UK Conservative Party or the ex-PM Johnson to try the same.
When I was at school, a fellow pupil put an advert in the newspaper, "Make money quick - send 10/- to me" with an address. It was a long time ago and 10 shillings in old money were worth more than 50p now. Amazing, people sent him money. He sent each one a reply "Do as I did. It works".
The Headmaster found out and made him refund all the 10/-s. I felt that was a bit hard as what could they complain about? They had got what they were paying for.
According to The Guardian they've sold out and he's grossed $4.5M in one day. 'Fools and their money' springs to mind.
A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place. One internet wag has coined the term Barnum-Mencken Syndrome to describe Trump's NFTs.
Reports are saying the 6 January Committee will likely make criminal referral to the DOJ on Trump for Insurrection; Obstruction of a Governmental Proceeding; and Conspiracy to Defraud the Government (rigging the vote). This will happen on Monday.
On Tuesday the House Ways and Means Committee will decide what to do with Trump's tax returns including possibly releasing them to the public.
It's going to be a tough Christmas for you know who.
I'd believe that if the US courts and government as a cumulative whole had not spent the whole of the last 2 years, and the time before that when he was president, dithering, shilly-shallying around to avoid bringing him to trial and banging him up for the various crimes that so far he has got away with, because the authorities have been too gutless or frightened to bring any of the cases to the crunch.
Someone I think trustworthy pointed out that, if you take Watergate as the nearest historical comparison, even ignoring the much greater complexity of this mess... we'd only just be coming up on indictments in the near future. Things didn't move faster then, either. Investigations take time if you do them right--years, in this case. And nobody dares take shortcuts and fuck up this one.
Forgot. There's also the plain fact that, if a thorough and proper investigation IS being done, in a Dept. of Justice that is actually working properly (unlike the Trump era), there will be next to no leaks. Everything will be done methodically, thoroughly, and in a trustworthy manner. Garland has built a reputation for that sort of complex carefully done investigation. But what does that look like, from the outside, prior to indictments--in fact, where we stand right now?
It looks like nothing. It looks like nothing is being done and no progress is being made.
Really, I think we've been spoiled by the absolute sieve that was the Trump administration. We had four years of people with so little ethics or professionalism that the least happening was instantly leaked to the media. We've grown accustomed to that. But these are not those days, and these are not those people. I think we've got to keep that in mind. And I, at least, thank God for it.
I'd believe that if the US courts and government as a cumulative whole had not spent the whole of the last 2 years, and the time before that when he was president, dithering, shilly-shallying around to avoid bringing him to trial and banging him up for the various crimes that so far he has got away with, because the authorities have been too gutless or frightened to bring any of the cases to the crunch.
The courts have no ability to bring him to trial for anything. Someone, either a plaintiff in a civil case or a government official with prosecutorial power in the a criminal case, have to initiate a case. And there is a proportionately small number of government officials with prosecutorial power. Blaming “the US courts and government as a cumulative whole” doesn’t comport with how the systems here actually work.
I'd believe that if the US courts and government as a cumulative whole had not spent the whole of the last 2 years, and the time before that when he was president, dithering, shilly-shallying around to avoid bringing him to trial and banging him up for the various crimes that so far he has got away with, because the authorities have been too gutless or frightened to bring any of the cases to the crunch.
The courts have no ability to bring him to trial for anything. Someone, either a plaintiff in a civil case or a government official with prosecutorial power in the a criminal case, have to initiate a case. And there is a proportionately small number of government officials with prosecutorial power. Blaming “the US courts and government as a cumulative whole” doesn’t comport with how the systems here actually work.
You start with an investigation--in this case, multiple investigations, the most important two being run by the Department of Justice (now in the hands of a Special Prosecutor, which makes it even more bullet-proof) and the Jan. 6 Committee, which is putting out its final report Wednesday. It will also be making criminal referrals of various people to the DOJ, and I don't see how that could not include Trump. The criminal referral thing is probably more of a ceremonial act at this point, because the DOJ is well down that road with their own investigation, and all they want now is the complete freedom to go through all the stuff the Jan. 6 Committee has amassed in the way of evidence and testimony. Much of it will be duplicates, but perhaps not all? And they won't want to go to court until they are absolutely sure their witnesses are unimpeachable--that is, they haven't said one thing to the DOJ and another to the Jan. 6 Committee. Because if they have, and that's not addressed, the defense could make hay of the prosecutor's arguments.
So all the time goes to getting their ducks in a row, as perfectly and carefully as possible--and presenting everything to a grand jury (several grand juries, in fact)--and then, indictments. No doubt there will be a media feeding frenzy when the Jan 6 Committee releases its report, and rightfully so. But the indictments for which we're all waiting are logically going to take longer, because the DOJ will want to go through that report and all its supplementary material with a fine tooth comb. Rightly so.
Trump has been a great grifter all his adult life. He learned the tricks from his father and by studying mobsters. There was a time when he contributed to both the Democratic Party and the Republican party, so he had politicians on both sides that would do his bidding, Yes, there were reports of him being sued by ex girlfriends, former wives, labor unions, even construction companies; but it was not until he became a candidate for President that we began to recognize his graft.
Over time he had also developed a large cadre of lawyers who could fight every legal challenge that came his way. More often than not, he outlasted many of the court cases because it was too expensive to continue to pursue them.
Once he cinched the nomination of the Republican Party, he could then draw on the clout of the party to avoid legal consequences. That meant about one third of Americans thought he could do no wrong. Even when he lost the last election, I think the Biden Administration realized they had to take the long way to bring him to justice. His lawyers still fought every legal challenge, and he still had strong support among certain people. Now that his grip on the Republican party is beginning to loosen up, the administration is moving forward to hold him responsible for past wrong doings. And many lawyers who would have jumped at the change of defending him in the past are refusing to take on his cases because he has stiffed so many of them before, and they would be putting their licenses at risk.
I think it will take at least another year before we see formal charges levelled against him on the Federal level, but a number of state attorney generals are in the process of drawing up their own indictments.
2023 is going to be a very tough year for DJT Jr. IMHO.
There are plenty of us who saw the truth of him the minute he announced his candidacy. Before that, I did my best to ignore him--life's too short to spend on paying attention to what such people do (TV bullshit, etc). After that, it became a matter of life and death. (And I'm delighted to say that someone very dear to me has SEEN THE LIGHT and bailed on that bastard.
I'd believe that if the US courts and government as a cumulative whole had not spent the whole of the last 2 years, and the time before that when he was president, dithering, shilly-shallying around to avoid bringing him to trial and banging him up for the various crimes that so far he has got away with, because the authorities have been too gutless or frightened to bring any of the cases to the crunch.
The courts have no ability to bring him to trial for anything. Someone, either a plaintiff in a civil case or a government official with prosecutorial power in the a criminal case, have to initiate a case. And there is a proportionately small number of government officials with prosecutorial power. Blaming “the US courts and government as a cumulative whole” doesn’t comport with how the systems here actually work.
You beat me to it. The system works the way you describe here, and in the non-Scots parts of the UK (where I think Enoch lives). I don't know whether it's the same in Scotland, probably is.
One of the inherent biases of the American judicial system is that the kind of crimes perceived as being primarily committed by poor people have a lower standard of proof than "white collar" crime (i.e. crimes more typically committed by the rich and/or powerful). For example, to prove theft (or similar) the question comes down to "did the accused do X?", whereas to prove embezzlement (or similar) the question is "did the accused intend to do X?" Adding the necessity of proving the intent behind actions is more complicated than simply proving actions taken.
One of the interesting aspects of the purloined documents incident is that it's one of the few laws Trump is credibly accused of violating that doesn't require proving intent, just that he possessed classified document which he had no authorization to access.
The January 6 Committee has made four criminal referrals of Donald Trump (and others) to the Department of Justice.
Obstruction of an official proceeding [ 18 USC § 1512(c) ]: "Whoever corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so". The Committee recommended criminal charges against Donald Trump, John Eastman, and thus far unspecified "others". (The documents aren't released yet so all we have to go on is Jamie Raskin's description.)
-
Conspiracy to defraud the United States [ 18 USC § 371 ]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Again directed against "Donald Trump, John Eastman, and others".
-
Conspiracy to make a false statement [ 18 USC §§ 371, 1001 ]: "Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation". This is the fake elector scheme. Eastman is not mentioned by name in this portion of the presentation, but Raskin is careful to point out that the Committee is not making a comprehensive list of conspirators since there has been so much non-cooperation by witnesses.
-
Inciting, assisting, or giving aid and comfort to an insurrection [ 18 USC § 2383 ]: "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." This is the only referral where Raskin named Trump alone as the accused, rather than Trump and others. Again we're lacking the documents so we only have this capsule summary, but that seems significant.
Raskin also stated that the Committee had referred four members of Congress to the House Ethics Committee for failing to comply with Committee subpœnas. He did not name the specific members of Congress, but presumably they're all in the House since that's the Ethics Committee receiving the referral.
Those who want to watch Raskin's presentation can click here. The full Committee Report is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 21 and will likely have all the details not included in today's hearing.
The one phrase that caught my attention was: "and others." While several people were also names the committee deliberately avoided naming everyone they thought were implicated in the referral of charges. I think it was a way to give the DOJ room to flesh out who the others might rise to a criminal offense.
Wake me when the DoJ actually brings a charge against anyone. The trial will of course halt when Trump's re-elected or when DeSantis pardons him, whilst jailing Fauci for starting Covid.
Wake me when the DoJ actually brings a charge against anyone. The trial will of course halt when Trump's re-elected or when DeSantis pardons him, whilst jailing Fauci for starting Covid.
Given that the charges will be Federal ones, what power would De Santis have to pardon him? And De Santis may have power to charge Fauci with something under Florida law, I don't think he has power to gaol him.
Wake me when the DoJ actually brings a charge against anyone. The trial will of course halt when Trump's re-elected or when DeSantis pardons him, whilst jailing Fauci for starting Covid.
Given that the charges will be Federal ones, what power would De Santis have to pardon him? And De Santis may have power to charge Fauci with something under Florida law, I don't think he has power to gaol him.
@Martin54 is doom mongering again - he's convinced that the 2024 election will see a Trump-a-like elected. I suspect, however, that in the event of De Santis getting elected he might well choose to let Trump twist in the wind, doubling down on the awful policies while distancing himself from the insurrectionists.
There are still two parties in our system (I wish there were more). It is not a given that the Republicans will win. They certainly stumbled out of the gates in the mid terms and they still have not settled on a Speaker of the House. Plus, they are now the minority party in the Senate.
Moreover, even if DeSantas would win the presidency, he can only direct his DOJ to investigate Fauci, It would be up to the DOJ to charge Fauci. And then there are the courts
We are a long way off from DeSantas being able to do anything.
Even if Desantas can pardon Trump it would only be at the federal level. Various states will have indicted Trump based on their laws. A federal pardon means nothing to them.
For those who are interested the executive summary [PDF] of the January 6 Committee's final report is now available. The summary is 154 pages long, 50 of which are footnotes.
Comments
Link here.
And, guess what, two more classified documents have been found in a Florida Storage Unit that Trump has been using.
This is fascinating, but I have absolutely no knowledge in this area. What kind of legal disqualifications are possible?
I'd be surprised if it were that, but more likely to range from not being appointed to any government board or advisory council to no invitation to pre-Christmas drinks.
I'll have an Old Fashioned--make it a double, with Jamison Dark, please.
It is corporations, not individuals, that were tried and found guilty, so penalties like not being appointed to boards are inapplicable.
Duetsche Bank cut ties with Trump Org back in 2021.
I should have been clearer. Would not members of the boards of the companies involved be excluded? They almost certainly would have been here.
They're shocked that Donald Trump is engaging in a seedy and tasteless grift, trying to monetize his celebrity? Are they also amazed that water continues to be wet?
It's impossible to parody that which is already so ridiculous.
He knows he still has a bunch of stupid people who will buy anything with his name on it. So he's seeking to tap that goldmine for all it's worth before it gets worked out, probably in order to fund the legal costs that are in his near future.
It's basically a GoFundMe, Patreon or OnlyFans that offers digital rewards to those who subscribe. Except he's had to do it on his own webspace because those companies wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot bargepole.
Trump digital trading cards. Saves him the difficulty involved in actually printing the cards. Copying is prevented by the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). For those who are unfamiliar, NFTs are essentially cryptocurrency that's not pretending to be money. Apparently Trump decided that this moment is the right time to get into the blockchain business.
And when OnlyFans considers you too objectionable to make money from you really have gone too far.
You mean the cards are not real? And here I was, ready to drop $4,555 on something I thought I could give my grandson to finance his retirement. (Note to readers: this was typed in a sarcastic tone.)
Obviously Biden has someone else to manage his Twitter feed for him, but his coms team has proven remarkably adept at trolling Trump.
None of these accomplishments will make my grandson independently wealthy. Well, maybe a job in Arizona. But he is only 10.
Quote from link: "We’re facing a threat to civilization from far left Marxist extremists."
Is she really that deluded, or just playing to the gallery?
It's incredibly hard to tell with the current GOP which of them are True Believers and which of them are Groucho Marxists ("these are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.") who'll say anything if it keeps the money and/or votes coming in. It's entirely possible that there is considerable drift and overlap between the two, with many failing to heed the maxim "never get high on your own supply".
When I was at school, a fellow pupil put an advert in the newspaper, "Make money quick - send 10/- to me" with an address. It was a long time ago and 10 shillings in old money were worth more than 50p now. Amazing, people sent him money. He sent each one a reply "Do as I did. It works".
The Headmaster found out and made him refund all the 10/-s. I felt that was a bit hard as what could they complain about? They had got what they were paying for.
A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place. One internet wag has coined the term Barnum-Mencken Syndrome to describe Trump's NFTs.
will rid the world
of evil money
by selling
Digital Trading Cards
of himself.
The Book of Idiots 1:6
On Tuesday the House Ways and Means Committee will decide what to do with Trump's tax returns including possibly releasing them to the public.
It's going to be a tough Christmas for you know who.
Someone I think trustworthy pointed out that, if you take Watergate as the nearest historical comparison, even ignoring the much greater complexity of this mess... we'd only just be coming up on indictments in the near future. Things didn't move faster then, either. Investigations take time if you do them right--years, in this case. And nobody dares take shortcuts and fuck up this one.
It looks like nothing. It looks like nothing is being done and no progress is being made.
Really, I think we've been spoiled by the absolute sieve that was the Trump administration. We had four years of people with so little ethics or professionalism that the least happening was instantly leaked to the media. We've grown accustomed to that. But these are not those days, and these are not those people. I think we've got to keep that in mind. And I, at least, thank God for it.
You start with an investigation--in this case, multiple investigations, the most important two being run by the Department of Justice (now in the hands of a Special Prosecutor, which makes it even more bullet-proof) and the Jan. 6 Committee, which is putting out its final report Wednesday. It will also be making criminal referrals of various people to the DOJ, and I don't see how that could not include Trump. The criminal referral thing is probably more of a ceremonial act at this point, because the DOJ is well down that road with their own investigation, and all they want now is the complete freedom to go through all the stuff the Jan. 6 Committee has amassed in the way of evidence and testimony. Much of it will be duplicates, but perhaps not all? And they won't want to go to court until they are absolutely sure their witnesses are unimpeachable--that is, they haven't said one thing to the DOJ and another to the Jan. 6 Committee. Because if they have, and that's not addressed, the defense could make hay of the prosecutor's arguments.
So all the time goes to getting their ducks in a row, as perfectly and carefully as possible--and presenting everything to a grand jury (several grand juries, in fact)--and then, indictments. No doubt there will be a media feeding frenzy when the Jan 6 Committee releases its report, and rightfully so. But the indictments for which we're all waiting are logically going to take longer, because the DOJ will want to go through that report and all its supplementary material with a fine tooth comb. Rightly so.
Over time he had also developed a large cadre of lawyers who could fight every legal challenge that came his way. More often than not, he outlasted many of the court cases because it was too expensive to continue to pursue them.
Once he cinched the nomination of the Republican Party, he could then draw on the clout of the party to avoid legal consequences. That meant about one third of Americans thought he could do no wrong. Even when he lost the last election, I think the Biden Administration realized they had to take the long way to bring him to justice. His lawyers still fought every legal challenge, and he still had strong support among certain people. Now that his grip on the Republican party is beginning to loosen up, the administration is moving forward to hold him responsible for past wrong doings. And many lawyers who would have jumped at the change of defending him in the past are refusing to take on his cases because he has stiffed so many of them before, and they would be putting their licenses at risk.
I think it will take at least another year before we see formal charges levelled against him on the Federal level, but a number of state attorney generals are in the process of drawing up their own indictments.
2023 is going to be a very tough year for DJT Jr. IMHO.
You beat me to it. The system works the way you describe here, and in the non-Scots parts of the UK (where I think Enoch lives). I don't know whether it's the same in Scotland, probably is.
One of the interesting aspects of the purloined documents incident is that it's one of the few laws Trump is credibly accused of violating that doesn't require proving intent, just that he possessed classified document which he had no authorization to access.
-
-
-
Raskin also stated that the Committee had referred four members of Congress to the House Ethics Committee for failing to comply with Committee subpœnas. He did not name the specific members of Congress, but presumably they're all in the House since that's the Ethics Committee receiving the referral.
Those who want to watch Raskin's presentation can click here. The full Committee Report is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 21 and will likely have all the details not included in today's hearing.
Given that the charges will be Federal ones, what power would De Santis have to pardon him? And De Santis may have power to charge Fauci with something under Florida law, I don't think he has power to gaol him.
@Martin54 is doom mongering again - he's convinced that the 2024 election will see a Trump-a-like elected. I suspect, however, that in the event of De Santis getting elected he might well choose to let Trump twist in the wind, doubling down on the awful policies while distancing himself from the insurrectionists.
Moreover, even if DeSantas would win the presidency, he can only direct his DOJ to investigate Fauci, It would be up to the DOJ to charge Fauci. And then there are the courts
We are a long way off from DeSantas being able to do anything.
Even if Desantas can pardon Trump it would only be at the federal level. Various states will have indicted Trump based on their laws. A federal pardon means nothing to them.