I think that Trump is less popular with everyone outside his base than he was in November 2020. His base have doubled down on him (which is a very bad thing in itself) but I do not think non-base people are more likely to vote for him in 2024 than they were in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Biden enough to vote Trump probably already did so in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Trump enough to vote against him in 2020 has even more reasons to do so now. That is my rational case for optimism.
My one worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "do I think things are going well?" yes: vote incumbent; no: vote challenger.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
I think that Trump is less popular with everyone outside his base than he was in November 2020. His base have doubled down on him (which is a very bad thing in itself) but I do not think non-base people are more likely to vote for him in 2024 than they were in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Biden enough to vote Trump probably already did so in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Trump enough to vote against him in 2020 has even more reasons to do so now. That is my rational case for optimism.
My one worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "do I think things are going well?" yes: vote incumbent; no: vote challenger.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
Well yes, but they're a known quantity. The fickle few in the middle are the deciding factor in elections.
I think that Trump is less popular with everyone outside his base than he was in November 2020. His base have doubled down on him (which is a very bad thing in itself) but I do not think non-base people are more likely to vote for him in 2024 than they were in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Biden enough to vote Trump probably already did so in 2020. Anyone who dislikes Trump enough to vote against him in 2020 has even more reasons to do so now. That is my rational case for optimism.
My one worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "do I think things are going well?" yes: vote incumbent; no: vote challenger.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
Well yes, but they're a known quantity. The fickle few in the middle are the deciding factor in elections.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
Presidents have very broad powers to pardon and can do so at any time during their term. They can only pardon federal offences. Two of Trump's cases are State cases.
IANAL but I know this is correct.
AFZ
I'm not a US lawyer, but that would be the position here, where our federal system was inspired (rather than directly based on) that in the US.
Presidents have very broad powers to pardon and can do so at any time during their term. They can only pardon federal offences. Two of Trump's cases are State cases.
IANAL but I know this is correct.
AFZ
The other restriction is that a presidential pardon can only apply to past actions. No preemptive pardoning allowed for crimes yet to be committed.
Your statistics mean nothing. I am talking about political affiliation. This is from the Pew Research Center:
Around a third of registered voters in the U.S. (34%) identify as independents, while 33% identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans, according to a Center analysis of Americans’ partisan identification based on surveys of more than 12,000 registered voters in 2018 and 2019.
Here is a link to a graph that shows just how steady party affiliation has been for the last 20 years/
You're still missing the point. The electoral map is skewed such that a small minority of people actually decide the outcomes.
The majority of Americans reside along the coasts and in the big cities, and those areas have large Democratic majorities. But those areas don't carry the electoral college. What matters is the views of a small number of people in purple states.
One of the things that's been observed about the Trump indictment for the purloined documents is that it was easily avoidable. It's pretty clear that had he returned them any time up until Mar-a-Lago search warrant was issued the Justice Department would have considered the matter settled and not gone as far as indicting an ex-president. (At least over that matter. Special counsel Jack Smith is allegedly still investigating Trump's involvement in the January 6 coup attempt.) It was clear when Trump was getting subpœnas that NARA and the DoJ were taking the matter seriously, so why not return them then? What kind of legal advice was Trump following here? Well . . .
Former President Donald Trump repeatedly rejected his attorneys’ attempts to see him return classified documents and minimize the legal fallout after he absconded to his private club in Florida with the sensitive material when he left the White House in 2021, according to a report by The Washington Post.
The Post, citing seven advisers to the former president, said Trump was extraordinarily stubborn when it came to negotiating with government officials. When one of his attorneys, Christopher Kise, suggested meeting with the Justice Department to negotiate a settlement that could avoid charges, Trump reportedly rejected that plan. Instead, he listened to the advice of Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, who told him he could keep the documents and that he should fight Justice Department efforts to see them returned.
I'm linking to the Huffington Post instead of the Washington Post because of the latter's paywall.
So who is Tom Fitton and why should his opinion carry so much weight? Well, despite heading Judicial Watch (a conservative group that concentrates on filing FOIA requests against Democrats and apostate Republicans) he's not a lawyer. He has a bachelor's degree in English. This is not someone anyone should be consulting for legal advice. This is especially true for anyone facing potential charges under the Espionage Act. This seems to be a case of Trump trusting and promoting an unqualified sycophant who tells the boss what he wants to hear over qualified individuals who try to put some limits on his behavior. Which kind of sums up Trump's whole administrative style.
To continue from my previous post, Fitton's legal theory, if one can call it that, is based on the "Bill Clinton's sock drawer" theory of presidential records. Yes, it's as unhinged as it sounds. Here's a Reuter's write-up for those who want to double-check my assertions here.
The Presidential Records Act, passed in the wake of Watergate, established that documents produced by the White House and the office of the President were government property under the control of the National Archives. An exception was made for personal records, things like diaries, which were still considered to be the personal property of the person of the president, not the office of the president.
During his tenure in office Bill Clinton recorded some interviews with historian Taylor Branch. After he left office Clinton kept custody of the cassette tapes (remember those?) of the interviews, allegedly storing them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch (under the leadership of Tom Fitton) eventually sued for the release of these tapes on the grounds that they were presidential records and should be in the National Archives. In 2012 the DC District Court ruled that even though some of the matters discussed in the interviews were classified the tapes were more like a diary and therefore qualified as personal records.
So despite losing this case pretty badly, Fitton seems to have taken the completely wrong lesson from it and concluded that a president, when leaving office, can declare any document a "personal record" and keep it. The big problem here is that the documents allegedly stolen by Donald Trump are neither presidential records nor personal records. They were not produced by the White House or the Office of the President. They're what are called agency documents, documents produced the various departments and agencies of the executive branch and are thus outside the scope of the Presidential Records Act. They are unquestionably government property and not at all like a personal diary.
Your statistics mean nothing. I am talking about political affiliation. This is from the Pew Research Center:
Around a third of registered voters in the U.S. (34%) identify as independents, while 33% identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans, according to a Center analysis of Americans’ partisan identification based on surveys of more than 12,000 registered voters in 2018 and 2019.
Here is a link to a graph that shows just how steady party affiliation has been for the last 20 years/
Why didn't you say so? Not that it makes any difference. What people say and what people do are significantly different: 'I'm independent. (I always vote Republican)'.
And how does the second link show that 1/3rd vote for the name any more than the first does?
To continue from my previous post, Fitton's legal theory, if one can call it that, is based on the "Bill Clinton's sock drawer" theory of presidential records. Yes, it's as unhinged as it sounds. Here's a Reuter's write-up for those who want to double-check my assertions here.
The Presidential Records Act, passed in the wake of Watergate, established that documents produced by the White House and the office of the President were government property under the control of the National Archives. An exception was made for personal records, things like diaries, which were still considered to be the personal property of the person of the president, not the office of the president.
During his tenure in office Bill Clinton recorded some interviews with historian Taylor Branch. After he left office Clinton kept custody of the cassette tapes (remember those?) of the interviews, allegedly storing them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch (under the leadership of Tom Fitton) eventually sued for the release of these tapes on the grounds that they were presidential records and should be in the National Archives. In 2012 the DC District Court ruled that even though some of the matters discussed in the interviews were classified the tapes were more like a diary and therefore qualified as personal records.
So despite losing this case pretty badly, Fitton seems to have taken the completely wrong lesson from it and concluded that a president, when leaving office, can declare any document a "personal record" and keep it. The big problem here is that the documents allegedly stolen by Donald Trump are neither presidential records nor personal records. They were not produced by the White House or the Office of the President. They're what are called agency documents, documents produced the various departments and agencies of the executive branch and are thus outside the scope of the Presidential Records Act. They are unquestionably government property and not at all like a personal diary.
Trump chose the advice that he liked; the advice that allowed him to behave like a teenage rebel and/or Libertarian responding to being told what to do by digging their heels in and doing the opposite. It's the same reflex that makes people refuse to wear a seatbelt because wearing one is compulsory.
You're still missing the point. The electoral map is skewed such that a small minority of people actually decide the outcomes.
The majority of Americans reside along the coasts and in the big cities, and those areas have large Democratic majorities. But those areas don't carry the electoral college. What matters is the views of a small number of people in purple states.
My response towards mousethief's comment
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
I toke that to mean people tend to vote towards party affiliation.
Now, in regard to the electoral college, it is true states with the least population has more power than states with the most population. Personally, I think the election will be decided by Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I happen to think Florida may flip given all the radical laws that Di Santos has pushed through. Even though he doesn't want people to say "Gay" there are a lot of gay people there. Even though he has banned Critical Race Theory, there are a lot of Black people there. Even though he wants to reign in Disney, there are a lot of Disney employees and their families that live there. Etc.
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
I have turned into one of those people.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
You always vote R? Why?
I always now vote D after Trump, not R no matter who is running for what. I am so disgusted with Rs.
I happen to think Florida may flip given all the radical laws that Di Santos has pushed through.
If Florida would go the way of my community, I'm afraid we won't flip. DeSantis flags and banners are all over the place, as well as very rude banners and bumper stickers about President Biden. I don't understand how people can see what Dear Governor and Mr. Trump have and are doing, and think it's ok. I know, I know. Silly question, isn't it?
I happen to think Florida may flip given all the radical laws that Di Santos has pushed through.
If Florida would go the way of my community, I'm afraid we won't flip. DeSantis flags and banners are all over the place, as well as very rude banners and bumper stickers about President Biden. I don't understand how people can see what Dear Governor and Mr. Trump have and are doing, and think it's ok. I know, I know. Silly question, isn't it?
There’s a big “sporting goods” store (read firearms and archery) on I-40 in central North Carolina that we go by somewhat regularly. For years, they had a big Trump banner hanging over the main door, and the big electronic sign in front showed a pro-Trump (or anti-Biden) message about every third change. Since March or April, the pro-Trump signs have been gone. I’m not quite sure what to make of that, nor do I think I can assume it will last. But it is something that seems worth noting.
Meanwhile, I heard from a very good friend a few days ago. He’s a Democrat, but lives in a heavily Republican area. He went to the barbershop the day after Trump was arraigned. He was interested in the conversation he heard while there, from customers who by all appearances seemed to be very conservative. He said that to a person, the others agreed Trump is an untrustworthy liar, and they were upset by his handling of classified documents. They all said “it’s time to move on.”
Anecdata, to be sure, but interesting anecdata to me. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.
Before the arraignment, I was with Dad in the hallway at his local Emergency Room. The woman waiting in the gurney immediately behind him was very pleasant to talk to. When her husband came to join her, all of a sudden their conversation consisted of the outrageousness of Trump being 'harassed' and in the next breath they were saying (loudly) 'What about her emails??'
I hope they have actually been paying attention since then about the documentation and recordings outlining the scary, irresponsible things Trump did which put the US and many other countries and individuals in danger.
This case is hereby set for a Criminal Jury Trial during the two-week period commencing August 14, 2023, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called.
Prosecutors suggested in their documents that this trial could take 21-60 days, not 2 weeks, so we'll see how this develops. Most people are expecting this start date to be pushed back.
Apologies for the interruption, & thanks to @Croesus for the update.
I'm afraid that, at this point, I've lost track of whatever thoughts (if they qualify as such) I'd planned to share re: Trump. Suffice it to say that, from T's vantage point, it's Advantage Trump to delay further proceedings as long as humanly / judicially possible, on the theory that (A) he can, by fair means or foul, 'win' the presidential election in 2024, and (B) the US will Just (see what I did there?) Not Prosecute a sitting president. Though frankly, if he somehow manages to get re-elected, I suspect that's another 'norm' that will ultimately get tested and fall (though woe betide the US -- regardless of outcome -- if it does). IOW, the US is now poised to see the potential death and burial of its democracy in 2024, regardless of the election's outcome, if Trump somehow snags the Republican candidacy.
I think you’re being unduly gloomy. Trump is getting weaker as a candidate all the time, and if he secures the nomination, that merely means the republicans will have cause to regret it.
Seriously, one norm that is still quite strong in the US is disdain for people who duck around with espionage adjacent activities, like stealing classified papers. Another is a hearty dislike for electing people who have been convicted of felonies—or are about to be. So hard to explain to the children, you know.
While Cannon wants to have the trial begin in August, the Department of Justice is moving to have the trial delayed until 10 December, I think. I short of think this may be a set up. If Cannon denies the motion, I believe the DOJ will move to have here recused for bias.
While Cannon wants to have the trial begin in August, the Department of Justice is moving to have the trial delayed until 10 December, I think. I short of think this may be a set up. If Cannon denies the motion, I believe the DOJ will move to have here recused for bias.
They can’t move to “have her recused,” unless the Southern District of Florida has some rule I’ve never encountered anywhere else. They can only move that she recuse herself, or possibly appeal the denial of a continuance on the grounds of bias. Neither is generally a move to make except in really exceptional circumstances.
Just to add: Judge Cannon was roundly slapped down by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals—specifically, if I recall correctly, by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump—when she appointed a special master to review the classified documents seized from Trump. She is relatively young, and if she has any desire to make it to the 11th Circuit herself one day, she’ll very much want to avoid being slapped down again.
Did I mention the House of Representatives wants to move to expunge the two impeachments of Trump? Since the Senate refused to find Trump guilty, aren't those impeachments moot anyway? Nevertheless, the history is history.
It makes no sense to speak of expunging something where the dude got off. The shame of impeachment lies mostly in having behaved badly enough to have had the process carried out on you (twice!) regardless of the verdict, which is more politically driven than morally driven. But you can’t remove a historical fact. And Trump’s chances of convincing history that he was a strangely wronged innocent seem—small.
It makes no sense to speak of expunging something where the dude got off. The shame of impeachment lies mostly in having behaved badly enough to have had the process carried out on you (twice!) regardless of the verdict, which is more politically driven than morally driven. But you can’t remove a historical fact. And Trump’s chances of convincing history that he was a strangely wronged innocent seem—small.
I'm afraid you're mistaken; we (which is to say humans) can and do re-package, if not remove, historical fact on a regular basis. Short-term victors regularly concoct rationales for brutality toward defeated enemies, exaggerate threats to justify invasions, and it can take centuries to uncover facts ignored and repressed by victors.
Trump's followers, even though their number may be shrinking, have proven time and again to be immune to 'fact.' They re-package it as 'lies' and carry on: we (that is, Trumpeters) actually won the 2020 (or 2024) election. Assuming, Goddess willing, a Trump defeat either in the primaries or in 2024, they'll raise that chant again, and there's no shortage of evidence showing that repetition, even when unsupported by any evidence whatever, can be powerfully persuasive. We hear something often enough and loud enough, and we can start suspecting there's something to even the most preposterous of claims. Example: Christians will be rewarded with eternal life (whatever that is) by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior (whatever that means).
All one need do is repeat-repeat-repeat and insist-insist-insist (sometimes, though by no means always, with violence as an added 'persuader') and get dedicated followers to do likewise. That's how commercials work; that's how autocrats work; that's how religion (by no means exclusive to Christianity) too often works.
Perhaps i should have been more clear. You can’t remove a historical fact by ramrodding some theoretical expungement through the House, as if that bit of bureaucratic nonsense would convince the rest of America that Trump is a man of good repute.
It makes no sense to speak of expunging something where the dude got off. The shame of impeachment lies mostly in having behaved badly enough to have had the process carried out on you (twice!) regardless of the verdict, which is more politically driven than morally driven. But you can’t remove a historical fact. And Trump’s chances of convincing history that he was a strangely wronged innocent seem—small.
I'm afraid you're mistaken; we (which is to say humans) can and do re-package, if not remove, historical fact on a regular basis. Short-term victors regularly concoct rationales for brutality toward defeated enemies, exaggerate threats to justify invasions, and it can take centuries to uncover facts ignored and repressed by victors.
Trump's followers, even though their number may be shrinking, have proven time and again to be immune to 'fact.' They re-package it as 'lies' and carry on: we (that is, Trumpeters) actually won the 2020 (or 2024) election. Assuming, Goddess willing, a Trump defeat either in the primaries or in 2024, they'll raise that chant again, and there's no shortage of evidence showing that repetition, even when unsupported by any evidence whatever, can be powerfully persuasive. We hear something often enough and loud enough, and we can start suspecting there's something to even the most preposterous of claims. Example: Christians will be rewarded with eternal life (whatever that is) by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior (whatever that means).
All one need do is repeat-repeat-repeat and insist-insist-insist (sometimes, though by no means always, with violence as an added 'persuader') and get dedicated followers to do likewise. That's how commercials work; that's how autocrats work; that's how religion (by no means exclusive to Christianity) too often works.
Well, he's aging and reportedly neither eats responsibly nor exercises much. Eventually, he'll die as we all do. But his 'movement'? His 'followers'? Who knows?
What is painfully clear is that a significant subset of US voters, granted sufficient political autonomy, appear hellbent on using that autonomy to undermine and/or restrict the autonomy of those who march to other drummers.
A political system originally meant to foster discussion and compromise between (basically) two competing sets of governing goals and principles is now being cast as a high-stakes winner-takes-all competition. This mindset actually discourages compromise, which is what (I believe) the Founders had in mind when designing the system -- achieving comparative internal peace by ensuring that the majority of The People get at least some of what they hope for.
Trump and his ilk see compromise and cooperation as defeat.
Federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran, multiple sources told CNN, undercutting his argument that he declassified everything.
The recording indicates Trump understood he retained classified material after leaving the White House, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation. On the recording, Trump’s comments suggest he would like to share the information but he’s aware of limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records, two of the sources said.
If true, this would go a long way towards establishing intent. And demolishing his already ridiculous "secret mental declassification" dodge. Of course the necessary caveats appear in the next paragraph.
CNN has not listened to the recording, but multiple sources described it. One source said the relevant portion on the Iran document is about two minutes long, and another source said the discussion is a small part of a much longer meeting.
So this report is dependent on the veracity of multiple anonymous sources.
The recording was allegedly made at Trump's Bedminster golf club. We know Trump spent a lot of effort carting certain of the boxes of classified information between Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, but how certain can we be that no classified documents remain at Trump's New Jersey club?
For the record, New Jersey is a single party consent state when it comes to recording conversations, so this tape is legal and admissible.
Well, he's aging and reportedly neither eats responsibly nor exercises much. Eventually, he'll die as we all do. But his 'movement'? His 'followers'? Who knows?
What is painfully clear is that a significant subset of US voters, granted sufficient political autonomy, appear hellbent on using that autonomy to undermine and/or restrict the autonomy of those who march to other drummers.
A political system originally meant to foster discussion and compromise between (basically) two competing sets of governing goals and principles is now being cast as a high-stakes winner-takes-all competition. This mindset actually discourages compromise, which is what (I believe) the Founders had in mind when designing the system -- achieving comparative internal peace by ensuring that the majority of The People get at least some of what they hope for.
Trump and his ilk see compromise and cooperation as defeat.
Well, he's aging and reportedly neither eats responsibly nor exercises much. Eventually, he'll die as we all do. But his 'movement'? His 'followers'? Who knows?
What is painfully clear is that a significant subset of US voters, granted sufficient political autonomy, appear hellbent on using that autonomy to undermine and/or restrict the autonomy of those who march to other drummers.
A political system originally meant to foster discussion and compromise between (basically) two competing sets of governing goals and principles is now being cast as a high-stakes winner-takes-all competition. This mindset actually discourages compromise, which is what (I believe) the Founders had in mind when designing the system -- achieving comparative internal peace by ensuring that the majority of The People get at least some of what they hope for.
Trump and his ilk see compromise and cooperation as defeat.
Has America ever been politically plural?
Well, presumably there were, at least, competing views on the westward expansion of the southern economic system. Unless that whole civil-war thing was just one giant cosplay.
During a life that is now sort-of qualifies as "long-ish," I've been a voter in two different political parties in three different US states (at different times, I hope I need not add). I've also served in the House of Representatives in one of those states and paid at least average, possibly a smidge above-average, attention to the political goings-on everywhere I've been enfranchised. That experience has demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction (to say nothing of occasional dissatisfaction), that most of the time, compromises and deals between lawmakers with very different political views and goals, enable governance to carry forward in a more-or-less equitable (enduring racism and sexism etc. aside, though of course 'aside' is where it should not be), more-or-less satisfactory, more-or-less peaceable fashion. It's a system that pretty much leaves everybody somewhat dissatisfied and cranky while grudgingly acknowledging (when sharply pressed) that yeah, they did/do get something out of the resulting deals.
Now, though, an economy that requires many Americans to take on multiple jobs just to make ends meet means many voters have neither time nor energy to pay much attention to anything but the campaign ads that pop up while they're checking the weather forecast or sports scores. Voters -- more heavily than ever -- are relying on 'impressions', not political records, to form their views.
Well, he's aging and reportedly neither eats responsibly nor exercises much. Eventually, he'll die as we all do. But his 'movement'? His 'followers'? Who knows?
What is painfully clear is that a significant subset of US voters, granted sufficient political autonomy, appear hellbent on using that autonomy to undermine and/or restrict the autonomy of those who march to other drummers.
A political system originally meant to foster discussion and compromise between (basically) two competing sets of governing goals and principles is now being cast as a high-stakes winner-takes-all competition. This mindset actually discourages compromise, which is what (I believe) the Founders had in mind when designing the system -- achieving comparative internal peace by ensuring that the majority of The People get at least some of what they hope for.
Trump and his ilk see compromise and cooperation as defeat.
Has America ever been politically plural?
Well, presumably there were, at least, competing views on the westward expansion of the southern economic system. Unless that whole civil-war thing was just one giant cosplay.
That looks like a 'no' to me. Slavery couldn't wither on the vine. Pluralism implies to me a system of equalized tensions across a broad, growing structure. The slavocracy detached itself from the structure. The structure superficially, nominally dismantled and re-integrated the detachment.
Now, though, an economy that requires many Americans to take on multiple jobs just to make ends meet means many voters have neither time nor energy to pay much attention to anything but the campaign ads that pop up while they're checking the weather forecast or sports scores. Voters -- more heavily than ever -- are relying on 'impressions', not political records, to form their views
.
I see that with my kids. While they all have only one job each, they are putting in very long hours: and, then when they get home, they have commitments to growing families. Just the other day, my son, who owns a bar, remarked he does not have time to listen to the news, though he leans Democratic.
We do talk to each other. So if your friends/relatives/neighbors are able to do the reading/listening for you, AND are sane and not complete wackadoodledoos, there's a chance that you'll get informed voters anyway.
This is sort of how things used to go in the old days, anyway.
Not unexpected. That poll was of voters generally, not likely Republican primary voters. That tracks pretty well with the conventional wisdom that being indicted would make Trump's existing supporters more enthusiastic through a shared sense of grievance and persecution but be repulsive to ordinary voters.
When former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey was certifying President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, he received a call, during the ceremony, from the loser: Donald Trump.
When the two later spoke, sources familiar with the conversation told The Washington Post, the former president demanded that the Republican look into false claims of fraud that, in his view, would provide cover for overturning the election.
Ducey, who left office earlier this year because of term limits, later told a major Republican donor that he felt "pressure" to do the former president's bidding, according to the Post. The outlet also reported that Ducey expressed surprise that he has not been asked about the call by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump's efforts to remain in power after losing an election.
The Washington Post was the one who broke the story but I'm linking to Business Insider because of the Post's paywall. In any other context this would be a major scandal. Because of Trump now it's just another Saturday news item.
Poor Donnie Jr. Had to cancel his planned trip to Australia when over 21k people signed a petition to deny him a visa. Note: Donnie was not denied a visa. It was delayed a bit, but it was issued 24 hours before he was scheduled to fly to the land down under. Newsweek story here.
Poor baby.
Frankly, this appears to be a publicity stunt. He has gotten more press than if he had gone to Australia.
Comments
My worry is the number of people whose thinking doesn't get further than "What is the letter next to the candidate's name?" R: vote for them; D : don't vote for them. Regardless of positions or laws favored or disfavored.
Well yes, but they're a known quantity. The fickle few in the middle are the deciding factor in elections.
3:1 (realists:optimist).
I have turned into one of those people.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
You always vote R? Why?
Not for 200 years.
I'm not a US lawyer, but that would be the position here, where our federal system was inspired (rather than directly based on) that in the US.
The other restriction is that a presidential pardon can only apply to past actions. No preemptive pardoning allowed for crimes yet to be committed.
Your statistics mean nothing. I am talking about political affiliation. This is from the Pew Research Center:
Here is a link to a graph that shows just how steady party affiliation has been for the last 20 years/
For more information, go to https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/
The majority of Americans reside along the coasts and in the big cities, and those areas have large Democratic majorities. But those areas don't carry the electoral college. What matters is the views of a small number of people in purple states.
I'm linking to the Huffington Post instead of the Washington Post because of the latter's paywall.
So who is Tom Fitton and why should his opinion carry so much weight? Well, despite heading Judicial Watch (a conservative group that concentrates on filing FOIA requests against Democrats and apostate Republicans) he's not a lawyer. He has a bachelor's degree in English. This is not someone anyone should be consulting for legal advice. This is especially true for anyone facing potential charges under the Espionage Act. This seems to be a case of Trump trusting and promoting an unqualified sycophant who tells the boss what he wants to hear over qualified individuals who try to put some limits on his behavior. Which kind of sums up Trump's whole administrative style.
The Presidential Records Act, passed in the wake of Watergate, established that documents produced by the White House and the office of the President were government property under the control of the National Archives. An exception was made for personal records, things like diaries, which were still considered to be the personal property of the person of the president, not the office of the president.
During his tenure in office Bill Clinton recorded some interviews with historian Taylor Branch. After he left office Clinton kept custody of the cassette tapes (remember those?) of the interviews, allegedly storing them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch (under the leadership of Tom Fitton) eventually sued for the release of these tapes on the grounds that they were presidential records and should be in the National Archives. In 2012 the DC District Court ruled that even though some of the matters discussed in the interviews were classified the tapes were more like a diary and therefore qualified as personal records.
So despite losing this case pretty badly, Fitton seems to have taken the completely wrong lesson from it and concluded that a president, when leaving office, can declare any document a "personal record" and keep it. The big problem here is that the documents allegedly stolen by Donald Trump are neither presidential records nor personal records. They were not produced by the White House or the Office of the President. They're what are called agency documents, documents produced the various departments and agencies of the executive branch and are thus outside the scope of the Presidential Records Act. They are unquestionably government property and not at all like a personal diary.
Why didn't you say so? Not that it makes any difference. What people say and what people do are significantly different: 'I'm independent. (I always vote Republican)'.
And how does the second link show that 1/3rd vote for the name any more than the first does?
Trump chose the advice that he liked; the advice that allowed him to behave like a teenage rebel and/or Libertarian responding to being told what to do by digging their heels in and doing the opposite. It's the same reflex that makes people refuse to wear a seatbelt because wearing one is compulsory.
My response towards mousethief's comment
I toke that to mean people tend to vote towards party affiliation.
Now, in regard to the electoral college, it is true states with the least population has more power than states with the most population. Personally, I think the election will be decided by Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I happen to think Florida may flip given all the radical laws that Di Santos has pushed through. Even though he doesn't want people to say "Gay" there are a lot of gay people there. Even though he has banned Critical Race Theory, there are a lot of Black people there. Even though he wants to reign in Disney, there are a lot of Disney employees and their families that live there. Etc.
I always now vote D after Trump, not R no matter who is running for what. I am so disgusted with Rs.
If Florida would go the way of my community, I'm afraid we won't flip. DeSantis flags and banners are all over the place, as well as very rude banners and bumper stickers about President Biden. I don't understand how people can see what Dear Governor and Mr. Trump have and are doing, and think it's ok. I know, I know. Silly question, isn't it?
Meanwhile, I heard from a very good friend a few days ago. He’s a Democrat, but lives in a heavily Republican area. He went to the barbershop the day after Trump was arraigned. He was interested in the conversation he heard while there, from customers who by all appearances seemed to be very conservative. He said that to a person, the others agreed Trump is an untrustworthy liar, and they were upset by his handling of classified documents. They all said “it’s time to move on.”
Anecdata, to be sure, but interesting anecdata to me. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.
I hope they have actually been paying attention since then about the documentation and recordings outlining the scary, irresponsible things Trump did which put the US and many other countries and individuals in danger.
1. The numbers of voters who get their political "information" exclusively from Fox TV "news"
Whoops -- interrupted by emergency. Sorry; back later.
Prosecutors suggested in their documents that this trial could take 21-60 days, not 2 weeks, so we'll see how this develops. Most people are expecting this start date to be pushed back.
I'm afraid that, at this point, I've lost track of whatever thoughts (if they qualify as such) I'd planned to share re: Trump. Suffice it to say that, from T's vantage point, it's Advantage Trump to delay further proceedings as long as humanly / judicially possible, on the theory that (A) he can, by fair means or foul, 'win' the presidential election in 2024, and (B) the US will Just (see what I did there?) Not Prosecute a sitting president. Though frankly, if he somehow manages to get re-elected, I suspect that's another 'norm' that will ultimately get tested and fall (though woe betide the US -- regardless of outcome -- if it does). IOW, the US is now poised to see the potential death and burial of its democracy in 2024, regardless of the election's outcome, if Trump somehow snags the Republican candidacy.
Seriously, one norm that is still quite strong in the US is disdain for people who duck around with espionage adjacent activities, like stealing classified papers. Another is a hearty dislike for electing people who have been convicted of felonies—or are about to be. So hard to explain to the children, you know.
Did I mention the House of Representatives wants to move to expunge the two impeachments of Trump? Since the Senate refused to find Trump guilty, aren't those impeachments moot anyway? Nevertheless, the history is history.
I'm afraid you're mistaken; we (which is to say humans) can and do re-package, if not remove, historical fact on a regular basis. Short-term victors regularly concoct rationales for brutality toward defeated enemies, exaggerate threats to justify invasions, and it can take centuries to uncover facts ignored and repressed by victors.
Trump's followers, even though their number may be shrinking, have proven time and again to be immune to 'fact.' They re-package it as 'lies' and carry on: we (that is, Trumpeters) actually won the 2020 (or 2024) election. Assuming, Goddess willing, a Trump defeat either in the primaries or in 2024, they'll raise that chant again, and there's no shortage of evidence showing that repetition, even when unsupported by any evidence whatever, can be powerfully persuasive. We hear something often enough and loud enough, and we can start suspecting there's something to even the most preposterous of claims. Example: Christians will be rewarded with eternal life (whatever that is) by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior (whatever that means).
All one need do is repeat-repeat-repeat and insist-insist-insist (sometimes, though by no means always, with violence as an added 'persuader') and get dedicated followers to do likewise. That's how commercials work; that's how autocrats work; that's how religion (by no means exclusive to Christianity) too often works.
Not true. He's trying very hard to create and foist his own version of 'history' on the rest of us.
Exactly. What can possibly stop him?
Well, he's aging and reportedly neither eats responsibly nor exercises much. Eventually, he'll die as we all do. But his 'movement'? His 'followers'? Who knows?
What is painfully clear is that a significant subset of US voters, granted sufficient political autonomy, appear hellbent on using that autonomy to undermine and/or restrict the autonomy of those who march to other drummers.
A political system originally meant to foster discussion and compromise between (basically) two competing sets of governing goals and principles is now being cast as a high-stakes winner-takes-all competition. This mindset actually discourages compromise, which is what (I believe) the Founders had in mind when designing the system -- achieving comparative internal peace by ensuring that the majority of The People get at least some of what they hope for.
Trump and his ilk see compromise and cooperation as defeat.
We no longer need to rely on anonymous sources. CNN has obtained a copy of the recording itself so we can all listen to it ourselves. It seems to be exactly as described.
The recording was allegedly made at Trump's Bedminster golf club. We know Trump spent a lot of effort carting certain of the boxes of classified information between Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, but how certain can we be that no classified documents remain at Trump's New Jersey club?
For the record, New Jersey is a single party consent state when it comes to recording conversations, so this tape is legal and admissible.
Has America ever been politically plural?
Well, presumably there were, at least, competing views on the westward expansion of the southern economic system. Unless that whole civil-war thing was just one giant cosplay.
Now, though, an economy that requires many Americans to take on multiple jobs just to make ends meet means many voters have neither time nor energy to pay much attention to anything but the campaign ads that pop up while they're checking the weather forecast or sports scores. Voters -- more heavily than ever -- are relying on 'impressions', not political records, to form their views.
That looks like a 'no' to me. Slavery couldn't wither on the vine. Pluralism implies to me a system of equalized tensions across a broad, growing structure. The slavocracy detached itself from the structure. The structure superficially, nominally dismantled and re-integrated the detachment.
.
I see that with my kids. While they all have only one job each, they are putting in very long hours: and, then when they get home, they have commitments to growing families. Just the other day, my son, who owns a bar, remarked he does not have time to listen to the news, though he leans Democratic.
This is sort of how things used to go in the old days, anyway.
Not unexpected. That poll was of voters generally, not likely Republican primary voters. That tracks pretty well with the conventional wisdom that being indicted would make Trump's existing supporters more enthusiastic through a shared sense of grievance and persecution but be repulsive to ordinary voters.
The Washington Post was the one who broke the story but I'm linking to Business Insider because of the Post's paywall. In any other context this would be a major scandal. Because of Trump now it's just another Saturday news item.
Poor baby.
Frankly, this appears to be a publicity stunt. He has gotten more press than if he had gone to Australia.