Trump

[legomaster00156]

Cause for questioning them perhaps?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Regina Minx]

Is there anything, anything at all in the current political system to allow the senate and congress to say "No. This is going too far. Enough. We are going to reverse those pardons because those criminals were specifically working for the benefit of the president who pardoned them."

No. This is the full text of the Pardon Clause in the Constitution: the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

There are two limits to this power and they are both spelled out in the text. 1) the pardon power only extends to offenses against the United States, that is, federal crimes. 2) an impeachment cannot be voided by a pardoning.

Nothing in the Pardon Clause or any subsequent or preceding section of the document gives Congress or the Court any standing to challenge, reverse, undo, or revoke a pardon.

[Haibane]

Laws are written by men and can be changed by men. That is all. I'm not being difficult here or obtuse but there is always scope for discussion and for a vote in which events which are damaging to good law and order and clear abuses of power can be reversed.

[Regina Minx]

Laws are written by men and can be changed by men. That is all. I'm not being difficult here or obtuse but there is always scope for discussion and for a vote in which events which are damaging to good law and order and clear abuses of power can be reversed.

Any law passed by Congress even over a presidential veto limiting the pardon power would be struck down as unconstitutional. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to change a thing IN the Constitution.

[Kitteredge]

Is there anything, anything at all in the current political system to allow the senate and congress to say "No. This is going too far. Enough. We are going to reverse those pardons because those criminals were specifically working for the benefit of the president who pardoned them."

Impeachment. Supposedly Congress should control the president by impeaching and removing him if he is abusing his power. They did not seem to imagine one party protecting the abuses of their leader the way the GOP has. Reminder that we are approaching the year anniversary of the Senate refusing to consider trying Trump for abuses and doing this. The House gave them articles of impeachment and literally the Republican-lead Senate said they weren't going to look at them.

[Andol]

Let’s stop right there.. China has building towards. Conflict over Taiwan for decades. In the decade and a half I was in the Navy, they bought deisel subs from the Russians, and promptly put half in dry dock to take apart, developed a missile/torpedo strategy designed towards fouling US fleet tactics, in fringed on territorial waters of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines   

They ARE doing a resource grab with their barrier islands and have repeatedly said it was their territory.

Sorry I am a bit late on this comment, but I wanted to add about what China has been doing at its border with India including the small clash that happened there back in the summer. Oh and don't get me started on the shit that they do internally... but I think making that list would need a thread on its own.

[Oniya]

Sorry I am a bit late on this comment, but I wanted to add about what China has been doing at its border with India including the small clash that happened there back in the summer. Oh and don't get me started on the shit that they do internally... but I think making that list would need a thread on its own.

Quite probably.  Overall, though, there's more than enough reason for the next administration to be wary of both Russia and China.  'Compromise' only works when both participants enter into it with honest intentions.

[Haibane]

Any law passed by Congress even over a presidential veto limiting the pardon power would be struck down as unconstitutional. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to change a thing IN the Constitution.

In that case surely then that is the process required so that such abuses are not repeated. Trump has highlighted loopholes in what was pre-Trump a reasonably sound system, respected by all, bit once a person comes along who just does things as he likes using the letter of the law rather than its spirit, one has to shut the barn doors, even though so many criminal horses have bolted.

There was a reference above to established procedures for pardons and its these that need to be made firm legal processes so that Trump v2.0 can't do the same.

[gaggedLouise]

Impeachment. Supposedly Congress should control the president by impeaching and removing him if he is abusing his power. They did not seem to imagine one party protecting the abuses of their leader the way the GOP has. Reminder that we are approaching the year anniversary of the Senate refusing to consider trying Trump for abuses and doing this. The House gave them articles of impeachment and literally the Republican-lead Senate said they weren't going to look at them.

In the days of the founding fathers, admirable in so many ways, modern-style political parties didn't exist. The parties of those days were discussion clubs or caucuses based on loose personal loyalty, very few of their active members feeling dependent on the party for their economy. Not really powerful machines that would be able to control most of the state and keeping up paid bureaucracies of their own, financing the career paths of the up-and-coming men in the party, and so on. Today's parties are like permanent state organs of their own in many respects, with armies of paid employees and career politicians, and I don't think Jefferson and Madison ever realized how this could play out.

[Regina Minx]

In that case surely then that is the process required so that such abuses are not repeated. Trump has highlighted loopholes in what was pre-Trump a reasonably sound system, respected by all, bit once a person comes along who just does things as he likes using the letter of the law rather than its spirit, one has to shut the barn doors, even though so many criminal horses have bolted.

There was a reference above to established procedures for pardons and its these that need to be made firm legal processes so that Trump v2.0 can't do the same.

That process is a guideline rather than a legal requirement. Any attempt to make them legally binding on the president would require an amendment to the Constitution. A doable thing, in theory but something with a near 0% chance of happening in practicality. Until then we have to live with the fact that the Pardon Power of the president is almost absolute and if he chooses to follow process and procedure, fine. If he decides to wake up one day and pardon every single person convicted of a federal drug offense since the beginning of the country's history, he also has the power to do that and he doesn't need to ask anyone's permission before doing so.

If you really want the background and the thinking behind the drafting of the Pardon Power in the Constitution, read the convention notes. There was expressed discussion of a corrupt president using the pardon power corruptly, and the consensus was that the check on such a thing would be impeachment and removal. Then follow it up with Federalist 69, the Supreme Court decision in ex parte Garland, and for extra credit the English Act of Settlement 1701 from whence derived the common law tradition that influenced the Framers.

[Deamonbane]

In that case surely then that is the process required so that such abuses are not repeated. Trump has highlighted loopholes in what was pre-Trump a reasonably sound system, respected by all, bit once a person comes along who just does things as he likes using the letter of the law rather than its spirit, one has to shut the barn doors, even though so many criminal horses have bolted.

There was a reference above to established procedures for pardons and its these that need to be made firm legal processes so that Trump v2.0 can't do the same.

The funny thing that the republicans that lost their absolute shit over Clinton's pardons are being suspiciously silent now.

[TheVillain]

The funny thing that the republicans that lost their absolute shit over Clinton's pardons are being suspiciously silent now.

At this point it's pretty obvious that if we were to make of list of things Republicans say they're against but actually are all for as long as they're the ones doing it, the only thing we know for a fact would *not* be on the list would be Science.

[Haibane]

Thanks for the discussion everyone. I still hold my view that US politics is just a horrid mess that needs a 21st century overhaul. I also feel somewhat angry at some Americans who belittle me as an English person. One Trump supporter I was unlucky enough to meet via FaceBook the other day said to me "bend to your knee, subject" as though having a constitutional monarchy was somehow making me a kind of modern day vassal. The person was rude without provocation and showed a total lack of understanding of the British monarchy.

Then he votes for Trump who goes and behaves as tyrannically as Mad King George.

Its both very sad and very anger-provoking at the same time.

[Haibane]

Mitch McConnell blocks a vote on the $2000 relief bill. He said "The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help."

Liberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who votes with Democrats, said on the Senate floor: "All we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? If you want to vote against $2,000 checks for your state, vote against it."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: "What we're seeing right now is leader McConnell trying to kill the cheques - the $2,000 cheques desperately needed by so many American families."

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "These Republicans in the Senate seem to have an endless tolerance for other people's sadness."

(Quotes from a BBC report)

[Aiden]

All accurate

[gaggedLouise]

Mitch McConnell blocks a vote on the $2000 relief bill. He said "The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help."

Liberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who votes with Democrats, said on the Senate floor: "All we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? If you want to vote against $2,000 checks for your state, vote against it."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: "What we're seeing right now is leader McConnell trying to kill the cheques - the $2,000 cheques desperately needed by so many American families."

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "These Republicans in the Senate seem to have an endless tolerance for other people's sadness."

(Quotes from a BBC report)

Effectively. McConnell is telling Trump and the White House: "I'm not going to give you the go-ahead for the 2.000 dollars, which would have given a much-needed boost to your relations with common people, but I am going to be quite literal on tying these three demands tight together (something Trump had never demanded) and to push the demand for a special prosecutor into the voter fraud thing. Eat it!"

He really is tying a millstone around Trump's neck at a critical moment, while pretending to be doing him a loyal service. 

[TheVillain]

"When Historians of the future ask students who destroyed Democracy in America, Donald Trump will be a popular answer but Mitch McConnell will be the right one."

[Regina Minx]

Effectively. McConnell is telling Trump and the White House: "I'm not going to give you the go-ahead for the 2.000 dollars, which would have given a much-needed boost to your relations with common people, but I am going to be quite literal on tying these three demands tight together (something Trump had never demanded) and to push the demand for a special prosecutor into the voter fraud thing. Eat it!"

He really is tying a millstone around Trump's neck at a critical moment, while pretending to be doing him a loyal service. 

We would do well to remember Aesop. The turtle always beat the hair remember?

[Oniya]

We would do well to remember Aesop. The turtle always beat the hair remember?

I see what you did there. >w>

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

I also feel somewhat angry at some Americans who belittle me as an English person.

Im very familar, with this feeling. 

[Oniya]

Impeachment. Supposedly Congress should control the president by impeaching and removing him if he is abusing his power. They did not seem to imagine one party protecting the abuses of their leader the way the GOP has. Reminder that we are approaching the year anniversary of the Senate refusing to consider trying Trump for abuses and doing this. The House gave them articles of impeachment and literally the Republican-lead Senate said they weren't going to look at them.

There's another thing that a second impeachment could do, even if it is too late to remove him from office.  One of the consequences that isn't talked about is the sentence of being unable to serve again in a public office.  An impeachment hearing begun now would inevitably last at least a few months into Biden's term - time for the Georgia Senate Race to be a factor in the Senate composition.  And time for the even the most fickle of wind-socks to realize that Trump no longer has any power over them.

[TheGlyphstone]

Im very familar, with this feeling. 

It makes me sad too when I see/hear it. America wouldn't exist if people from other countries, bringing the best parts of their cultures (and food) and forging something unique. The now dominant trend of exclusive exceptionalism where America invented anything and everything that matters is frustrating. Even people I otherwise love and respect fall prey to it.

[gaggedLouise]

Thanks for the discussion everyone. I still hold my view that US politics is just a horrid mess that needs a 21st century overhaul. I also feel somewhat angry at some Americans who belittle me as an English person.

I'm familiar with this feeling too - the turf war between US Americans and Brits is all over the internet and social media of all kinds, and I used to get taken for a Brit by Americans lots of times, if I didn't directly tell them I was from Scandinavia. Part of the reason was my fluency in English...Over the last year, commenting on Trump and US politics has sometimes made people call me a Russian, this happened a good deal on Youtube comments - another wrong guess. :)

One Trump supporter I was unlucky enough to meet via FaceBook the other day said to me "bend to your knee, subject" as though having a constitutional monarchy was somehow making me a kind of modern day vassal. The person was rude without provocation and showed a total lack of understanding of the British monarchy.

Then he votes for Trump who goes and behaves as tyrannically as Mad King George.

Its both very sad and very anger-provoking at the same time.

Wow, yes, that was bad. Perhaps the 'Murican thought he was being ironic, and turning the old British control of the eastern US back at you... 

[John Birch]

So another potential avenue apart from Georgia for the Democrats to gain control. Yes?

Super late response-- as was pointed out, the Dems already have the House, but if you're asking if it's an opportunity for a pickup, unfortunately not. The Louisiana 5th is extremely Republican (like pretty much every district in Louisiana outside the New Orleans-based 2nd) and even during the blue wave of 2018 Democrats couldn't crack 30% of the vote. They usually don't even field a candidate. Dems are more likely to focus on building up momentum for 2022 to take back suburban House seats they lost this year than making a serious play in Louisiana.

[Kitteredge]

These are reasonable takes from someone with that handle. :)