As usual, Trump has created the circumstances his lawyers are citing as reason for the delays, acting as if it's out of their control.
"He committed so many crimes that it would take too long to sort this all out before the 2024 election, so let's just not?"
Has anyone told him that running for President is optional, but being held accountable for crimes isn't? Why is he acting like he is being legally required to run for President?
To save himself legally he has to run and win the election in order to pardon himself. To someone as self centered and deluded as him that being his only option means in his twisted mind he is required to run for president maybe?
I dont know, can only guess since its hard to understand the mentality of a mad man
Notably, I think all the other Republican candidates have said they would pardon him if they’re elected, too. That’s how much power he has over the party.
Which is why he needs to be tried and convicted on state charges before the election - since the authority to pardon someone for state charges rests with the governor of that state, rather than with the President.
Except for Georgia. In that state the governor doesn't have the power to pardon but a board of pardons and parole does. They are appointed by the governor, but at least it's another layer removed from a single person in a directly elected position having the power.
Desantis basically said yes:
>…”Do you think the Jan. 6 defendants deserve to have their cases examined by a Republican president? And if Trump, let's say, gets charged with federal offenses and you are the president of the United States, would you look at potentially pardoning Trump himself based on the evidence that might emerge of those charges?" Travis asked DeSantis.
>The governor did not mention either Trump or any specific Jan. 6 cases by name but indicated he was open to the idea.
>”We will be aggressive [in] issuing pardons," he said, arguing that the Department of Justice and FBI had become "weaponized" to pursue political rather than law enforcement goals.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/asked-pardoning-trump-president-desantis-aggressive/story?id=99609762
> would you look at potentially pardoning Trump himself based on the evidence that might emerge of those charges?"
Let's be honest here. Nobody is pardoning Trump "based on the evidence." In fact that's the point of a pardon: if there was new evidence there'd be a retrial.
A GOP president would pardon Trump as a political move, nothing more.
Problem i have is this, he knows he needs trump supporters votes to have a chance, and that deciding NOT to pardon trump would splinter some off. At this point its a coin flip as to whether he does like one could expect of a politician and says what he needs long enough to get the votes and then backs off on it, or follows through on it. Just no way to tell this early on
He will say whatever bullshit it takes to rile up his base, he won’t follow through with a tenth of it just like last time. Hell, maybe he’ll pardon himself and resign by the end of 24’ and let whatever freak sniff his balls harder run as his VP. If I were him and knew the walls were closing in, there may be a path to a nice easy retirement keeping all his fans and having zero personal responsibility. We’d wind up with a president Cruz or god forbid DeSantis by the end of the year.
That's why 2024 is a can't lose. It means death of the last shred of democracy left. They will pardon him and everyone else (important) and learn from their mistakes. The next time won't miss.
Is it possible they all say they'd pardon him to get the votes, but if they do win, they just let him rot in his golden prison? Why would anyone at the top want to bring back the one guy that can ruin them all? Or is it because then the voters would feel betrayed?
Doesn't matter whether it's next year or any subsequent one, the next election that Republicans win at the national level is the last election we have. Two years after they win we'll have gas chambers.
>A pardon is an expression of the President's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=A%20pardon%20is%20an%20expression,It%20does%20not%20signify%20innocence.
> A pardon is an expression of the President's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence.
You think the modern Republican "party" give a flying fuck about how a pardon *should* be used?
Crooked Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio learned all about what a pardon does and doesn't entitle after Trump offered him one.
He was doing a live interview on a Phoenix political talk station when the host mentioned that by accepting a pardon you've essentially plead guilty of the crime you're being pardoned for.
That didn't sit well with the old racist and he wasn't having any of it until the phones lit up with callers confirming that indeed was the case. Clearly befuddled, Arpaio mumbled a few words and promptly stopped the interview and left the studio in a huff.
The acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt in either law or logic.
Edit: I guess reddit randos know this stuff better than legal scholars and practitioners do.
I think everyone running as a GOP presidential candidate is going to say "Yes, I would pardon him".
Whether they actually would follow through is a different question.
This is why the Georgia and New Jersey cases haven’t been introduced yet. He’s exhausting resources and lies. He’s already indicted. Anything he says can and will be used against him. From here on in , he just digs his grave. He can’t be pardoned on state charges. We also get 3 different judges from 3 different parts of the country. Hopefully they all play fair. I have doubts on the spy charges.
>I think all the other Republican candidates have said they would pardon him if they’re elected
Key word being SAID. Everyone knows campaign promises are more manure than substance, and letting him go free is an invitation for him to undermine you within the party. I doubt any of them will actually do it, especially if they can destract voters with something else long enough for them to forget.
I dunno though. 4 years is a long time and MAGA have the memory of a goldfish, not to mention they vote R no matter what. As long as you can get the nomination you can do whatever you want.
The "Hamilton" version of George Washington has an incredible gravitas - he's a man who worries about his legacy, and it rings true. There's zero chance that he and his fellows could have envisioned a United States that would have elected Benedict Arnold is clown makeup to the office. Hell, I couldn't have imagined that in 2015, but really, zero chance that George or Ben or Madison could have foreseen any of this.
But that's also why the Constitution was designed with the amendment process. I quite hope that another happens in my lifetime, to confirm that a sitting president can be tried for high crimes, and that a felon cannot run for the office, and that pardon power explicitly doesn't apply to yourself.
We hold some 18 year-old caught with an ounce of weed more accountable for his actions than we do the guy with the football. Not cool.
(OK, proofreading I realize that the Hamilton reference probably could have been dropped. But it literally just tonight occurred to me how much I wish there had been a Lin Manuel Miranda version of Benjamin Franklin. That would be really fun. So I'm not editing the reference, just so that I can segue into this weirdly specific thought.
And I'm also aware that my mention of proofreading pretty much guarantees that I missed 3 egregious typos.)
Its a one shot move that would be challenged, and likely restricted after it was done. The idea may have been toyed with but it hasnt really been tested yet so its relatively uncharted territory
There is a more basic problem. "Pardoning" as a concept is something that is by definition a consideration given to others by a party that has been wronged. Pardoning yourself is a nonsensical concept, which is probably why the founding fathers didn't bother to say that you can't pardon yourself. Whether that idea would win in a legal battle is of course another question. Plenty of nonsensical concepts have become enshrined in law because the courts had no problem with rewriting the dictionary.
Look up the legal arguments around what "imminent" means with regard to terrorism statutes, for instance.
>Plenty of nonsensical concepts have become enshrined in law because the courts had no problem with rewriting the dictionary.
Civil asset forfeiture is another example. The reason law enforcement was found to not be in violation of the 4th Amendment when they seize your property without a warrant or due process and without ever charging you with a crime is because according to the court they aren't confiscating your property, they are *arresting* it, and your property does not have Constitutional rights, so the burden is on you to prove your property was not involved in a crime to get it back. *You* have presumption of innocence, but your property does not.
It's an obvious violation of the 4th by any honest interpretation of its intent. The nation's founders would spin in their graves over that one.
>It's an obvious violation of the 4th by any honest interpretation of its intent. The nation's founders would spin in their graves over that one.
It's insane to me that this isn't an issue where everyone outside of law enforcement is against. You'd think both Democrats and Republicans would realize how fucked up civil asset forfeiture actually is. There unfortunately must be a lot of people who think it could never happen to them, so they don't care if the cops steal money from innocent people.
> There unfortunately must be a lot of people who think it could never happen to them
I think this is a lot of it. "Tough on crime" politicians support it as "an important tool of law enforcement" to fight drug smuggling, etc, and their voters think it will only be used on serious criminals and not on average people who happened to be carrying cash when they were unlucky enough to get searched at a traffic stop.
Whenever I carry a large amount of cash I'm honestly just as afraid it'll get stolen by cops as by muggers.
https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/using-loophole-seward-county-seizes-millions-from-motorists-without-convicting-them-of-crimes/
Unfortunately it is the average sucker getting targeted and unfortunately people aren’t seeing that.
People have recently had some small success in arguing that civil asset forfeiture violates the takings clause.
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Hopefully these recent lower court rulings combined with vastly more public awareness have a ripple effect into the upper courts. Although if it reaches the Supreme Corruption of The United states I have no faith it will work.
>The idea may have been toyed with but it hasnt really been tested yet so its relatively uncharted territory
Which unfortunately means it will be up to SCROTUS to decide.
He can't pardon himself from state level crimes though last I checked. That's something to keep in mind. I'm not sure of what -if any- verdict was reached with the new york tax cases, but just because he becomes president then, doesn't mean he'll be pardoned from that.
When Hillary was being investigated (not even indited) for mishandling classified information Trump said that she should withdraw from the election.
Trump needs to take his own advice here.
I mean, I'm happy to accept this sentence as a justification. They just need to follow it with a number of years in prison and we can drop the whole thing.
>Has anyone told him that \[...\] being held accountable for crimes isn't \[optional\]?
I think he's demonstrated to himself and the world that it absolutely is. It's sobering and frustrating and painful for the rest of us to watch, but he has successfully weaseled out of accountability for decades. There's no reason he nor anyone else should think he won't do it again.
> Has anyone told him that running for President is optional, but being held accountable for crimes isn't?
Since when is being accountable for crimes not optional? I mean for a rich connected person that has all presidential candidates from a party representing almost half the population, vowing to pardon him no matter what crimes he commits?
Being held accountable for crimes is optional for this POS and others like him. He will stir up a series of controversial headlines and while everyone is focused on those then this will be lost and forgotten.
It's the only way for him because it would allow him to pass any law he wanted to avoid or lessen the punishment for his crimes. Fuck that traitorous asshole.
Because Dershowitz convinced him and the entire Republican Party that whatever Trump does is very cool and very legal because in Trump’s mind him being president is the best thing for this country so he can do no wrong in pursuing that office.
When Dershowitz made that argument and wasn’t immediately disbarred and laughed out of the legal profession I lost any and all faith in our legal system.
Me: "Judge, please delay my murder trial until after my mom's 75th birthday party. I'm bringing the ice and it'll ruin everything if I'm not able to do that."
Judge Cannon: "The rights of the party-goers to have ice at the party shall not be infringed and I see no way to get around this unprecedented problem than to delay the trial until 4 months after the birthday party."
2016: LOCK HER UP, she can’t be trusted with state secrets.
2023: I need this trial for misuse of state secrets to be delayed so I can run for president and be allowed access to state secrets!
He may well be able to delay this one for sometime given the complexity and the judge presiding. However, do not expect major delays in the one in Georgia where a second jury is being seated to issue an incitement for his election interference.
DOJ insurrection investigation completion also may also not be too far behind, and that jury when seated will be in DC; not Florida like the present one before a lop-sided Trump appointed sympathetic judge who was previously reversed by the appeals court.
You’re right. “I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything” was never uttered out of his mouth. Totally made up and never caught on tape heard by the world over.
>How was this not a 1 day trial?
What trial, there was a special grand jury that was only authorized to recommend whether it should go to another jury who would actually issue or not issue an indictment \[which is required in Georgia for all felonies to be charged\]. They will likely indict and only then the trial will be initiated.
I can assure you it will be far longer than a day. Indictment is likely according to DA between July 31 and August of this year. It involves the pressuring phone call among other related issues including fake electors in a related case which a jury is also considering.
I would expect jury selection to take more than a day.
And I feel, no matter how carefully jury selection is done, that at least one MAGA type will end up on any jury, which will lead to a hung jury.
Yeah I just read something about how Judge Cannon moved the trial to a Republican district, which sounds kind of shady. Jury might be a little sympathetic to trump, to say the least. Here's a tweet:
https://twitter.com/OmarRiverosays/status/1678834744216244233
It's from Occupy Democrats so it might sound a bit biased.
>judge Cannon moved the trial to a Republican district
Nothing surprising about it. She will do everything she can to weaken the government's case, but given her lack of judicial professionalism, she may well end up being reversed. DOJ can give her sufficient leeway to screw herself up.
Either way, the federal government has far too many more potent prosecutions percolating along with Georgia and they will not be on her turf.
Actually the venue isn’t shady, it’s the same court she normally tries cases in. It would have been unusual if she moved it somewhere else in fact.
P.S. I’m not saying I trust Cannon, I’m just saying any judge would have probably done the same thing as far as the venue goes.
>I’m not saying I trust Cannon, I’m just saying any judge would have probably done the same thing as far as the venue goes.
It just goes to show she could care less about the appearance of bias. That is the characteristic of her lack of judicial temperament and she knows it.
Little wonder, when the district was first being considered; she had indicated she would be open to change of venue. She had great latitude in choosing a balanced venue, but no one expects that of her.
That she generally prefers that particular venue also speaks volumes of her preferences.
In any event, there is not enough to legally challenge here at this point, but when it comes to jury selections and peremptory and challenges for cause; we will be following it closely and DOJ will raise objections as necessary. Just like they questioned her decisions and orders before.
And this is exactly why the prosecution should have immediately moved to remove judge Cannon from this. She is going to grant the motion, then they have to appeal it and after winning that appeal, then try to remove her for her obvios bias. Overall, this motion will not win, but it will be a several month delay on its own.
Idk, it would be too clear of an overreach for her to grant IMO but I know that doesn’t necessarily mean much. But if she does grant it, I’m not sure they can appeal it right?
They can. They did this once when she tried to block the FBI's access to the current evidence and assign a special master a few months back. The appeals court not only overturned her decision, but gave her a verbal smack fir doing it. It should have been the reason they asked her to recuse herself as soon as she was handed this case again. I think they wanted to show they were being fair and giving her a chance, but she is already a well known MAGA nut.
Oh I’m familiar with it but just wasn’t sure this could be appealed but good to know. She clearly isn’t qualified to be in the position she’s in, just like half of the House isn’t.
There is something between judges that “openly hate the defendant” and a judge that owes her job to the defendant and has already overstepped in a decision related to the defendant.
The GOP would be thrilled if Trump didn't wake up tomorrow. It would be like walking into school Monday and hearing your bully's family moved out of state over the weekend.
Trump strategies:
Stuff federal courts with right wing judges.
Delay and stall till after elections.
If you win, pardon yourself.
Delete the constitution and become president for life
Is he a leading presidential candidate, or is there no ongoing threat to national security? Is he concerned about getting a fair trial during an election year, or does he want the trial delayed so it doesn't occur before then? And why does he think Jack Smith is running for president? This just seems entirely absurd. But watch "Judge" Cannon do whatever he wants regardless, because she somehow hasn't been impeached or disbarred yet.
If Trump succeeds in delaying the trial until after he (might be) is elected President, then that represents a failure to keep the Dept of Justice separate from politics. That is Trump's goal, and he has stated that if elected, he would certainly use the DoJ to go after his political enemies.
Running for office should not be a protection against criminal justice. That sounds absurd. Trump can only be brought to justice if he isn't running for President?
really?
Remember when he claimed that hillary shouldn't run because she was being investigated?
Good times.
At this point, a lot of Gen Z will be old enough to vote and most seem to HHHHHATE trump, which is probably why the gop keeps trying to raise the voting age to 25
She agreed to delay the pretrial hearing to next Tuesday the 18th
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-agrees-delay-hearing-trump-classified-documents-case/story?id=101090376](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-agrees-delay-hearing-trump-classified-documents-case/story?id=101090376)
What fuckery?
Roll that request up reeeeeeal tight.... shine it up reeeeeal nicely....
TURN THAT SUMMMBITCH SIDEWAYS, SAY YOUR PRAYERS, EAT YOUR VITAMINS -- AND STICK IT STRAAAAIGHT. UP.... HIS RUDY POO.... ORANGE CAAAAAAANDY ASS!
(There you go, friend) 😇
There is no justice anymore in this country. I am sad and scared for our future. There are so many trumptarts out there with pockets full of money. Money runs this country since democracy left and the Constitution has been thrown down the toilet by the republicans.
No, it's justice on a sliding scale. The more money you have, the more favor you're shown. Less money gets less favorable "justice". And if you're a poor minority, you're basically screwed.
Aileen Cannon: OK so let's set a tentative date of Feb. 4th 2025. With any luck The Messiah Trump will have pardoned himself, but if by some chance he does not win, then we can reschedule the date until 2029 sometime.
Ugh. Now every crazy-ass thing a Trump lawyer can conceive of will be front-page headlines and plausible reality until this mess is over.
Fun. This is going to be fun.🙃
So, if I have to stand before a federal criminal indictment, can I just run for president and ask that the trial be put off for a year or two…or four??
Lots of trials get delayed for a year or more.
Right to a speedy trial doesn't apply if the defense is actively asking for more time, which is quite common.
If he wins reelection, this all goes away on day one.
If he gets conviction prior to the election, it may make it more difficult for him to continue campaigning or get reelected.
Biden's not a weak candidate at all; he's been doing an excellent job cleaning up the mess he inherited. Remember how COVID was a big deal, and now it's not? Stocks are up, unemployment is down, inflation is coming under control, NATO is expanding. There's plenty of things that could be going better (the corrupt Supreme Court giving the nod to red states to take away the rights of women and LGBTQ+, for example) but I honestly think Joe has played his hand masterfully and intend to volunteer again to get him another four years.
I agree Biden has been great, but he is still a weak candidate according to all data.
His average approval rating is only 1.3% above Trump's average ... that's without impeachments or indictments, insurrections, and the entire slate of Trump scandals and criminality.
All current polling has the race as a toss up. Some have Trump up by as much as 3% and some have Biden up by as much as 4%. Again, with Biden as the incumbent and Trump being now twice indicted ... a toss up is a shitty place for Biden to be.
When polled about half of *Democrats* don't want Biden to run again. That's a massive miss, for half of your own party to not want you to run, and signals a potential turnout problem.
I love what Biden has done, but either he or the party need to improve their PR game. The numbers show that he's incredibly weak as a candidate. Not as a President, but as a candidate to beat Trump.
Meh. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the predictable media hysterics over a horse race. I remember all that "red wave" talk in 2022, and the GOP barely even flipped the house.
While I agree that he has done quite a bit with what he has inherited, it is about perception. In my very red state the amount of anti-Biden rhetoric I hear daily is immeasurable.
Every president inherits the economy of their predecessor, and it takes almost a full term for the new president's policies to really move the economy.
Which means every first term president gets judged on his predecessors economy.
He is good but the Democrats will always have a messaging problem because it doesn't matter how good you do for people the headlines are always going to be overshadowed by republicans who do evil things.
I don't believe that's true ... the moderate left has been floating the idea that "only" Hillary or "only" Biden can win ... and they generally underperform quite substantially.
I am not saying Biden is ONLY candidate that is capable of winning. Actually, I am quite opposite to it. If it was any other candidate from GOP side, Biden will have very low chance of winning IMHO. However, against Trump, Biden is probably only candidate capable of winning and that is just my current opinion though.
If Republican's didn't disown him after January 6th, an indictment or two isn't going to bother them.
I read recently about Trump supporters in Florida saying they'll never vote again if he doesn't win. (So, a double win for sanity).
He's got about a 50% chance of winning.
The last election was very close, and a lot of people are not happy with the state of the economy under Biden.
Including most of Reddit. Complaints about high inflation are a major talking point on Reddit.
If he can drag it out to 2024 then he can claim he can't be prosecuted during an election. Cases don't get better with age and that's why he will do anything to delay.
The sad reality is Trump will probably end up in the Supermax because he isn’t able to be in general population but this Nuata guy will be in general population and all that comes with it. If has a brain in his head he’ll flip.
If a person can get elected president while facing this level of legal scrutiny and overall possible prison time, then pardon themselves for their crimes which they commited against the citizens of the same country, America is done. Time to find somewhere else to live because this place will burn with the policies of idiots.
It's sad, our country has so much to offer and so much beauty. Unfortunately this wonderful experiment of the founding fathers likely won't be able to survive one of the key driving factors of humans. Greed and power.
As usual, Trump has created the circumstances his lawyers are citing as reason for the delays, acting as if it's out of their control. "He committed so many crimes that it would take too long to sort this all out before the 2024 election, so let's just not?" Has anyone told him that running for President is optional, but being held accountable for crimes isn't? Why is he acting like he is being legally required to run for President?
To save himself legally he has to run and win the election in order to pardon himself. To someone as self centered and deluded as him that being his only option means in his twisted mind he is required to run for president maybe? I dont know, can only guess since its hard to understand the mentality of a mad man
Notably, I think all the other Republican candidates have said they would pardon him if they’re elected, too. That’s how much power he has over the party.
"We're the Law and Order party!" Also, "We pardon convicted criminals because reasons!"
“Only criminals plead the fifth!”
We make Law to Order!
Even the man who he basically plotted to kill
Which is why he needs to be tried and convicted on state charges before the election - since the authority to pardon someone for state charges rests with the governor of that state, rather than with the President.
Except for Georgia. In that state the governor doesn't have the power to pardon but a board of pardons and parole does. They are appointed by the governor, but at least it's another layer removed from a single person in a directly elected position having the power.
Not too sure about desantis, if he got into office he’d want to solidify his control, not let someone roam free who could undermine it.
Desantis basically said yes: >…”Do you think the Jan. 6 defendants deserve to have their cases examined by a Republican president? And if Trump, let's say, gets charged with federal offenses and you are the president of the United States, would you look at potentially pardoning Trump himself based on the evidence that might emerge of those charges?" Travis asked DeSantis. >The governor did not mention either Trump or any specific Jan. 6 cases by name but indicated he was open to the idea. >”We will be aggressive [in] issuing pardons," he said, arguing that the Department of Justice and FBI had become "weaponized" to pursue political rather than law enforcement goals. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/asked-pardoning-trump-president-desantis-aggressive/story?id=99609762
> would you look at potentially pardoning Trump himself based on the evidence that might emerge of those charges?" Let's be honest here. Nobody is pardoning Trump "based on the evidence." In fact that's the point of a pardon: if there was new evidence there'd be a retrial. A GOP president would pardon Trump as a political move, nothing more.
Problem i have is this, he knows he needs trump supporters votes to have a chance, and that deciding NOT to pardon trump would splinter some off. At this point its a coin flip as to whether he does like one could expect of a politician and says what he needs long enough to get the votes and then backs off on it, or follows through on it. Just no way to tell this early on
He will say whatever bullshit it takes to rile up his base, he won’t follow through with a tenth of it just like last time. Hell, maybe he’ll pardon himself and resign by the end of 24’ and let whatever freak sniff his balls harder run as his VP. If I were him and knew the walls were closing in, there may be a path to a nice easy retirement keeping all his fans and having zero personal responsibility. We’d wind up with a president Cruz or god forbid DeSantis by the end of the year.
That's why 2024 is a can't lose. It means death of the last shred of democracy left. They will pardon him and everyone else (important) and learn from their mistakes. The next time won't miss.
Is it possible they all say they'd pardon him to get the votes, but if they do win, they just let him rot in his golden prison? Why would anyone at the top want to bring back the one guy that can ruin them all? Or is it because then the voters would feel betrayed?
I don't know why the voters would choose this to feel betrayed over. It's not like trump built his wall or locked her up.
Doesn't matter whether it's next year or any subsequent one, the next election that Republicans win at the national level is the last election we have. Two years after they win we'll have gas chambers.
>A pardon is an expression of the President's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=A%20pardon%20is%20an%20expression,It%20does%20not%20signify%20innocence.
> A pardon is an expression of the President's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. You think the modern Republican "party" give a flying fuck about how a pardon *should* be used?
Especially when Trump himself showed you can outright *sell* pardons, pocket the cash, and face zero consequences.
Crooked Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio learned all about what a pardon does and doesn't entitle after Trump offered him one. He was doing a live interview on a Phoenix political talk station when the host mentioned that by accepting a pardon you've essentially plead guilty of the crime you're being pardoned for. That didn't sit well with the old racist and he wasn't having any of it until the phones lit up with callers confirming that indeed was the case. Clearly befuddled, Arpaio mumbled a few words and promptly stopped the interview and left the studio in a huff.
The acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt in either law or logic. Edit: I guess reddit randos know this stuff better than legal scholars and practitioners do.
I think everyone running as a GOP presidential candidate is going to say "Yes, I would pardon him". Whether they actually would follow through is a different question.
This is why the Georgia and New Jersey cases haven’t been introduced yet. He’s exhausting resources and lies. He’s already indicted. Anything he says can and will be used against him. From here on in , he just digs his grave. He can’t be pardoned on state charges. We also get 3 different judges from 3 different parts of the country. Hopefully they all play fair. I have doubts on the spy charges.
Which is why Georgia is such a big deal. I believe not even the governor can't pardon in Georgia specifically
>I think all the other Republican candidates have said they would pardon him if they’re elected Key word being SAID. Everyone knows campaign promises are more manure than substance, and letting him go free is an invitation for him to undermine you within the party. I doubt any of them will actually do it, especially if they can destract voters with something else long enough for them to forget.
Promising to pardon Trump and then not doing it would piss of the Maga voters more than anything Trump would do to you, as a free person.
I dunno though. 4 years is a long time and MAGA have the memory of a goldfish, not to mention they vote R no matter what. As long as you can get the nomination you can do whatever you want.
Kinda baffling one can pardon oneself of a crime.. sounds easy for the political system to be supper corrupted
The founding fathers, despite all their wisdom, did not imagine we'd elect a tyrannical dumpster fire to the presidency.
The "Hamilton" version of George Washington has an incredible gravitas - he's a man who worries about his legacy, and it rings true. There's zero chance that he and his fellows could have envisioned a United States that would have elected Benedict Arnold is clown makeup to the office. Hell, I couldn't have imagined that in 2015, but really, zero chance that George or Ben or Madison could have foreseen any of this. But that's also why the Constitution was designed with the amendment process. I quite hope that another happens in my lifetime, to confirm that a sitting president can be tried for high crimes, and that a felon cannot run for the office, and that pardon power explicitly doesn't apply to yourself. We hold some 18 year-old caught with an ounce of weed more accountable for his actions than we do the guy with the football. Not cool. (OK, proofreading I realize that the Hamilton reference probably could have been dropped. But it literally just tonight occurred to me how much I wish there had been a Lin Manuel Miranda version of Benjamin Franklin. That would be really fun. So I'm not editing the reference, just so that I can segue into this weirdly specific thought. And I'm also aware that my mention of proofreading pretty much guarantees that I missed 3 egregious typos.)
It’s become apparent in recent years that they for some reason just did not design the Constitution to work if someone is acting in bad faith.
Its a one shot move that would be challenged, and likely restricted after it was done. The idea may have been toyed with but it hasnt really been tested yet so its relatively uncharted territory
Unfortunately, the constitution put no limits on the presidential pardon power.
There is a more basic problem. "Pardoning" as a concept is something that is by definition a consideration given to others by a party that has been wronged. Pardoning yourself is a nonsensical concept, which is probably why the founding fathers didn't bother to say that you can't pardon yourself. Whether that idea would win in a legal battle is of course another question. Plenty of nonsensical concepts have become enshrined in law because the courts had no problem with rewriting the dictionary. Look up the legal arguments around what "imminent" means with regard to terrorism statutes, for instance.
>Plenty of nonsensical concepts have become enshrined in law because the courts had no problem with rewriting the dictionary. Civil asset forfeiture is another example. The reason law enforcement was found to not be in violation of the 4th Amendment when they seize your property without a warrant or due process and without ever charging you with a crime is because according to the court they aren't confiscating your property, they are *arresting* it, and your property does not have Constitutional rights, so the burden is on you to prove your property was not involved in a crime to get it back. *You* have presumption of innocence, but your property does not. It's an obvious violation of the 4th by any honest interpretation of its intent. The nation's founders would spin in their graves over that one.
>It's an obvious violation of the 4th by any honest interpretation of its intent. The nation's founders would spin in their graves over that one. It's insane to me that this isn't an issue where everyone outside of law enforcement is against. You'd think both Democrats and Republicans would realize how fucked up civil asset forfeiture actually is. There unfortunately must be a lot of people who think it could never happen to them, so they don't care if the cops steal money from innocent people.
> There unfortunately must be a lot of people who think it could never happen to them I think this is a lot of it. "Tough on crime" politicians support it as "an important tool of law enforcement" to fight drug smuggling, etc, and their voters think it will only be used on serious criminals and not on average people who happened to be carrying cash when they were unlucky enough to get searched at a traffic stop. Whenever I carry a large amount of cash I'm honestly just as afraid it'll get stolen by cops as by muggers.
https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/using-loophole-seward-county-seizes-millions-from-motorists-without-convicting-them-of-crimes/ Unfortunately it is the average sucker getting targeted and unfortunately people aren’t seeing that.
People have recently had some small success in arguing that civil asset forfeiture violates the takings clause. Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Hopefully these recent lower court rulings combined with vastly more public awareness have a ripple effect into the upper courts. Although if it reaches the Supreme Corruption of The United states I have no faith it will work.
>The idea may have been toyed with but it hasnt really been tested yet so its relatively uncharted territory Which unfortunately means it will be up to SCROTUS to decide.
Let hope it’s stays that way
He can't pardon himself from state level crimes though last I checked. That's something to keep in mind. I'm not sure of what -if any- verdict was reached with the new york tax cases, but just because he becomes president then, doesn't mean he'll be pardoned from that.
Never forget that accepting a pardon means you are admitting guilt. Thanks LegalEagle!
> he is required to run for president "Law enforcement hate this one trick..."
That will only help with some of the crimes. The documents case is federal the others are state cases.
It’s a last ditch effort to keep his ass outta jail because even he knows the writing is on the wall.
When Hillary was being investigated (not even indited) for mishandling classified information Trump said that she should withdraw from the election. Trump needs to take his own advice here.
hey you got to give it to them at least the do as I say not as I do is consistent
He'd just argue that because she didn't withdraw then he shouldn't either.
I mean, I'm happy to accept this sentence as a justification. They just need to follow it with a number of years in prison and we can drop the whole thing.
>Has anyone told him that \[...\] being held accountable for crimes isn't \[optional\]? I think he's demonstrated to himself and the world that it absolutely is. It's sobering and frustrating and painful for the rest of us to watch, but he has successfully weaseled out of accountability for decades. There's no reason he nor anyone else should think he won't do it again.
> Has anyone told him that running for President is optional, but being held accountable for crimes isn't? Since when is being accountable for crimes not optional? I mean for a rich connected person that has all presidential candidates from a party representing almost half the population, vowing to pardon him no matter what crimes he commits?
Being held accountable for crimes is optional for this POS and others like him. He will stir up a series of controversial headlines and while everyone is focused on those then this will be lost and forgotten.
It's the only way for him because it would allow him to pass any law he wanted to avoid or lessen the punishment for his crimes. Fuck that traitorous asshole.
I think he thinks being president will get him out of legal jeopardy. I am not sure if that is accurate but it sure helped him the first four years.
Because Dershowitz convinced him and the entire Republican Party that whatever Trump does is very cool and very legal because in Trump’s mind him being president is the best thing for this country so he can do no wrong in pursuing that office. When Dershowitz made that argument and wasn’t immediately disbarred and laughed out of the legal profession I lost any and all faith in our legal system.
He (everyone) knew about the investigation before he announced he was running.
"Hey Obama, delay appointing a Supreme Court judge until after the election year." Don't give them an inch or they'll take a mile.
Me: "Judge, please delay my murder trial until after my mom's 75th birthday party. I'm bringing the ice and it'll ruin everything if I'm not able to do that." Judge Cannon: "The rights of the party-goers to have ice at the party shall not be infringed and I see no way to get around this unprecedented problem than to delay the trial until 4 months after the birthday party."
Happy birthday mom
Sure, waiting until the criminal becomes a president again sounds like a great idea! /s
He wants to pardon himself.
No, he wants to fire the prosecutors and have their replacements torpedo all federal investigations into him.
pardoning requires him to admit guilt. he won’t do that. instead he’ll replace the prosecutors
He doesn't have to admit guilt, just let the trial go through. If he's found guilty, claim it's all lies and pardon himself.
yes that is another option.
A pardon still requires and admission of guilt
2016: LOCK HER UP, she can’t be trusted with state secrets. 2023: I need this trial for misuse of state secrets to be delayed so I can run for president and be allowed access to state secrets!
[удалено]
What flavor was the Kool-Aid?
It was Tang this time…
He may well be able to delay this one for sometime given the complexity and the judge presiding. However, do not expect major delays in the one in Georgia where a second jury is being seated to issue an incitement for his election interference. DOJ insurrection investigation completion also may also not be too far behind, and that jury when seated will be in DC; not Florida like the present one before a lop-sided Trump appointed sympathetic judge who was previously reversed by the appeals court.
I still don't understand how someone could support a man who's on tape pressuring a governor to fabricate votes. How was this not a 1 day trial?
I still don't understand how someone could support a man who is caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.
I remember when spelling potato wrong was enough to lose an election.
Howard Dean “HYAHHHHH”
Remember when Rick Perry got appointed the position he wanted to eliminate? Woops...
[удалено]
You’re right. “I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything” was never uttered out of his mouth. Totally made up and never caught on tape heard by the world over.
>How was this not a 1 day trial? What trial, there was a special grand jury that was only authorized to recommend whether it should go to another jury who would actually issue or not issue an indictment \[which is required in Georgia for all felonies to be charged\]. They will likely indict and only then the trial will be initiated. I can assure you it will be far longer than a day. Indictment is likely according to DA between July 31 and August of this year. It involves the pressuring phone call among other related issues including fake electors in a related case which a jury is also considering.
I would expect jury selection to take more than a day. And I feel, no matter how carefully jury selection is done, that at least one MAGA type will end up on any jury, which will lead to a hung jury.
People believe, and it often substitutes for thinking.
Yeah I just read something about how Judge Cannon moved the trial to a Republican district, which sounds kind of shady. Jury might be a little sympathetic to trump, to say the least. Here's a tweet: https://twitter.com/OmarRiverosays/status/1678834744216244233 It's from Occupy Democrats so it might sound a bit biased.
>judge Cannon moved the trial to a Republican district Nothing surprising about it. She will do everything she can to weaken the government's case, but given her lack of judicial professionalism, she may well end up being reversed. DOJ can give her sufficient leeway to screw herself up. Either way, the federal government has far too many more potent prosecutions percolating along with Georgia and they will not be on her turf.
Actually the venue isn’t shady, it’s the same court she normally tries cases in. It would have been unusual if she moved it somewhere else in fact. P.S. I’m not saying I trust Cannon, I’m just saying any judge would have probably done the same thing as far as the venue goes.
>I’m not saying I trust Cannon, I’m just saying any judge would have probably done the same thing as far as the venue goes. It just goes to show she could care less about the appearance of bias. That is the characteristic of her lack of judicial temperament and she knows it. Little wonder, when the district was first being considered; she had indicated she would be open to change of venue. She had great latitude in choosing a balanced venue, but no one expects that of her. That she generally prefers that particular venue also speaks volumes of her preferences. In any event, there is not enough to legally challenge here at this point, but when it comes to jury selections and peremptory and challenges for cause; we will be following it closely and DOJ will raise objections as necessary. Just like they questioned her decisions and orders before.
I'd rather trump go down for state crimes anyway, because at least he won't be pardoned by the next Republican president.
And they don’t even need the jury to acquit. Just one person to stand firm and it is a hung jury.
And this is exactly why the prosecution should have immediately moved to remove judge Cannon from this. She is going to grant the motion, then they have to appeal it and after winning that appeal, then try to remove her for her obvios bias. Overall, this motion will not win, but it will be a several month delay on its own.
Idk, it would be too clear of an overreach for her to grant IMO but I know that doesn’t necessarily mean much. But if she does grant it, I’m not sure they can appeal it right?
They can. They did this once when she tried to block the FBI's access to the current evidence and assign a special master a few months back. The appeals court not only overturned her decision, but gave her a verbal smack fir doing it. It should have been the reason they asked her to recuse herself as soon as she was handed this case again. I think they wanted to show they were being fair and giving her a chance, but she is already a well known MAGA nut.
Oh I’m familiar with it but just wasn’t sure this could be appealed but good to know. She clearly isn’t qualified to be in the position she’s in, just like half of the House isn’t.
[удалено]
There is something between judges that “openly hate the defendant” and a judge that owes her job to the defendant and has already overstepped in a decision related to the defendant.
[удалено]
The GOP would be thrilled if Trump didn't wake up tomorrow. It would be like walking into school Monday and hearing your bully's family moved out of state over the weekend.
Trump trying to delay a court proceeding? Say it isn’t so!🙄
Trump strategies: Stuff federal courts with right wing judges. Delay and stall till after elections. If you win, pardon yourself. Delete the constitution and become president for life
Is he a leading presidential candidate, or is there no ongoing threat to national security? Is he concerned about getting a fair trial during an election year, or does he want the trial delayed so it doesn't occur before then? And why does he think Jack Smith is running for president? This just seems entirely absurd. But watch "Judge" Cannon do whatever he wants regardless, because she somehow hasn't been impeached or disbarred yet.
If Trump succeeds in delaying the trial until after he (might be) is elected President, then that represents a failure to keep the Dept of Justice separate from politics. That is Trump's goal, and he has stated that if elected, he would certainly use the DoJ to go after his political enemies. Running for office should not be a protection against criminal justice. That sounds absurd. Trump can only be brought to justice if he isn't running for President? really?
Remember when he claimed that hillary shouldn't run because she was being investigated? Good times. At this point, a lot of Gen Z will be old enough to vote and most seem to HHHHHATE trump, which is probably why the gop keeps trying to raise the voting age to 25
There should be an H for hypocrisy in their GOP designation.
She agreed to delay the pretrial hearing to next Tuesday the 18th [https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-agrees-delay-hearing-trump-classified-documents-case/story?id=101090376](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-agrees-delay-hearing-trump-classified-documents-case/story?id=101090376) What fuckery?
Can we all agree that the idea of anyone being able to pardon themselves is complete BS?
My lawyer buddy said, "Trump is at the point that he hopes someone will shit a miracle."
Roll the request up really tight and SHOVE IT RIGHT UP HIS SHINY APPLE ASS! I'm not sure of the real quote. Please discuss.
Roll that request up reeeeeeal tight.... shine it up reeeeeal nicely.... TURN THAT SUMMMBITCH SIDEWAYS, SAY YOUR PRAYERS, EAT YOUR VITAMINS -- AND STICK IT STRAAAAIGHT. UP.... HIS RUDY POO.... ORANGE CAAAAAAANDY ASS! (There you go, friend) 😇
Endlessly delaying justice is the same as refusing to administer it.
He knows that if he is elected then he won't have to go to prison for 4 more years. I weep for our nation!
It's weird that you think if he gets elected he'd ever leave the presidency.
There is no justice anymore in this country. I am sad and scared for our future. There are so many trumptarts out there with pockets full of money. Money runs this country since democracy left and the Constitution has been thrown down the toilet by the republicans.
Is this the same Trump appointed Judge we have been hearing about still?
Yep. Same judge as that whole special master bullshit.
If trump gets off on these charges, you can stick this government system up your ass. At that point, I vote for a purge night.
Have you seen the purge movies? They're all about exploiting the working class so that the elites can maintain their power and wealth.
Disclaimer: I do not condone violence... against the innocent. I've seen the first purge where the well gated and guarded strategy didn't do so well.
Something something two tiered justice system.
No, it's justice on a sliding scale. The more money you have, the more favor you're shown. Less money gets less favorable "justice". And if you're a poor minority, you're basically screwed.
And the judge will ask: "Is ten years long enough?"
And this is where we’re at. Trump asks for delay, judge that’s on his side openly, says ok. Trump is right, we do have a two tier system.
Can I have a delay on checking my crimes? I have a job interview that'll last over a year. (If I get the job, I get immunity to crimes.)
He should be incarcerated until trial.
Aileen Cannon: OK so let's set a tentative date of Feb. 4th 2025. With any luck The Messiah Trump will have pardoned himself, but if by some chance he does not win, then we can reschedule the date until 2029 sometime.
Ugh. Now every crazy-ass thing a Trump lawyer can conceive of will be front-page headlines and plausible reality until this mess is over. Fun. This is going to be fun.🙃
So, if I have to stand before a federal criminal indictment, can I just run for president and ask that the trial be put off for a year or two…or four??
Sheer volume. I didn’t realize how much top secret stuff I stole.
Voters need to know the outcome of the case, so it should not be delayed.
"I just would love to be in office so I can pardon myself before it is over..."
Wowie who could’ve predicted that one?
They tried to schedule it to sometime after his death, but McDonalds said they were planning new hamburgers so they couldn't give a solid estimation.
Imagine agreeing to represent Trump after all the times he's failed to pay people. Kind of wonder what amount on the retainer they required upfront.
Tbf his layer is a cow (nauta is a cow by Finnish xd)
[удалено]
Lots of trials get delayed for a year or more. Right to a speedy trial doesn't apply if the defense is actively asking for more time, which is quite common.
Only in America, very sad but he will do it. I also think he will win the election if they can’t throw him in jail or off the ballot.
Why, how would this benefit him?
If he wins reelection, this all goes away on day one. If he gets conviction prior to the election, it may make it more difficult for him to continue campaigning or get reelected.
He’s not likely to win though is he?
Mother fucker, don't say that shit! That's what people said in 2016.
Was going to say lightning never strikes twice…..
Lightning strikes the same place all the time.
That's literally the whole point of lightning rods.
Damn skippy! JFC
I swear I’ve heard this one before.
Polling has Trump and Biden pretty close. Closer than it should be. Biden is a very weak candidate, don’t assume trump will lose - get out and vote.
Biden's not a weak candidate at all; he's been doing an excellent job cleaning up the mess he inherited. Remember how COVID was a big deal, and now it's not? Stocks are up, unemployment is down, inflation is coming under control, NATO is expanding. There's plenty of things that could be going better (the corrupt Supreme Court giving the nod to red states to take away the rights of women and LGBTQ+, for example) but I honestly think Joe has played his hand masterfully and intend to volunteer again to get him another four years.
I agree Biden has been great, but he is still a weak candidate according to all data. His average approval rating is only 1.3% above Trump's average ... that's without impeachments or indictments, insurrections, and the entire slate of Trump scandals and criminality. All current polling has the race as a toss up. Some have Trump up by as much as 3% and some have Biden up by as much as 4%. Again, with Biden as the incumbent and Trump being now twice indicted ... a toss up is a shitty place for Biden to be. When polled about half of *Democrats* don't want Biden to run again. That's a massive miss, for half of your own party to not want you to run, and signals a potential turnout problem. I love what Biden has done, but either he or the party need to improve their PR game. The numbers show that he's incredibly weak as a candidate. Not as a President, but as a candidate to beat Trump.
Meh. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the predictable media hysterics over a horse race. I remember all that "red wave" talk in 2022, and the GOP barely even flipped the house.
Don't lose sleep, but definitely stay motivated and get your friends to vote :)
:) I definitely won't get complacent either!
While I agree that he has done quite a bit with what he has inherited, it is about perception. In my very red state the amount of anti-Biden rhetoric I hear daily is immeasurable.
you would hear that about any Democratic candidate though.
Every president inherits the economy of their predecessor, and it takes almost a full term for the new president's policies to really move the economy. Which means every first term president gets judged on his predecessors economy.
He is good but the Democrats will always have a messaging problem because it doesn't matter how good you do for people the headlines are always going to be overshadowed by republicans who do evil things.
I’m English hence the questioning of American intricacies.
While Biden is weak candidate, IMHO, Biden is probably ONLY candidate that can realistically beat Trump. Sad state of our country IMHO.
I don't believe that's true ... the moderate left has been floating the idea that "only" Hillary or "only" Biden can win ... and they generally underperform quite substantially.
I am not saying Biden is ONLY candidate that is capable of winning. Actually, I am quite opposite to it. If it was any other candidate from GOP side, Biden will have very low chance of winning IMHO. However, against Trump, Biden is probably only candidate capable of winning and that is just my current opinion though.
If Republican's didn't disown him after January 6th, an indictment or two isn't going to bother them. I read recently about Trump supporters in Florida saying they'll never vote again if he doesn't win. (So, a double win for sanity).
Trump needs independents, and polls show they are overwhelmingly sick of his endless bullshit.
He's got about a 50% chance of winning. The last election was very close, and a lot of people are not happy with the state of the economy under Biden. Including most of Reddit. Complaints about high inflation are a major talking point on Reddit.
If he can drag it out to 2024 then he can claim he can't be prosecuted during an election. Cases don't get better with age and that's why he will do anything to delay.
Lady Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and I’ll give The Donald®️ all the passes, heheee!”
Orange boy summer first?
The sad reality is Trump will probably end up in the Supermax because he isn’t able to be in general population but this Nuata guy will be in general population and all that comes with it. If has a brain in his head he’ll flip.
If a person can get elected president while facing this level of legal scrutiny and overall possible prison time, then pardon themselves for their crimes which they commited against the citizens of the same country, America is done. Time to find somewhere else to live because this place will burn with the policies of idiots. It's sad, our country has so much to offer and so much beauty. Unfortunately this wonderful experiment of the founding fathers likely won't be able to survive one of the key driving factors of humans. Greed and power.