2020 Election Results Part 8: Lawsuits, Qualified Biden Nominees, and a Pouty Toddler

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[Becky]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

He displays an insect.

Congratulations, you have won the internet!  I literally LOLed.

[SeekingAdventure]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Whoah.

 

Could anyone explain that in plain words, I am not sure if I understand correctly..

 

Also, question: since Trump is considering pardoning his kids and live-size-Ken-doll + leaky lawyer.. that would pardon them from everything they screwed up so far, right? so it won't protect them for any shit that they do after the pardon?

I generally do not understand pardons, I feel like that's way too much power to hold, and it is ridiculous that that sad excuse of a clown can just decide to throw out pardons left and right. Especially 'just in case' pardons. The fact that he is considering that is proof enough that there have been way too many corrupt cases going on.

On the same note, don't pardons only work on federal level? so if some crime is not on a federal level, it cannot be pardonned?

 

Sorry about the many questions, but I am slightly overwhelmed by the sometimes whacky regulations and exceptions that seem to exist..

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Could anyone explain that in plain words, I am not sure if I understand correctly..

 

The judge is saying that because of the exact wording of the pardon, it seems to pardon Flynn not only for things he has done already, but also for things he may do in the future. And that isn't something the law allows. So in essence, it is this judge's opinion that because the pardon is too ambiguous in how it's worded, it is not legal. Therefore, the pardon isn't valid.

1 hour ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Also, question: since Trump is considering pardoning his kids and live-size-Ken-doll + leaky lawyer.. that would pardon them from everything they screwed up so far, right? so it won't protect them for any shit that they do after the pardon?

I'm sure that Trump is planning to do exactly that (hence the wording of Flynn's pardon). But it's not legal.

So I say, by all means, let Trump issue those pardons. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if he pardoned himself. Because as soon as Biden is sworn in, those pardons can be invalidated as they're too ambiguous and therefore illegal. Boom. 

1 hour ago, SeekingAdventure said:

I generally do not understand pardons, I feel like that's way too much power to hold, and it is ridiculous that that sad excuse of a clown can just decide to throw out pardons left and right. Especially 'just in case' pardons. The fact that he is considering that is proof enough that there have been way too many corrupt cases going on.

I agree that it's too much power to hold. At least in the way pardons can be issued right now. I'm not against pardons per se (there can be quite good reasons to grant them) but I do think they should be strictly regulated. It's not a good idea to give one single person the complete discretion to issue pardons at whim, as can be done now.

1 hour ago, SeekingAdventure said:

On the same note, don't pardons only work on federal level? so if some crime is not on a federal level, it cannot be pardonned?

Yes. Presidential pardons can only be granted for federal crimes. State crimes can only be pardoned by their governors.

1 hour ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Sorry about the many questions, but I am slightly overwhelmed by the sometimes whacky regulations and exceptions that seem to exist..

You don't need to apologise for asking questions! How else would anyone learn?  You can be sure when I first came to theses politics threads that I certainly did not know all that I do now. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by fraurosena
found a missing s and replaced it

[47of74]

I hope these lawyers do get sanctioned. 

Quote

As President Donald Trump and his allies continue their legal barrage in an effort to overturn the presidential election despite a succession of adverse rulings, some state and local election officials are starting to cry foul.

In Michigan Thursday, Republican lawyers were back in court seeking an audit of election results in the heavily-Democratic county that is home to Detroit -- even after the state's Supreme Court had already rejected an earlier request from the same group to halt certification. An exasperated lawyer for the city pleaded with the judge to do something.

"They are trying to use this court in a very, very improper way," said Detroit city attorney David Fink. "We ask this court not just to deny the relief that is requested but to grant significant sanctions, because this has to stop."

Whether and when the blizzard of lawsuits may cross a line and be deemed abusive by a court is nearly impossible to predict, a number of legal experts told ABC News, but some say it now seems possible. New York University Law Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on ethics rules, said there is a point at which a plaintiff could face reprimand, especially if cases are repeatedly being dismissed as unsupported by facts -- as has occurred repeatedly in Trump's case.

 

19 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I agree that it's too much power to hold. At least in the way pardons can be issued right now. I'm not against pardons per se (there can be quite good reasons to grant them) but I do think they should be strictly regulated. It's not a good idea to give one single person the complete discretion to issue pardons at whim, as can be done now.

I think pardons should be handled like laws -passed by Congress then signed or vetoed by the President.  Only thing a President unilaterally should be able to do is commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.  I understand the reasons behind the pardon power but it’s too open to abuse. 

[SeekingAdventure]

ok, massive thanks to @fraurosena

I started to read a bit into that linked article, and I thought I understood, but I wasn't sure, and if FJ is not highly educacional, I don't know what. I'm also studying for an exam I should take in about a week, so I did not want to immerse myself into too much of the legal insanity that is found in the US,  since FJ should be my little reward for studying, but instead was a highly effective way of procastinating wayy too much studying time. Almost finished my workload now though, so, I earned a reward.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about Flynns pardon. I mean, I also think that telling someone to sidestep the constitution for a little while for somebodys personal advantage is basically telling somebody how to commit a crime. He did that after the pardon. I mean, maybe it is not a written in stone crime, but it sure ain't normal behaviour. Not a lot this government does is normal though, so what do I know.

I think that Pardons have to be signed at least by two, better three different organs of the law / people, and one has to be of the opposition, otherwise it is just helping your own party, and that is waay to unethical. I do agree on your point @47of74 that a death sentence to life imprisonment is about the limit that should be drawn. In that way, the person is still punished.

I mean, in most cases (not all, but most) there is a very good reason why somebody has been accused and then sentenced for a crime. As we can clearly see, things do not happen without any evidence, mostly

[Cartmann99]

The unrolled version of this thread is here.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Cartmann99
I no write good.

[K'Z'K]

Pardons are forgiveness for crimes committed. A pardon necessarily implies guilt in the crimes for which the pardon is issued. I think that pardons should require a full enumeration and confession of those crimes--no vague or blanket pardons. Any crimes not included in the confession should remain available for prosecution. 

 

[Spoiler box: long discussion of an old TV series that uses this idea. I may watch this series again, now that Supernatural is done and I've re-watched all of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.]

Spoiler

2002 was a good year for cop shows. The best ever, The Wire, started then. So did The Shield, which, while not as good as The Wire, was nevertheless excellent. I don't remember all the details since it's been years since I watched it, but IMDb and Wikipedia helped fill in the gaps.

 

The Shield was about a stupendously corrupt and criminal elite anti-gang police unit, the Strike Team. In the very first episode, the Team's commander, Vic Mackey (played by Michael Chiklis) shoots another cop in the face because he wasn't part of their criming. It goes downhill from there.

By the end of the series, many, but nowhere near all, of their crimes are known or suspected. They're in deep shit. Vic strikes a deal with the Feds that includes full immunity (like a pre-prosecution pardon) for everything he did, provided that he confesses, on tape, in a single session. Anything not included in that confession, if found out, could still be prosecuted.

For those of you into game theory (PM me!): this is a straight-up Prisoner's Dilemma. Vic has been cooperating with his fellow Strike Team members for years, but here defects, big time, because the Feds adjusted his payoff function so as to make defecting the only rational strategy. That, and the game is over-- even with less-lopsided payoffs, cooperating is a better strategy when it's an endless iteration, but as soon as an is endpoint in sight, a rational player will defect. Vic is a bad guy, but a rational one.

He confesses. To everything. It takes a while. He gets away with it all, but those he rats out will not be so lucky. The Feds still get him in a way--he's assigned to a mind-numbing desk job, while his family is in witness protection and he is permanently cut off from them.

 

If pardons worked like this, then Biden could pardon, say T**** (I know that's hard to read; it was hard to type), but it would require that T**** confess to everything, thus implicating dozens or hundreds of others in his crimes. Then T**** would be free legally but still punished because his legacy, such as it is, would be ruined. And he could still be prosecuted for the state crimes. There's plenty of those.

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The number of MAGAts donating to him is insane.

[Ozlsn]

8 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I think pardons should be handled like laws -passed by Congress then signed or vetoed by the President.  Only thing a President unilaterally should be able to do is commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.  I understand the reasons behind the pardon power but it’s too open to abuse. 

If they leave it to Congress no one will ever get pardoned - it'll take too long. More seriously I do agree that it should be a reviewed process, ideally bipartisan and with all three branches of government involved as @SeekingAdventure suggested. Personally I think it should focus on cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice and other legal options are unavailable, and the cases should be anonymised as much as possible to avoid politicization. 

2 hours ago, K'Z'K said:

Pardons are forgiveness for crimes committed. A pardon necessarily implies guilt in the crimes for which the pardon is issued. I think that pardons should require a full enumeration and confession of those crimes--no vague or blanket pardons. Any crimes not included in the confession should remain available for prosecution. 

 

[Spoiler box: long discussion of an old TV series that uses this idea. I may watch this series again, now that Supernatural is done and I've re-watched all of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.]

  Hide contents

2002 was a good year for cop shows. The best ever, The Wire, started then. So did The Shield, which, while not as good as The Wire, was nevertheless excellent. I don't remember all the details since it's been years since I watched it, but IMDb and Wikipedia helped fill in the gaps.

 

The Shield was about a stupendously corrupt and criminal elite anti-gang police unit, the Strike Team. In the very first episode, the Team's commander, Vic Mackey (played by Michael Chiklis) shoots another cop in the face because he wasn't part of their criming. It goes downhill from there.

By the end of the series, many, but nowhere near all, of their crimes are known or suspected. They're in deep shit. Vic strikes a deal with the Feds that includes full immunity (like a pre-prosecution pardon) for everything he did, provided that he confesses, on tape, in a single session. Anything not included in that confession, if found out, could still be prosecuted.

For those of you into game theory (PM me!): this is a straight-up Prisoner's Dilemma. Vic has been cooperating with his fellow Strike Team members for years, but here defects, big time, because the Feds adjusted his payoff function so as to make defecting the only rational strategy. That, and the game is over-- even with less-lopsided payoffs, cooperating is a better strategy when it's an endless iteration, but as soon as an is endpoint in sight, a rational player will defect. Vic is a bad guy, but a rational one.

He confesses. To everything. It takes a while. He gets away with it all, but those he rats out will not be so lucky. The Feds still get him in a way--he's assigned to a mind-numbing desk job, while his family is in witness protection and he is permanently cut off from them.

 

If pardons worked like this, then Biden could pardon, say T**** (I know that's hard to read; it was hard to type), but it would require that T**** confess to everything, thus implicating dozens or hundreds of others in his crimes. Then T**** would be free legally but still punished because his legacy, such as it is, would be ruined. And he could still be prosecuted for the state crimes. There's plenty of those.

 

The problem with the state crimes still being available for prosecution is that it changes the equation - is a full confession necessarily going to change enough to make it worthwhile? I agree though that in cases where the person is guilty that the pardon justice should only be for the specific crime committed, not blanket, and there should be an admission of guilt required. 

In cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice and a pardon has become the last remaining option due to how the legal system works then obviously an admission is not required - but I do think a full statement outlining how the miscarriage of justice occurred and why the pardon was granted should be included.

[apple1]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The number of MAGAts donating to him is insane.

As the old saying is, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

[GreyhoundFan]

The people who don't believe in science suddenly cheer time travel:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Seriously, you couldn't make this up:

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[fraurosena]

5 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

Isn't it wonderfully ironic how a rally that is meant to whip up votes for Loeffler and Perdue is completely being taken over by Trump's narcissistic needs for adoration. Trump can't help but make the rally about himself and his own personal grievances. He is oblivious to the fact that by not sticking up for his senatorial candidates and allowing his audience to essentially boo them off stage, they really won't go out and vote for them.

The chances of the Dems winning the runoff in January just got so much larger because of him.

Edited December 6, 2020 by fraurosena

[Cartmann99]

 

[Howl]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

The chances of the Dems winning the runoff in January just got so much larger because of him.

Dear Republicans: you  can't control the monster you created.  This the pathological phase of Trump's narcissism; he's utterly consumed by the prospect of his loss, both by being exposed as a loser and his legal exposure as an ex-president.  The wheels are coming off the train. 

Keep in mind, though, that the Trump machine has set up a grift (2024!) that is bringing in tens of millions of dollars. Because of the way this campaign grift is structured, a large percentage goes directly into Trump's pocket. 

I can now entertain that Trump will declare or attempt to declare martial law, or something equally insane to attempt to nullify the election. Nothing is off the table at this stage of desperation, and remember that it's not just Trump.  There are legions of enablers, aspiring autocrats, remoras, assorted other hangers on, who lose status, influence and $$$$$ the day  Joe Biden takes office. 

[apple1]

4 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

In his mind - Who is going to prison? Kemp? Biden? Who?

ETA: He screams all the time, just like Trump.

Edited December 6, 2020 by apple1

[Howl]

1 hour ago, apple1 said:

In his mind - Who is going to prison?

Everyone who isn't a MAGAt because they are the traitors and they STOLE THE ELECTION.  You know, THEM. Hillary is first, along with the thousands of Deep State people who will be send DIRECTLY to Gitmo without due process.  That's QAnon, too, but hey, Lock 'em up. 

I just started reading Sarah Kendzior's Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America   She is a student of authoritarianism (her doctoral dissertation was about Uzbekistan) and called the election for Donald Trump while pollsters were still waxing poetic about how far Hillary is ahead in the polls.

Kendzior understands the confluence of social media, economics, the true middle of America, authoritarianism, oligarchs, mobligarchs, and transnational crime.  Her original work was done through an anthropology dept, which perhaps gives her broader view of human behavior than political scientists. 

I'm barely into the first chapter, I've already lived through almost four full years of Trump, and holy crap.  This was published last January, before the pandemic, but it's still totally timely, because we're seeing an authoritarian explode in real time and which tricks they are trying to pull out of their collective asses. 

We're laughing at the Mike Lindell footage because of how unhinged it is, but as noted upthread, Trump phoned GA Gov. Kemp and tried to force him to call a special session of the legislature.  Our president did that.  He will do anything, literally anything, to stay in power, and I see progressively more desperate actions as the days unfold. 

Also, she discusses how living under authoritarianism leads to a sense of distortion of time.  Sound familiar?

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[church_of_dog]

31 minutes ago, Howl said:

I just started reading Sarah Kendzior's Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America  

Thank you -- I've just borrowed it on Overdrive!

 

3 hours ago, Howl said:

Dear Republicans: you  can't control the monster you created.  This the pathological phase of Trump's narcissism; he's utterly consumed by the prospect of his loss, both by being exposed as a loser and his legal exposure as an ex-president.  The wheels are coming off the train. 

Keep in mind, though, that the Trump machine has set up a grift (2024!) that is bringing in tens of millions of dollars. Because of the way this campaign grift is structured, a large percentage goes directly into Trump's pocket. 

I can now entertain that Trump will declare or attempt to declare martial law, or something equally insane to attempt to nullify the election. Nothing is off the table at this stage of desperation, and remember that it's not just Trump.  There are legions of enablers, aspiring autocrats, remoras, assorted other hangers on, who lose status, influence and $$$$$ the day  Joe Biden takes office. 

My ex who has fallen down the conspiracy theory hole tells me that Trump's 46-minute speech laid out a plan to invoke martial law and the Insurrection Act in response to a supposed shootout in Germany between the CIA and the Dept of Defense, somehow related to the confiscation of Dominion (or Scytl?) servers that contain the evidence of foreign interference into the election.

And that somehow it ends with all the main Democrats in jail for their crimes.

I sent him back an article from Military Times saying the firefight never happened but of course he has seen "other sources saying otherwise" to which he apparently gives equal credence...

I suppose the stories might all be an attempt to justify martial law, which T might actually invoke?  Would it actually be implemented if he did try to impose it (barring a new event/natural disaster etc)?  Would anyone follow his orders?

Would be ironic if he decided to use the covid crisis as the ostensible reason for martial law, lol...

[Ozlsn]

18 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Seriously, you couldn't make this up:

 

He couldn't be a gracious winner, he's not a gracious loser, and surely it is beyond time that they sectioned him as delusional?

[Ozlsn]

3 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

Thank you -- I've just borrowed it on Overdrive!

 

My ex who has fallen down the conspiracy theory hole tells me that Trump's 46-minute speech laid out a plan to invoke martial law and the Insurrection Act in response to a supposed shootout in Germany between the CIA and the Dept of Defense, somehow related to the confiscation of Dominion (or Scytl?) servers that contain the evidence of foreign interference into the election.

And that somehow it ends with all the main Democrats in jail for their crimes.

I sent him back an article from Military Times saying the firefight never happened but of course he has seen "other sources saying otherwise" to which he apparently gives equal credence...

I suppose the stories might all be an attempt to justify martial law, which T might actually invoke?  Would it actually be implemented if he did try to impose it (barring a new event/natural disaster etc)?  Would anyone follow his orders?

Would be ironic if he decided to use the covid crisis as the ostensible reason for martial law, lol...

This is getting into seriously bad spy fiction territory. I mean the dodgy paperback from the 1960s in the camping ground library which had Hitler being assassinated by the Wehrmacht in a plane bomb, Hitler being seamlessly replaced by a double (who died in the bunker) and the Gestapo and Red Army ruthlessly anhiliating anyone who knew about it was more plausible. (Depressing book btw, everyone dies).

Seriously where did this firefight supposedly take place? On a base? In the woods? Under the Brandenburg Gate? How many shots  were fired? Was anyone injured? How many people were present? I need some detail to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative here!

[church_of_dog]

@Ozlsn I agree!

 

this is what I sent him: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/12/01/this-retired-three-star-falsely-claims-us-soldiers-died-attacking-a-cia-facility-in-germany-tied-to-election-fraud/

 

I think it all started with Rep. Gohmert, but some of the details have morphed over time...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-election-syctl-military/fact-check-the-u-s-military-has-not-seized-election-servers-in-germany-idUSKBN27W1UW

 

Anyway I should add, for context, that while I don't believe any bit of this story, I do think it's possible that Trump might use some aspect of these claims as part of a basis for declaring martial law.  I don't expect it to happen but I wouldn't put anything past him.  

January 20 can't come fast enough.

Edited December 6, 2020 by church_of_dog