2020 Political Chatter

[vertical_doug]

someone here help me understand in plain english, i dont get it:

what is up with all the presidential pardons? what does trump get out of these?

the latest with the blackwater contractors?

i can imagine how gutted i would feel if i worked very hard for the prosecution and with one signature it's all undone. i admittedly dont know much about these cases but knowing trump only does things in his personal best interest, i'm curios what the tie in is?

It's simple, spite and cruelty are the point. He has no respect for hard work and professionalism. If he can, he'll scribble on the face of the President Obama portrait. It's the mindset of a vandal.

[ides1056]

^^^

spot on

[Chik]

How does one spell corruption?

[Too Tall]

someone here help me understand in plain english, i dont get it:

what is up with all the presidential pardons? what does trump get out of these?

the latest with the blackwater contractors?

i can imagine how gutted i would feel if i worked very hard for the prosecution and with one signature it's all undone. i admittedly dont know much about these cases but knowing trump only does things in his personal best interest, i'm curios what the tie in is?

[gregl]

How does one spell corruption?

Trump

[sine]

Clinton pardoning Marc Rich comes to mind. Bad then, worse now.

[davids]

Clinton pardoning Marc Rich comes to mind. Bad then, worse now.

Yeah. Clinton pardoned one connected scumbag. Trump's up to 60 and it's only Christmas Eve. Note that I am not saying Trump's immoral pardon-fest justifies or excuses Clinton's action.

[echappist]

Two questions for those in the know:1) how many are subjects of state investigations, and 2) isn’t there something about them having to appear and tell the truth of their crime if subpoenaed (as in can no longer take the Fifth)?

I was under the impression that a few could have been charged at the state level as well. Hopefully, someone saw this coming and saved some state level charges.

[ElvisMerckx]

Clinton pardoned one connected scumbag.

You're many hundred pardons short, actually. Definitely not defending Trump, but presidential pardon abuse is not a one party story.

[suspectdevice]

i’ve been mostly in a GA media market for the last 5 months. very worried about democracy.

[Mark Kelly]

isn’t there something about them having to appear and tell the truth of their crime if subpoenaed (as in can no longer take the Fifth)?

I know nothing about this but am fascinated. I thought that since the Fifth is part of the Bill of Rights, it would outweigh any procedural rule.

[HorsCat]

I know nothing about this but am fascinated. I thought that since the Fifth is part of the Bill of Rights, it would outweigh any procedural rule.

Here’s an explanation: https://www.justsecurity.org/43568/p...d-prosecution/.

Relevant excerpts:

It must be something else. Most likely the President has been informed of one important fact about his pardon power, anyone he pardons is no longer under criminal jeopardy for federal crimes and, accordingly, Fifth Amendment protection for self-incrimination evaporates. Manafort, Page, Kushner, and Flynn at this point – pre-pardon – need not answer any questions from Robert Mueller, Congress or anybody. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Once pardoned, however, there is no legal jeopardy for past federal crimes. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment can no longer be a shield and permit Trump’s pardoned associates from refusing to answer questions under penalty of perjury. This creates a paradox for President Trump. When he pardons an individual, they are free from possible prosecution but they are also uncloaked of their most robust constitutional protection.

And:

One caveat worth noting is that because the President’s pardon power is limited to federal crimes, the Fifth Amendment may offer protection if the pardoned individual is still under jeopardy for state crimes. However, I do not see this as a substantial issue at this point because in the main, the possible criminal liability of which we are presently aware in the Russia probe seem distinctly federal in nature, e.g., the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, failure to complete federal disclosure forms truthfully, false statements to the FBI, or obstruction of justice in a federal case, for example.

[vertical_doug]

Here’s an explanation: https://www.justsecurity.org/43568/p...d-prosecution/.

Relevant excerpts:

It must be something else. Most likely the President has been informed of one important fact about his pardon power, anyone he pardons is no longer under criminal jeopardy for federal crimes and, accordingly, Fifth Amendment protection for self-incrimination evaporates. Manafort, Page, Kushner, and Flynn at this point – pre-pardon – need not answer any questions from Robert Mueller, Congress or anybody. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Once pardoned, however, there is no legal jeopardy for past federal crimes. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment can no longer be a shield and permit Trump’s pardoned associates from refusing to answer questions under penalty of perjury. This creates a paradox for President Trump. When he pardons an individual, they are free from possible prosecution but they are also uncloaked of their most robust constitutional protection.

And:

One caveat worth noting is that because the President’s pardon power is limited to federal crimes, the Fifth Amendment may offer protection if the pardoned individual is still under jeopardy for state crimes. However, I do not see this as a substantial issue at this point because in the main, the possible criminal liability of which we are presently aware in the Russia probe seem distinctly federal in nature, e.g., the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, failure to complete federal disclosure forms truthfully, false statements to the FBI, or obstruction of justice in a federal case, for example.

This is where theory meets practice. These are people who have lied their whole lives. They will not tell the truth even if given the chance. It is not in their nature. I simply 'do not recall' etc etc.

Russia is an issue, but it is nebulous and you have too many useful idiots in the congress for Trump.

The real issue for Trump is and always has been follow the money. The money will tell the tale.
He has been able to use the Office of the President to shield himself and slow walk the investigation. Once out of office, that disappears. And really, you don't need people to testify or cooperate, you just need to follow the money through the labyrinth of shell companies.

It is not hard to follow but it is time consuming and expensive. ( Every jurisdiction needs another legal action so every hop is another opportunity to delay.)

[AngryScientist]

The latest Rep stunt is truly mind boggling. Apparently filing a suit against Pence to grant him legal authorization to pick Republican electors on Jan 6.

I'm not sure how anyone, let alone a federal judge would see this as anything but crazy. why even go through any of the democratic process if the sitting VP essentially gets to pick whoever he wants to win?

How long until the republican parts simply collapses in on itself and implodes? they have to be sick of all the in-fighting amongst themselves, it's got to be exhausting and demoralizing. Are any of these clowns actually doing their day job of governing?

[Tom]

So I read the 12th Amendment. I have absolutely no legal background and my logic is often terribly faulty but I'm not seeing even the faintest connection with what they are bringing up. I am very confused. I am assuming that somebody read the complaint and saw a thread and thought it was valid to be filed but for the life of me I have no idea what it is.

The thing that concerns me with these people, though, is that even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.

[mzilliox]

The latest Rep stunt is truly mind boggling. Apparently filing a suit against Pence to grant him legal authorization to pick Republican electors on Jan 6.

I'm not sure how anyone, let alone a federal judge would see this as anything but crazy. why even go through any of the democratic process if the sitting VP essentially gets to pick whoever he wants to win?

How long until the republican parts simply collapses in on itself and implodes? they have to be sick of all the in-fighting amongst themselves, it's got to be exhausting and demoralizing. Are any of these clowns actually doing their day job of governing?

no, they are not governing, they are posting videos on twitter and facebook calling each other names like school children, but then thats what they are isnt it? children who never grew up and still need to be told how useful they are by others because their ability to find worth in themselves is nil. who else would go through the nonsense currently required top be a USA reality TV politician

[rowdyhillrambler]

So.... explain to me what all the ‘hopists’ on the right are clinging to now? The January 6 congressional affirmation of the election-

I mean they still think that Trump has a chance-tell me I’m wrong... how does this play out and does Trump have any cards to play?

[classtimesailer]

I don't think the financial military industrial complex is significantly better off with Trump over Biden. Democracy is not at stake here. The electoral process is designed to avoid any extreme swings which is why the last four years have gone so smoothly for those that are members of the clubs. It is 2021 now. Every 4 years we move on.

[echappist]

This is quite obscene and tone-deaf. I hear that someone at HHS thought better of it, but who the hell thought this was a good idea? Worst of all, apparently this got send out very late, as in the last few days late...

When the coronavirus pandemic hit, distilleries were among the businesses pivoting like ballerinas: Many of them switched from making booze to cranking out hand sanitizer. The bottles of virus-killing gel were at a premium, as shoppers cleared grocery aisles of them along with other necessities such as toilet paper and flour.

Now, hundreds of distilleries around the country are surprised to find out that their forays into the sanitizer business could cost them, as the Food and Drug Administration warned some that they owe more than $14,000 in fees levied on the makers of over-the-counter drugs. A notice that the agency posted this week — and emails to at least some distilleries — have the industry in a late-year state of confusion, although the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated on Thursday that a reprieve was in order.

Earlier, the FDA had indicated that its hands might be tied when it comes to the waivers the distilleries are hoping for.

“The FDA appreciates industry’s willingness to help supply alcohol-based hand sanitizer to the market to meet the increasing demand for these products during COVID-19, and we are grateful for their efforts,” a spokesman said in an emailed statement to The Washington Post. “We understand the concern that manufacturers have about the fees they are being asked to pay, especially from small businesses during this difficult time.”

...

But the shift away from booze inadvertently put them in a different regulatory category. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or Cares Act, that Congress passed in March established new fees for companies producing many over-the-counter drugs.

Which wasn’t a business most booze-makers even wanted to be in. “It was something we felt we had to do,” Harris says. “When you get calls from your first responders who need something that you can make, you’re going to help out. These were your neighbors.”

[Mark Kelly]

The Gohmert v Pence suit, the one that was so crazy it made the other crazy Trumpist suits look sane by comparison, has shared their fate and been dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F2b...3lJLq9wz9/view.