Not if a military coup was enacted to carefully “vet” the votes that reflects the “will of the people”, which is what general Flynn wants. Not that it will happen mind you, but it is notable that he has this wet fantasy and that he is pushing it on Trump.
1 Like
What the heck is this business with Presidential Pardons at the end of a presidency?
To my mind something needs to stick to this lot so their supporters can see what they’ve been applauding these last 4 years or so.
1 Like
Not going to happen, I am pretty sure that Trump is going to pardon both himself and his malevolent children, as well as Rudi and his other hangers on. It is what any respectable mobster would do.
Trump having to serve a prison sentence and his enablers actually being burdened with responsibility and punishment is a nice thought, but in the US a king, sorry I mean president, can pardon himself in theory. And why wouldn’t he ? We know he is corruption manifested in the flesh, so very likely that he is going to do that.
1 Like
yeah I fully expect it but somewhere along the line you’d hope the US people would realise what an utterly retarded thing it is.
Basically you’ve got someone who can run round doing what the hell they want and then just walk away unscathed.
2 Likes
That they do, but I don’t think they will change anything at all. Their political system is sacred to most Americans and most Americans seem to think that their founders were demi-gods that some how produced an infallible and political system in the 1780s, which they then amended (now those amendments are sacred for mythical/religious reasons). Most Democrats who are in the center, probably don’t want anything that has to do with their constitution changed I reckon. The USA is the greatest democracy in the world after all, much superior to the parliamentarian “weak governments” in European countries.
Nah, I don’t think anything much is going to change and I don’t think Trump or his cronies will go to jail. They will be punished in history books and philosophical studies, their memory that is, but while they live they won’t pay the price they should.
Of course, I hope I am wrong.
1 Like
@cynicaloldgit @Magnus You can’t have a free, fair, credible, proper election under a military regime. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia (in the 80s) along with many other nations can vouch for that.
Regarding Presidential Pardons, what really bothers me is the fact that it totally undermines the judicial system. Many countries (including us) have it and it’s used for malicious purposes mostly.
1 Like
Oh believe me, I know. That is the point of military rule after all, that the military ensures that “radicals” and “chaos agents” do not come to power that is. Only carefully, “vetted” candidates to the liking of the general staff or whoever is the head generalissimo.
Of course not. Same as with GW Bush, who should have been put in front of a tribunal after his presidency, and wasn’t.
History will remember him as one of the worst ever presidents, but the system will protect him.
3 Likes
yep. To my mind it’s wrong that people cannot be held accountable. That should be a cornerstone of any political system of this type. You could argue the same for what we have in the UK. Blair for example and now Johnsons policies of funneling public money to friends and donors at the expense of lives.
The main issue with this is that you end up with the truth being hidden / glossed over. That should not be the case and there needs to be a deterrent in place to prevent this stuff happening in the first place
2 Likes
I wonder if he realizes his activity post-pardon is not covered by a pardon?
5 Likes
There is a legal question whether or not he can pardon himself. Won’t be a surprise if that gets tested.
However, a Federal pardon does nothing versus State actions, and the State of New York already has a slate of civil and criminal charges.
In addition, even if he can pardon himself, he has long since lost the sense of what is legal and illegal, and is virtually certain to cross the line within weeks of leaving the White House. Either Republicans find a way to shut him up, or he is likely to be the first ex-President ever charged with sedition.
4 Likes
Just another area where Trump’s tenure has brought to light how much f presidential conduct is governed by norms and decency, and in the few places where laws are thought to apply how untested they are. To get a stage like this and have people shrug with no idea what we assume he will do will actually be legal is amazing and should be the primary lesson we take from this sorry period.
7 Likes
I have said it before, but the American constitutional model has now been exposed as at best incomplete. So many utter failures of procedure once norms came into question - as if the Founders ever envisaged the GSA being some sort of gatekeeper of presidential power.
6 Likes
As if the founders ever envisioned the President becoming more important than Congress and Congress refusing to use their powers to hold him to account.
It does not take too much of a deep reading to understand how unsatisfied even the framers were of much of the constitution, and how they viewed it as the best compromise they could come up with under the specific circumstances of the time. The idea it is some sort of set of commandments given from up on high that cannot be challenged or outright thrown out is possibly the single most damaging US ideal there is. They would be absolutely horrified by our current relationship with the constitution.
6 Likes
Heartwarming to see General Flynn, obviously humbled by his experience, retweeting anti-democratic posts. He’s a genuine “patriot.”
I do think the, however, the Constitution has worked in the case of Donald Trump. He has challenged it and lost.
3 Likes
In the sense of the transition happening anyway? I suppose that is true, but you still have a sitting President attempting to delegitimize democratic and constitutional processes, and not a great deal happening to stop it.
4 Likes
To be clear, circa 1787, the US Constitution is a remarkable, world-historical document. It is not a meaningful criticism of the US Founders to suggest they did not think of everything.
8 Likes
The 10 amendments of the 1891 Bill of Rights says hi
EDIT: DOH 1791
2 Likes
Important point that it is 1791, not 1891. Largely the same people came back a few years later in order to refine it.
3 Likes
Ha. Florida houses dont do well when it gets cold. I woke up to an in house Temp of 50 degrees and even after 5 hours with the heat on physically I am still getting up to speed, like a lizard in the morning sun.
3 Likes