POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

Every word of what you just said was wrong.




In other news, the Georgia government appears to have leaked an hour-long recording of the president trying to shake down the governor for 11,000 Trump votes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@Monty

The content provided in the link (and any other journalistic source dealing with the very same topic) is the proof of why your opening sentence in the above post, is true. And you can bet the farm that Trump knew he was being taped, and therefore the oft-discussed self-pardon will be forthcoming before 20 Jan...

Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy

Oh, you mean like these folks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...48c_story.html

Formal rallies are planned most of the day and will draw pro-Trump demonstrators to the Washington Monument, Freedom Plaza and the Capitol. But online forums and encrypted chat messages among far-right groups indicate a number of demonstrators might be planning more than chanting and waving signs.

Threats of violence, ploys to smuggle guns into the District and calls to set up an “armed encampment” on the Mall have proliferated in online chats about the Jan. 6 day of protest. The Proud Boys, members of armed right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists have pledged to attend.

Earlier this month, a day of largely peaceful demonstrations descended into violent chaos as night fell and small bands of Proud Boys dressed in the group’s signature black and gold garb roamed downtown looking for a fight. Several people, including passersby who said they did not know about planned protests that day, were injured.

I guess we'll see how "adequate" and "wise" the behavior of these folks will be...

In other news:

www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/congress-rules-electoral-college-count-454023

And Roy went further on Sunday evening, forcing a vote on whether to allow Speaker Nancy Pelosi to seat the House members in the states Trump is challenging. The move forced Republicans on the record validating the results of the House elections that occurred on the same ballots that resulted in Biden's win in November. The result was a 371-2 vote in favor of seating all of the members.

Credit where credit is due. Chip Roy (R) Texas, called their bluff. If Biden's election is a fraud, so is yours. I'd be curious as to who cast the two nay votes.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[rory_20_uk]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

[Pannonian]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

It's the most financially corrupt UK government in living memory, as the NYT has shown. The only consolation is that it hasn't yet felt the urge to engage in electoral corruption. Plenty of grift, but not yet any attempt at defying elections.

[Pannonian]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all). Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history. I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list. And yes, the core 20% of Trumps supporters are fringer nut jobs who really do equate defending the Constitution with the curtailment of Socialism or near socialism. They also interpret anything a European [or a Brit ] would think of as a Social Democrat (Centrist, minimally to the left of center) as a Commie Socialist who is out to destroy the country. Trump is their hero because he is the "outsider" fighting back against all the bureaucrats -- really, you cannot make this stuff up. I've read fiction by Nuttall and Kratman that are less distorted and less lauding of reactionary conservatism. Sadly, Limbaugh and Hannity have swayed many who are ignorant but not outright nutjobs in support of this agenda as well. And it is THAT coalition -- nutjobs and dittoheads -- who are the active elements of the current GOP.

One of the reasons why I am no longer a member of that party.

[Montmorency]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

So far it seems as though the majority of House Republicans will side with Trump on Jan. 6, but only a minority of Senate Republicans. It will be as good a poll of our politics as the runoff elections in Georgia tomorrow.

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all).

While technically true, we shouldn't take this as evidence for their jurisprudential integrity in general. Of the dozens of Trumpist election suits so far, I believe all but one of them were dropped, rejected, or dismissed. IIRC the one ruling in Trump's favor was on a narrow technical question. In other words, if (effectively) every Trump-appointed judge and every non-Trump appointed judge rules against Trump on a particular category of question, all we can take away is that we should be comparing Trump judges to non-Trump judges in other respects, where they are not univocal. Posing a matter like 'I am injured that the court will not suck my dick' will always find the same result, and that makes the like minimally-informative.

The limit of legal realism as an interpretive framework is that judges won't do literally anything for their team, especially where (see below) the team and the individual are distinguished. With what Trump was giving them to work, a partisan strategy might as well have gone to the heart of the matter and declared the existence of Democrats unconstitutional.

Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history.

Republicans loathed Warren, Souter, and Stevens! That's why the conservative movement made sure no further Republican appointees would replicate their defections. "Impeach Earl Warren" was before your time, but...

Judges like Warren, Souter, Stevens, and so on, can't exist any longer and haven't since the 20th century, because the Federalist Society selects for and inculcates reliability.

I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

The critical thing is that we can observe Republican judges will and do pick party over Constitution/law, or minimally ideology over Constitution, but they are agents of the institutional elite of the GOP - they are not quite the nutjobs and dittoheads who identify God and country with the person of Trump.

If there is a McConnell/Roberts faction of the GOP, they are very much independent of Trump the man. The judges know that fruitlessly exhausting institutional and political capital on assuaging Trump's insecurities (or worse, committing to violent power struggle) will damage the long-term interests of their movement.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list.

Not quickly enough. And as we know the Trump administration has for its part kept its thumb on the scale of law enforcement when it comes to white supremacists. But the phenomenon Pann happened upon has proliferated since the Clinton era in particular, in no small part due to Limbaugh's agitations.

[Montmorency]

Oh, Seamus, I just recalled that in Wisconsin the state Supreme Court would have been in a position to award the state to Donald Trump, had a liberal justice not won one of the seats up for election in the past 2 years. The decision against Trump was 4-3 in the event. (This is all separate from the handful of Republican bureaucrats who were in a genuine position to withhold certification of tabulated votes in Michigan.)

All our circumstances are highly contingent. If Republicans could repeat Florida 2000 (even Sandra Day O'Connor was on board there), they would do it instantly. As we'll have opportunity to discuss in the next few days, the only question is how much further they will go of their own initiative the next time.

[Hooahguy]

I dont want to get anyone's hopes up just yet, but things are looking good in Georgia right now.

The first heavily-Democratic county, Macon County, has fully reported its results. Dems are doing about four points better than in November and turnout is better than in heavily-Republican counties.

I have no idea how this is going to go, I think its still a tossup but I guess we will see by tomorrow morning.

Edit: the totals arent in yet, but its looking like a Dem sweep now, which means that the Dems will be retaking the Senate with a 50-50 split and VP Harris the tie-breaking vote. Wild. Super proud of my home state right now.