|
So, the next time Donnie needs a multimillion dollar bail, can he just get it from a local lemonade stand? If a private company is free to drive into bankruptcy like that, what's stopping a really small one from doing that?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
I imagine that if the financials betray the fact that the bond is unenforceable the DA and/or the court will raise the issue literally tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Most likely he'd pardon himself This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? The official legal answer is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ With this court probably, but it’s contested and not explicit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? because who's going to stop him? cant cook creole bream posted:So, the next time Donnie needs a multimillion dollar bail, can he just get it from a local lemonade stand? If a private company is free to drive into bankruptcy like that, what's stopping a really small one from doing that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
Even this court probably doesn’t want to rule that the president has complete freedom to commit any and all federal crimes. But like with the other case they’re perfectly happy to drag their feet on it until he has a chance at re-election
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? You never know until you try! The Founders did not have Trump in mind when they wrote the rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:The official legal answer is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Outside Thomas and Alito, the Court is still helmed by assholes who realize today rulling will affect not just their buddy Donny. So it remains as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ as ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:I'm not qualified to say how this will ultimately play out, but this does not seem to be the same kind of reputable, t-crossed and i-dotted bond that he got from Chubb (an actual big boy insurance and surety company). Most charitable explanation is that this Hankey guy (a "subprime auto loan" magnate, lol) is throwing his company into a line of business that it's never done before, and setting himself up to be wrecked by one Donald J. Trump when the time comes to collect from one Donald J. Trump. Least charitable explanation is that this Hankey guy is trying to pull a fast one on the court via bonding paperwork, which seems too stupid to be true so I'm not climbing out on that limb yet, but boy that would be something. Hankey made his millions by issuing risky loans at high interest rates to people who might not be able to afford them, and then engaging in extensive (and often illegal) debt collection practices to squeeze out as much money as he could from them. He's a usury cowboy loan shark who barely gives a poo poo about lending laws. Given his reputation, the natural conclusion is that he thinks he can get the cash out of Trump, even if he has to play a bit rough to do so. cant cook creole bream posted:So, the next time Donnie needs a multimillion dollar bail, can he just get it from a local lemonade stand? If a private company is free to drive into bankruptcy like that, what's stopping a really small one from doing that? There's a reason the court is asking for financial documents. They're not obligated to accept obvious bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:50
|
|
|
withak posted:You never know until you try! The Founders did not have Trump in mind when they wrote the rules. They kind of did actually, they just didn’t have the hyper partisan Congress in mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:50
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Even this court probably doesn’t want to rule that the president has complete freedom to commit any and all federal crimes. But like with the other case they’re perfectly happy to drag their feet on it until he has a chance at re-election we'll be mad and post about it while people gently correct us that this is the way things are supposed to work and we have to be patient
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Yeah, the solution they had in mind was to impeach him and ban him from holding office. They didn’t anticipate that Congress would have so many and so dedicated allies of a rogue president that they would be unable to do so
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Even this court probably doesn’t want to rule that the president has complete freedom to commit any and all federal crimes. But like with the other case they’re perfectly happy to drag their feet on it until he has a chance at re-election There are at least two people on this court who absolutely will rule that; however, the majority will inevitably rule against him to save face but run out the clock, thus invalidating the issue until the Next Constitutional Crisis 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:There are at least two people on this court who absolutely will rule that; however, the majority will inevitably rule against him to save face but run out the clock, thus invalidating the issue until the Next Constitutional Crisis I don't know why you need to be a hater. Don't you know that a SC justice doesn't get paid all that much? These poor slobs are having to resort to flying with Billionaires if they want to get somewhere. C'mon, won't someone think of the poor justices?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
The constitution is more the cause of the current situation than the solution
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The constitution is more the cause of the current situation than the solution Realistically, its because the founders didn't envision a) Political parties of today. They were worried about factions (Farmers, merchants, slaveowners for example), not a two party system like today where if one party decides they want to be dicks they can just gum up the works. b) a huge nation where massive amounts of people would be crammed into tiny geographic areas, thus only getting two senate seats while someone living in Wyoming all by themselves will also have two senate seats. Dirt don't vote for presidents, but dirt certainly does approve judges and cabinet officials. (this ten minute rule is getting annoying)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 02:06
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? The SCOTUS is likely to say so, and Sotomeyer isn't making it four more years so chances are by 2028 there's a least one more Federalist Society judge on the bench to give it the nod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, the solution they had in mind was to impeach him and ban him from holding office. They didn’t anticipate that Congress would have so many and so dedicated allies of a rogue president that they would be unable to do so Or they figured if it did the game was up anyway. I think most of them would be mortified to find out the same constitution, with relatively little change, was still in place this many years later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Or they figured if it did the game was up anyway. I think most of them would be mortified to find out the same constitution, with relatively little change, was still in place this many years later. Why would they be mortified? It’s not like it’s their fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:07
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Realistically, its because the founders didn't envision This is partially but not entirely true. They absolutely envisioned political parties since those were already a thing in England, and divisions between large and small states with very different demographics since that was a big concern in just getting the Constitution written. They just didn't expect party loyalty to entirely supersede the known and expected divides like between states/regions or between the branches of government, or for the main geographic divide to become rural/urban and directly tied to party loyalty. Small states going "gently caress this" and having disproportionate ability to make it stick was absolutely expected, but some 1790 politician shown a population map of the 2024 US would be baffled by the idea of rural New Yorkers going all-out to screw their state in favor of what Florida is doing, presidential candidates losing their home states, or senators being total lapdogs to a president just because he's from their own party. In fairness to them, most of the current dysfunction they never planned for wasn't really true until recently, even with powerful political parties and large population divides between states. Republicans having disroportionate power due to control of small rural states is a very recent divide, and the lack of ideological (and more importantly voting record) overlap between the parties in Congress isn't that much older. By-party vote counts on almost any divisive bill of the 20th century look alien to a modern viewer, partly but not totally since they had a lot more geographic alignment. That's part of why "How can the Democrats be a real party when they don't always vote as a bloc" arguments are hot nonsense; that was never how it worked until quite recently, even speaking as someone who usually thinks it's necessary retaliation for modern Republicans doing the same. Likewise, the filibuster (funnily enough considered but actively rejected during the creation of the Constitution, but introduced by accident later) was a non-factor for most of the country's history and a limited delaying tactic for much of the rest. The post-1970s version is really different and even it didn't become stifling until mostly into this century, which is why older senators like Biden and Bernie were so slow to criticize it. Likewise, it's only been the last few decades where Senate Majority Leader was a particularly powerful position despite not even being in the Constitution, much less effectively the second most powerful person in government ahead of even the Speaker and VP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Realistically, its because the founders didn't envision They were making a lot of it up as they went, and though they had examples like the Roman Republic and the benefit of enlightenment principles to guide them, they were also largely flying blind. For example, they were operating before the invention of police i.e. civilian law enforcement, hence the laws about quartering soldiers - generally the military was used for any law enforcement that couldn't be done by citizens themselves. They were afraid of a military commander marshaling troops and setting themselves up as dictator a la Caesar, so they minimized the size of the standing army and counted on citizen militias to make up the difference in times of war. There's all sorts of fears and preparations that ended up not being relevant, as well as lots of issues that come from the structure of the constitution, like how the voting system almost mathematically guarantees the formation of two opposed parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
This would be a good time to read Federalist No. 9, Federalist No. 10, and Federalist No. 51 if folks haven't already. The full federalist and antifederalist papers are worth reading in context.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, the solution they had in mind was to impeach him and ban him from holding office. They didn’t anticipate that Congress would have so many and so dedicated allies of a rogue president that they would be unable to do so Then it was: how the gently caress will this ever happen Now it's: how the gently caress did this happen
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:
I think it's far more likely it's a direct result of English laws like the Quartering Act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, the solution they had in mind was to impeach him and ban him from holding office. They didn’t anticipate that Congress would have so many and so dedicated allies of a rogue president that they would be unable to do so I mean, I'm sure they anticipated such was possible. They just thought that if things were at that point you'd be in a shooting war over it anyway. They'd all started a war and shot people themselves, and over less. The Hamilton/ Burr duel wasn't so much an anomaly as an understood and implicit part of the system. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? The functional answer is yes, at least while in office, because federal laws are enforced by the Department of Justice, and the president can fire anyone in the DOJ who tries to argue otherwise. In theory a subsequent administration could challenge the pardons. That might work over the long term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The SCOTUS is likely to say so, and Sotomeyer isn't making it four more years so chances are by 2028 there's a least one more Federalist Society judge on the bench to give it the nod. what on earth makes you think Sotomayor is on the brink of death
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, I'm sure they anticipated such was possible. They just thought that if things were at that point you'd be in a shooting war over it anyway. They'd all started a war and shot people themselves, and over less. The Hamilton/ Burr duel wasn't so much an anomaly as an understood and implicit part of the system. Legal dueling probably would have stopped the rise of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:This has probably been discussed a bunch already, but.... is that actually legal? Most likely, yeah. The law doesn't say the president can't pardon himself. The pardon power as described in the Constitution is absolute. The president can pardon anyone for any federal crime, with only one limit: impeachment can't be pardoned. Since it doesn't say the president can't pardon himself, that probably means the president can pardon himself. Definitely a mistake, but an understandable one - the founders probably expected that a president who'd been caught engaging in significant crimes would be impeached long before he got convicted. Cimber posted:Realistically, its because the founders didn't envision Political parties aren't really the issue here. There's been plenty of cases where a president was able to offend the sensibilities of even his own party, who would then turn against him and frustrate his agenda or even go so far as to support his impeachment. After all, the party isn't wedded to any particular candidate; they can always find a new one if they need to. What the founders didn't envision is a personality cult like the one Trump's attracted. The diehard MAGAs who back Trump rather than the party, rapidly primarying candidates that displease or defy Trump, and overall rendering the party completely terrified of doing anything that goes against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
Again, the Federalist papers I linked above are worth reading in this regard. Despite the limitations of their circumstances (these were pseudonymous public persuasive essays from two prominent theorist founders, not deep philosophical tracts reflecting some sort of divine consensus from all the signers), the papers I mentioned do grapple in detail with the problem of "faction" and consider different approaches to addressing it. A major root element of this approach is that the government is republican and pluriform rather than directly democratic, creating an opportunity for exactly the sort of balances, delays and controls that have retarded Trump's access to and abuse of power. This structural advantage has remained beneficial despite the fact that the emergence of two parties happened while the ink was drying, even before the development of government functions that further aided the situation like improved communication and the development of the civil service.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 5, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:31
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:They kind of did actually, they just didn’t have the hyper partisan Congress in mind. When I was in school, they told us that the US Constitution was designed to defend against with one corrupt branch of government, but not two or three.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Sotomeyer isn't making it four more years
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Legal dueling probably would have stopped the rise of Trump. Eh, not directly; Trump would never agree to a duel. It might have gotten him horsewhipped though, which was the traditional response when a duel was refused, or when the offender was no gentleman and thus undeserving of a duel. Which would have been amusing at least. More to the substantive point, Hamilton was well aware of the possibility of demagogues and cults of personality and as DV points out he addresses those concerns in the federalist papers at some length. ( It was also part of why he tried to shoot Burr; he saw Burr as potentially such a figure).The real issue is a (charitably) cotton-gin-era government design trying to handle and prevent a corruption powered by 21st-century-media. You might as well expect a high speed monorail to work fine powered by a steam engine. It's not that the steam engine is bad or that the designers didn't understand pressure and materials and tolerances,it just wasn't designed to stand up to modern pressures. Like how they didn't build bridges fifty years ago to survive getting rammed by modern supercargo ships. The builders of the Key Bridge were great engineers. They knew ships were getting bigger and containerizarion had begun by that time. They may not have foreseen the full scope of modern containerized shipping precisely but they knew such huge ships were theoretically possible and might be a problem one day. But it was a problem for down the road, until it was a problem for immediately. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Apr 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, not directly; Trump would never agree to a duel. Entertaining as someone shooting him, like a dog, in the street might be, I was talking his absolute refusal to do one. You can't be a big brain deal master strong guy in a dueling culture if you duck every challenge. Especially since he would be incapable of refraining from calling on people to duel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:When I was in school, they told us that the US Constitution was designed to defend against with one corrupt branch of government, but not two or three. Pretty much, and frankly I’m not sure how it could’ve been.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Pretty much, and frankly I’m not sure how it could’ve been. One interesting article I read a while back pointed out that the system was to an extent designed to pit the various then-extant factions (slave states and free states, rural and urban, etc) against each other across power structures, so that there was a natural incentive to compromise if you wanted to get anything done. What's happened in the past few decades has been partly a collapse and realignment such that few of those incentives remain (e.g., "rural" is just a lifestyle brand now, not an interest group) and partly that modern scientific gerrymandering and partisan media have created an environment where there are heavy incentives against cooperation. The root issue though is that basically a third of voters actively want Trump, preferentially over other candidates. It's hard to make any democratic government work when a third of the country actively wants *that* and another fifth is willing to tolerate it. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
trump used to go after mobster's girlfriends back in the day. clearly if the mob weren't such pussies we wouldn't have to deal with trump today
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 06:28
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:trump used to go after mobster's girlfriends back in the day. clearly if the mob weren't such pussies we wouldn't have to deal with trump today You don't beat the poo poo out of Stinky Steve who wears a diaper for miserably failing to hit on your girl. You just laugh at the sad sack while continuing to launder money through his businesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 06:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The functional answer is yes, at least while in office, because federal laws are enforced by the Department of Justice, and the president can fire anyone in the DOJ who tries to argue otherwise. Just kill anyone issued a pardon and then pardon their murderers in turn. Bing bong
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To be honest, though, there's a reason the Florida filings mention but don't charge crimes he committed in Bedminster, New Jersey, and the consensus amongst the lawbrains is that he's keeping NJ as insurance against Cannon just throwing this all away. Is that even a thing a prosecutor would do? I mean, he had to have to get witnesses and evidence in front of a grand jury. And the more time passes between a crime occurring and a witness attempting to remember what happened, the worst quality testimony you get. The impression i got from it is that there was an allegation of a crime in Bedminster, but not enough physical evidence or enough witness testimony to sustain a prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 08:52
|
|
