U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!

[Josh]

8 hours ago, DB said:

I do believe that it was noted at the time of the earliest attempts to wage a court-based attack on trump that those doing it were risking opening the flood-gates and legitimising this type of attack for all parties. The pressure on Biden's less salubrious business activities will only increase, and when his term as president ends and the Democrats move on to their next Messiah, his protections will be reduced.

I'm fine with that. If Biden is hiding foreign money, I don't want him getting off either. I think Hillary should have been charged as well. It doesn't seem like a bad thing that our elected officials or cabinet members have existing laws applied against them.

8 hours ago, DB said:

At this point, it'sa given that a sitting president will be attacked using the courts for any real or imagined fault. What person with any qualities whatsoever is likely to invite that kind of future?

Trump isn't a sitting president and no charges were filed against him while in office, despite what seems very much like over a half dozen obstruction of justice attempts in the Mueller report.

8 hours ago, DB said:

It's only going to be those who are either idiotic empty shells, or those with the narcissism and hubris to believe that they will be untouchable, and I'm sure you all want that kind of person in charge.

I'd argue we already seen the bold part occur and are dealing with the fallout now.

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I'm fine with that. If Biden is hiding foreign money, I don't want him getting off either. I think Hillary should have been charged as well. It doesn't seem like a bad thing that our elected officials or cabinet members have existing laws applied against them.

Hillary wasn’t. That was the established standard. Pence wasn’t. Biden has not been. 
 

Why charge Trump with that background? An aspect of basic constitutional law is that laws are applied equally. 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Trump isn't a sitting president and no charges were filed against him while in office, despite what seems very much like over a half dozen obstruction of justice attempts in the Mueller report.

He was impeached over what Biden clearly did in Ukraine where there was an apparent payoff for Biden. 

[17thfabn]

 Long shot Republican hopeful for the 2024 Republican Nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, has pledged to pardon Trump if he is president in 2025. He is calling on the other Republican hopefuls to do the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-trump-pardon.html

Meanwhile former Vice President Pence who is also running refused to commit to this. And rightfully so. How can you commit to pardoning some one when you don't know all the details?

I was listening to the Clay Travis /Buck Sexton Radio Show today when they interviewed Pence and asked him about pardoning Trump. Travis & Sexton claim to be staying neutral in the primary process. But during the interview one of them was very aggressive and borderline agitated trying to get Pence to commit to pardoning Trump.

After Pence was off the show one of them accused Pence of disloyalty to Trump by not committing to pardoning Trump. That is down right silly. Pence is completely correct in placing the law above "loyalty" to Trump.

This is a link to the interview. 

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-travis-and-sexton-57927691/episode/hour-3-mike-pence-117401297/

Trump has accused some who are running for the Republican nomination of disloyalty to him. Who does he think he is to demand that others not seek the nomination? If they believe they would be a better candidate and or president they owe Trump nothing. 

[Ivanhoe]

16 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Meanwhile former Vice President Pence who is also running refused to commit to this. And rightfully so. How can you commit to pardoning some one when you don't know all the details?

 

In which decade will you have all the details? 

[DKTanker]

7 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

 Long shot Republican hopeful for the 2024 Republican Nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, has pledged to pardon Trump if he is president in 2025. He is calling on the other Republican hopefuls to do the same.

 

Trump has accused some who are running for the Republican nomination of disloyalty to him. Who does he think he is to demand that others not seek the nomination? If they believe they would be a better candidate and or president they owe Trump nothing. 

It's a cynical ploy to manipulate Trump into naming him as his running mate should he win the GOP nomination and, if Trump is prohibited from running, to be what the MAGA faithful turns to in the absence of Trump.  Pence is right, and so is everyone else who refuses to play that game.  Travis and Sexton, we don't get them in these parts but I have seen them in a few pod casts.  It is my considered opinion that they are decidedly not neutral, their protestations not withstanding.

Simply put Trump is a narcissistic eight year old and a fairly good manipulator in his own right.  Everyone owes everything to Trump that which Trump wants.

[Ivanhoe]

[DKTanker]

2 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

In which decade will you have all the details? 

This may ultimately go to the Supreme Court, I wouldn't want to shortstop that by pardoning the defendant, especially if I sincerely believe it needs to be adjudicated at the highest level.  IOW, assuming Trump is found guilty of any of the charges, and you believe those charges are constitutionally unjust, by pardoning Trump you have removed standing for an appeal.   Meaning SCOTUS can't rule on constitutionality. 
 
On the other hand, if you believe one president can obligate a successor president to a standard heretofore not set, and concede that at least one charge against Trump is in fact constitutional, and Trump is found guilty of that charge, you then have to ignore Trump's own words, that nobody is above the law, if you wish to pardon him.

Frankly I think the constitution is quite clear, the president is the executive branch, everyone else appointed to the executive branch and or employed by the executive branch, are merely extension of the POTUS.  As such, no underling of the executive can obligate the executive to any rules and regulations.  Furthermore, short of a constitutional amendment, no former president can with the legislature create an obligation upon a successor president.

[17thfabn]

16 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

In which decade will you have all the details? 

In the highly unlikely event that Pence wins the nomination and the presidency in 2024, he should have all the information by January 21st 2025, the day after being sworn in.

[Ivanhoe]

The FBI had documentation of numerous pretty large crimes amongst the Bidens, and did nothing. Why would anybody trust their "facts" concerning Trump? IMO only an idiot would believe their claims at this point. 

Why do judges dismiss charges when the state violates Constitutional rights and/or case law? Its about sending a message. 

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

3 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

In the highly unlikely event that Pence wins the nomination and the presidency in 2024, he should have all the information by January 21st 2025, the day after being sworn in.

Ah, now I see your problem.

[Skywalkre]

23 hours ago, DB said:

At this point, it'sa given that a sitting president will be attacked using the courts for any real or imagined fault. What person with any qualities whatsoever is likely to invite that kind of future?

It's only going to be those who are either idiotic empty shells, or those with the narcissism and hubris to believe that they will be untouchable, and I'm sure you all want that kind of person in charge.

We've been at this point for years.  I can remember hearing such arguments since I was a kid.

[Skywalkre]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Hillary wasn’t. That was the established standard. Pence wasn’t. Biden has not been. 
 

Why charge Trump with that background?

Because that's glossing over some major differences in those cases.  With Biden and Pence once the documents were found they immediately notified the proper authorities and even welcomed in the FBI to help find more.  They cooperated fully (and to be fair my understanding is the investigation is still ongoing with regards to Biden).

Trump, when pointed out he needed to turn over these documents, only turned over some.  Then delayed and lied when pressed to turn over the rest.  A complete lack of cooperation as well as active interference.

If there's an issue here it's that from experts I've seen discussing this the issue of occasional documents turning up is, sadly, not that rare (nothing to the scale we saw with Trump, though).  As long as you cooperate completely when it's noticed they don't press charges.  Contrast this with the stories back during Hillary's incident and the accounts of low level military and civilian contractors who got screwed doing the same thing.

If there's a position to hold it's everyone is treated equal... which doesn't mean you wave off Trump but reopen the investigations into everyone else.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

An aspect of basic constitutional law is that laws are applied equally.

Funny... I've been pointing this out for years in regards to how the poor are treated in this country in our court system.  That's fallen on deaf ears here on TN.  🙄

[17thfabn]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Because that's glossing over some major differences in those cases.  With Biden and Pence once the documents were found they immediately notified the proper authorities and even welcomed in the FBI to help find more.  They cooperated fully (and to be fair my understanding is the investigation is still ongoing with regards to Biden).

Trump, when pointed out he needed to turn over these documents, only turned over some.  Then delayed and lied when pressed to turn over the rest.  A complete lack of cooperation as well as active interference.

🙄

I heard Judge Napolitano who is generally conservative and former Governor Christie, a noted Trump hater making the same points. 

Napolitano's point was that the documents were not the main issue. The main problem for Trump legally is how he dealt with his lawyers. He said that Trump has lost attorney client privilege because of the fraud exemption. 

https://55krc.iheart.com/featured/brian-thomas-wkrc/content/2023-06-15-judge-napolitano-the-case-against-donald-trump/

[Sardaukar]

Well...

[Rick]

Apparently Cornel West is running for President on the Green Party. Which reminds me of this book https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=asc_df_046508995X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312669563714&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3658409540382655192&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016510&hvtargid=pla-425985553827&psc=1

[Skywalkre]

14 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I heard Judge Napolitano who is generally conservative and former Governor Christie, a noted Trump hater making the same points. 

Napolitano's point was that the documents were not the main issue. The main problem for Trump legally is how he dealt with his lawyers. He said that Trump has lost attorney client privilege because of the fraud exemption. 

https://55krc.iheart.com/featured/brian-thomas-wkrc/content/2023-06-15-judge-napolitano-the-case-against-donald-trump/

Right... this is ultimately a simple case that when referenced by supporters of Trump just highlights how they're missing/ignoring some rather basic elements of it (yet somehow they can find obscure lawyers and no-chance-in-hell arguments in support of Trump).

There's also the fact that so many in defense of Trump are viewing this in the same way they view everything politically - in relation to Ds and not as a matter of having principles themselves.  Hillary got away with mishandling of classified emails so Trump should get away with it.  No comment about how bloody irresponsible Trump was in how much he had, the gravity of what was contained, and how poorly they were secured.

[seahawk]

On 6/15/2023 at 4:28 AM, 17thfabn said:

 Long shot Republican hopeful for the 2024 Republican Nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, has pledged to pardon Trump if he is president in 2025. He is calling on the other Republican hopefuls to do the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-trump-pardon.html

Meanwhile former Vice President Pence who is also running refused to commit to this. And rightfully so. How can you commit to pardoning some one when you don't know all the details?

I was listening to the Clay Travis /Buck Sexton Radio Show today when they interviewed Pence and asked him about pardoning Trump. Travis & Sexton claim to be staying neutral in the primary process. But during the interview one of them was very aggressive and borderline agitated trying to get Pence to commit to pardoning Trump.

After Pence was off the show one of them accused Pence of disloyalty to Trump by not committing to pardoning Trump. That is down right silly. Pence is completely correct in placing the law above "loyalty" to Trump.

This is a link to the interview. 

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-travis-and-sexton-57927691/episode/hour-3-mike-pence-117401297/

Trump has accused some who are running for the Republican nomination of disloyalty to him. Who does he think he is to demand that others not seek the nomination? If they believe they would be a better candidate and or president they owe Trump nothing. 

When I see Pence, I always think this guy could easily beat Bidden, if the MAGA crowd would not despise him so much.

[Josh]

On 6/16/2023 at 11:31 AM, seahawk said:

When I see Pence, I always think this guy could easily beat Bidden, if the MAGA crowd would not despise him so much.

Pence has no path. He’s hated both by never trumpers and MAGAlites. His numbers probably represent very religious types and should be considered a ceiling as much as a floor, and I doubt he’d have prayer of beating Biden due to being tarnished by Trump and obviously pro national abortion ban.

 

I think he would have an uphill fight being governor of Indiana again, let alone president.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Pence has no path. He’s hated both by never trumpers and MAGAlites. His numbers probably represent very religious types and should be considered a ceiling as much as a floor, and I doubt he’d have prayer of beating Biden due to being tarnished by Trump and obviously pro national abortion ban.

 

I think he would have an uphill fight being governor of Indiana again, let alone president.

I know that. But if you look at it from a different perspective. He could combine the positive ideas of Trump without the sleazy parts. Against Biden I think he could make his actions after the elections a good argument why he is not tarnished by Trump, but nothing but an old school law and order conservative. And the Republican Party will have to find a solution for the abortion any way. But his is the morally correct one. But as hate is such a thing in US politics, he has no chance.

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

Pence has no path. He’s hated both by never trumpers and MAGAlites. His numbers probably represent very religious types and should be considered a ceiling as much as a floor, and I doubt he’d have prayer of beating Biden due to being tarnished by Trump and obviously pro national abortion ban.

 

I think he would have an uphill fight being governor of Indiana again, let alone president.

He has no path, agreed, but not because NT hates him, though the MAGA cult certainly does.  He doesn't have a path or prayer because he exudes zero inspiration.  He gives nobody a reason to vote for him. 

Well, what about having been elected governor of Indiana?  Simple, it was his turn and he narrowly, by a RCH, beat John Gregg who hadn't been in elected office for nine years.  It is illustrative that after Pence withdrew from the 2016 gubernatorial race to run for Veep with Trump, that Lt Gov Holcomb beat Gregg by six points.  Pence is more milquetoast (yes MAGA, that's they way you spell it) than was Gerald Ford.

[17thfabn]

30 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Pence is more milquetoast (yes MAGA, that's they way you spell it) than was Gerald Ford.

I liked Ford.

He was a World War II vet with a good record. Was one of the greatest athletes to ever be president. 

He was from a more gentlemanly era. Something that Trump .... and Biden wouldn't understand.

[DKTanker]

32 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I liked Ford.

He was a World War II vet with a good record. Was one of the greatest athletes to ever be president. 

He was from a more gentlemanly era. Something that Trump .... and Biden wouldn't understand.

And a University of Michigan All American football player.  Back before Ann Arbor and UofM went all Moscow.  Before the Unabomber and the Weather Underground started perfecting their crafts at Michigan.

[17thfabn]

35 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

And a University of Michigan All American football player.  Back before Ann Arbor and UofM went all Moscow.  Before the Unabomber and the Weather Underground started perfecting their crafts at Michigan.

And even being from Ohio, I still like the man!

[rmgill]

On 6/15/2023 at 10:13 PM, Skywalkre said:

Right... this is ultimately a simple case that when referenced by supporters of Trump just highlights how they're missing/ignoring some rather basic elements of it (yet somehow they can find obscure lawyers and no-chance-in-hell arguments in support of Trump).

One of the things missed by folks who are on the side of the state doing what ever it wants is that there are legal protections that people have where it concerns conversations with their attorneys. Not everything is fair game. 

On 6/15/2023 at 10:13 PM, Skywalkre said:

There's also the fact that so many in defense of Trump are viewing this in the same way they view everything politically - in relation to Ds and not as a matter of having principles themselves.  Hillary got away with mishandling of classified emails so Trump should get away with it.

That would be consistent. One of the key points of law in the US is equal application. Not unequal application of the law. 

On 6/15/2023 at 10:13 PM, Skywalkre said:

  No comment about how bloody irresponsible Trump was in how much he had, the gravity of what was contained, and how poorly they were secured.

Yes. Terribly poorly secured. Which is why a bunch of other folks who similarly or secured such documents even more poorly should also have been charged. And yet they were not. Why is that? Why is that gap so large there? 

[Josh]

Initial polling post indictment seems to have not moved much. No significant losses to Trump but no bump like the last indictment. Surprisingly, Christie spiked, though only because he started at 0 to begin with. But the field seems largely unchanged.