Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump indicted in Georgia – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited August 2023 in General
Trump indicted in Georgia – politicalbetting.com

What we do not know yet is how this will impact on his effort to win next year’s election in order to regain the White House. The US is so polarized when it comes to matters relating to Donald Trump and this latest development might just add to his supporter base and help his fundraising.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    edited August 2023
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7BZf7D5Bw

    The devil went down to Georgia.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,779
    Could the GA Governor pardon him?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Could the GA Governor pardon him?

    As I understand it, unlike in New York where the Governor can pardon Trump, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp cannot.

    He can of course visit him in the state penitentiary.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    Could the GA Governor pardon him?

    No. A Parole Board does in Georgia.

    https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/pardons-restoration-rights
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    Could the GA Governor pardon him?

    As I understand it, unlike in New York where the Governor can pardon Trump, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp cannot.

    He can of course visit him in the state penitentiary.
    To gloat? Seems pretty low class from Kemp.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663
    FPT:
    ydoethur said:

    NGL, reading this has given me an almost sexual thrill.

    Georgia’s Rico law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in jail and a maximum of 20 years. None of the charges Trump has faced in his other indictments so far carries a mandatory minimum sentence.

    Unlike the federal charges he faces over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the classified documents seized at his Florida home, Trump could not pardon himself for a state conviction in Georgia if he is re-elected as president next year.

    I imagine that Georgia will be on his mind.
    Can they find a jump suit that will match his hair?
    Or his face?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    FPT:

    ydoethur said:

    NGL, reading this has given me an almost sexual thrill.

    Georgia’s Rico law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in jail and a maximum of 20 years. None of the charges Trump has faced in his other indictments so far carries a mandatory minimum sentence.

    Unlike the federal charges he faces over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the classified documents seized at his Florida home, Trump could not pardon himself for a state conviction in Georgia if he is re-elected as president next year.

    I imagine that Georgia will be on his mind.
    Can they find a jump suit that will match his hair?
    Or his face?
    That's not orange, it's a sort of muddy kiwi fruit colour.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    In any case, given Brian Kemp despises Trump and won re-election over Trump's endorsement of disgraced ex-Senator David Perdue, the odds of him pardoning Trump should Trump be convicted, even if he had the power to, would be zero.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    An old editor told me to always look for what isn't there: Mike Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Lin Wood, Lindsey Graham are not indicted.
    https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/1691291299201122304
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,717
    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,572
    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    ydoethur said:

    NGL, reading this has given me an almost sexual thrill.

    Georgia’s Rico law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in jail and a maximum of 20 years. None of the charges Trump has faced in his other indictments so far carries a mandatory minimum sentence.

    Unlike the federal charges he faces over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the classified documents seized at his Florida home, Trump could not pardon himself for a state conviction in Georgia if he is re-elected as president next year.

    I imagine that Georgia will be on his mind.
    Can they find a jump suit that will match his hair?
    Or his face?
    That's not orange, it's a sort of muddy kiwi fruit colour.
    It's likely to become somewhat more pallid after a few weeks in clink.

    What a lovely day, sun is shining, it's a beautiful fresh late summer morning. And Trump is up shit creek.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    I suppose there's one thing. Nobody is going to be worried Trump is a flight risk.

    Although if he did flee the country, that would to a great extent solve the problem.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    Not sure that being better than those 3 is the standard to which the leader of the free world should be aspiring to. Why was he not indicted 2 years ago so we wouldn't be troubled with him now?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    for a week, and it wasn’t obvious that he had lost as a coalition with the LDs was an outside possibility
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Not for two months though. He was allowed to try to form a coalition. Blurrier outcomes are also a feature of our system.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    FPT: Real wages have fallen again, though not as fast as previously.

    And keep an eye on those unemployment and participation rate figures. If those currently not in the labour supply start returning to work...
  • FPT but apt for this thread.

    NGL, reading this has given me an almost sexual thrill.

    Georgia’s Rico law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in jail and a maximum of 20 years. None of the charges Trump has faced in his other indictments so far carries a mandatory minimum sentence.

    Unlike the federal charges he faces over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the classified documents seized at his Florida home, Trump could not pardon himself for a state conviction in Georgia if he is re-elected as president next year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    edited August 2023

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    for a week, and it wasn’t obvious that he had lost as a coalition with the LDs was an outside possibility
    Even if he had, he would still have been short of the Tory figure. He should have followed the example of Baldwin in 1929.

    He was, however, in his defence, pretty badly advised by Gus O'Donnell.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Good morning everyone.

    Brown hung on in 2010 for the same reason as Heath did in Feb. 1974. No party had an overall majority and the outgoing PM thought he might be able to put a coalition together.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    for a week, and it wasn’t obvious that he had lost as a coalition with the LDs was an outside possibility
    True, but we get the advantage of rapid changes of government because we generally get decisive results from out system. If we were on a PR type system the kind of haggling we saw in 2010 could go on for months, as it often does on the continent. The other advantage we have is at least a nominally independent civil service. In the US it often seems to be the case that it can take 6 months plus after gaining office to fill all the posts and that is despite the 3 month hiatus.
  • DougSeal said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Not for two months though. He was allowed to try to form a coalition. Blurrier outcomes are also a feature of our system.
    America has amendments to their constitution we have letters to The Times.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    US President can only pardon federal crimes. This is a state indictment.
  • Heh.


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663
    Eabhal said:

    FPT: Real wages have fallen again, though not as fast as previously.

    And keep an eye on those unemployment and participation rate figures. If those currently not in the labour supply start returning to work...

    Er, I don't think that's true? I'm the first to criticise the Tories' abysmal track record on wage 'growth' but this month I think they have actually risen, by 0.5% for total pay and 0.1% for regular pay.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/august2023
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486
    I wonder if Trump will have a similar trajectory to Boris. Boris was worshipped by a lot of people who thought he would deliver what they wanted, he was tolerated by another group who thought that the worst elements of his character could be suppressed, tolerated by another group who hated his attitudes and behaviours but wanted their party in power regardless.

    Issue after issue in his personal life and political actions came up and he still was immovable with the support of people in his party and support from a powerful part of the media.

    Then one day there was a tipping point and enough people who had supported and tolerated him said “enough”. There were many egregious acts that he could have been dropped for than what was the tipping point but eventually he went, when he tried to come back the party had enough time to think straight and say “not again” and eventually the wailing from his strongest supporters and media backers has faded to background noise.

    Surely there is an action by trump or a relegation that will be the point where enough republicans say “enough”?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Interesting summary on next steps from Reuters:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/next-steps-trumps-criminal-case-georgia-2023-08-15/

    Tldr - the defendants are going to try and play silly buggers with procedure.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    boulay said:

    I wonder if Trump will have a similar trajectory to Boris. Boris was worshipped by a lot of people who thought he would deliver what they wanted, he was tolerated by another group who thought that the worst elements of his character could be suppressed, tolerated by another group who hated his attitudes and behaviours but wanted their party in power regardless.

    Issue after issue in his personal life and political actions came up and he still was immovable with the support of people in his party and support from a powerful part of the media.

    Then one day there was a tipping point and enough people who had supported and tolerated him said “enough”. There were many egregious acts that he could have been dropped for than what was the tipping point but eventually he went, when he tried to come back the party had enough time to think straight and say “not again” and eventually the wailing from his strongest supporters and media backers has faded to background noise.

    Surely there is an action by trump or a relegation that will be the point where enough republicans say “enough”?

    Apart from Nadine Dorries, nobody actually worshipped Johnson.

    There are people in America who believe Trump has actual Messianic qualities.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424
    boulay said:

    I wonder if Trump will have a similar trajectory to Boris. Boris was worshipped by a lot of people who thought he would deliver what they wanted, he was tolerated by another group who thought that the worst elements of his character could be suppressed, tolerated by another group who hated his attitudes and behaviours but wanted their party in power regardless.

    Issue after issue in his personal life and political actions came up and he still was immovable with the support of people in his party and support from a powerful part of the media.

    Then one day there was a tipping point and enough people who had supported and tolerated him said “enough”. There were many egregious acts that he could have been dropped for than what was the tipping point but eventually he went, when he tried to come back the party had enough time to think straight and say “not again” and eventually the wailing from his strongest supporters and media backers has faded to background noise.

    Surely there is an action by trump or a relegation that will be the point where enough republicans say “enough”?

    I was wondering about that last night. Ex-PM Johnson seems to have a great deal less coverage than OUAT; not as much as Liz Truss, for example.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
  • DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    edited August 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Interesting summary on next steps from Reuters:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/next-steps-trumps-criminal-case-georgia-2023-08-15/

    Tldr - the defendants are going to try and play silly buggers with procedure.

    None of that is likely to help him.

    The federal cases were different, as there were complex issues around executive privilege, and the viewing of classified evidence to navigate.
    The state case ought to be less procedurally tangled.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    In Georgia, because it's a state case and even if he was governor of Georgia, they removed that power, apparently related to a previous white supremacist governor who used it rather injudiciously:
    https://www.nytimes.com/1933/06/04/archives/georgia-governor-on-pardon-spree-talmadge-has-released-50-granted.html

    In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:

    a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case
    b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't
    c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    edited August 2023
    Without reading more than the (very good) BBC summary, which details alleged criminal offences and likens Trump and his gang to a criminal organisation - certainly they are using legislation designed for criminal organisations - the question in many peoples' minds will be the degree of actual criminality involved and many might baulk at believing that Trump was the mastermind behind a sophisticated criminal network a la Richard Nixon's Plumbers.

    If they can't quite see it, preferring cock up, or plausible deniability, rather than conspiracy, then I have no doubt this will solidify his support amongst a large and important constituency.

    Can I see that Trump has the wherewithal to orchestrate such a sophisticated criminal enterprise? Not 100% sure I can.
  • Trump will be the GOP candidate. Any other candidate will see a significant number of voters stay at home and thus guarantee Biden wins re-election.

    This is the terrible mess the Republicans now find themselves in - a crook or they lose to someone they despise. On paper they should just suck it up, select Pence and let the justice system smash the Trump cult. In 2028 it would be easier to bring voters back on side.

    Or they could choose the other route. Go All In on Trump and the destruction of the American system that would result from a Trump win. I would hope that decent Republicans would stand for the republic, but there has been a terrible slide towards authoritarian tendencies in recent years.

    If an end to open democracy and free speech was the price to pay for the victory (on a permanent basis) for their party, how many of them will decide they are too far down the tracks to reverse course now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    TOPPING said:

    Without reading more than the (very good) BBC summary, which details alleged criminal offences and likens Trump and his gang to a criminal organisation - certainly they are using legislation designed for criminal organisations - the question in many peoples' minds will be the degree of actual criminality involved and they might baulk at believing that Trump was the mastermind behind a sophisticated criminal network a la Richard Nixon's Plumbers.

    If they can't quite see it, preferring cock up, or plausible deniability, rather than conspiracy, then I have no doubt this will solidify his support amongst a large and important constituency.

    Can I see that Trump has the wherewithal to orchestrate such a sophisticated criminal enterprise? Not 100% sure I am.

    If you rob a bank incompetently, it's not a defence.
    Nor is it here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
    Sigh.

    This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.

    The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.

    In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.

    In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.

    In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.

    Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.

    I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    The fact if he is convicted of these new Georgia charges Trump would face a mandatory minimum jail sentence means the RNC would have to change the Republican nomination rules to ensure convicted criminals with a jail sentence are ineligible to be their party's nominee.

    If not it raises the prospect Trump could be President from jail as Presidents can only pardon Federal not state convictions. However more likely Independents and moderate Republicans would not vote for him again anyway if he was convicted
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    HYUFD said:

    The fact if he is convicted of these new Georgia charges Trump would face a mandatory minimum jail sentence means the RNC would have to change the Republican nomination rules to ensure convicted criminals with a jail sentence are ineligible to be their party's nominee.

    If not it raises the prospect Trump could be President from jail as Presidents can only pardon Federal not state convictions. However more likely Independents and moderate Republicans would not vote for him again anyway if he was convicted

    I dunno. How many times have we said it would be nice to see a politician with real convictions instead of these fake identikit failed SPADs?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    edited August 2023

    Trump will be the GOP candidate. Any other candidate will see a significant number of voters stay at home and thus guarantee Biden wins re-election.

    The percentage* of US voters backing Trump in 2020 was smaller than the percentage* of UK voters backing Brexit in 2016.

    * of those expressing a preference
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    for a week, and it wasn’t obvious that he had lost as a coalition with the LDs was an outside possibility
    Brown would have needed the Greens, Plaid, SNP, SDLP as well as the LDs to overtake Cameron's Conservatives on seats in 2010 whereas Cameron just needed the LDs for a majority
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    What is going to be *interesting* is that all 19 will be tried simultaneously, as a group.
    I'm not sure to what extent Trump has entered into joint defence agreements with them. That has been his tactic in previous cases (the carrot is that he funds their defence*, which keeps them in line) - though he's always been ready to abandon (or threaten to abandon) codefendants when it suits him.

    *Which likely goes some way to explain how much cash his defence fund has burned through this year.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    It will be interesting to see if they allow court proceedings to be televised .

    The optics of Trump in court will be terrible for him if this is going on during election campaigning. The problem for prosecutors is getting a jury to convict him even if there’s overwhelming evidence .

    You only need one jury member who is a Trump cult member to refuse to. As much as I’d like to see Trump rotting in jail I just don’t see it happening .
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    edited August 2023
    HYUFD said:

    The fact if he is convicted of these new Georgia charges Trump would face a mandatory minimum jail sentence means the RNC would have to change the Republican nomination rules to ensure convicted criminals with a jail sentence are ineligible to be their party's nominee.

    If not it raises the prospect Trump could be President from jail as Presidents can only pardon Federal not state convictions. However more likely Independents and moderate Republicans would not vote for him again anyway if he was convicted

    They are not going to change the rules.
    If they don't have the voted to chuck out a convicted Trump at the GOP convention, they won't have the votes to change the rules - and simply selecting another nominee would be far easier.

    In any event, most of the party has been defending him wholeheartedly.
    If he goes down, they're screwed anyway.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Trump seems armour plated, but this time I wonder

    More importantly, also clearly on Ozempic. Looks like he’s lost 15 pounds. So much so, he’s got a bit of “Ozempic face”
  • ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
    Sigh.

    This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.

    The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.

    In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.

    In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.

    In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.

    Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.

    I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
    The so-called "rainbow coalition" was never on in hindsight. Not enough votes to be stable, not nearly enough. So yes, a change of government was the most likely option. But it wasn't the *only* option, and you can't say that Brown had lost the confidence of the House.

    Lets play the scenario. The LD / Tory negotiation breaks down. The Tories are less generous with ructions from the back benches and grandees at what Cameron was asking them for, the LD parliamentary party refuses to play and there is No Deal.

    Meanwhile Labour are offering the moon on a stick - including PR and Brown's exit that autumn. Clegg is forced into a confidence and supply arrangement to steamroller through as much as possible before the inevitable autumn election.

    I've read several books covering all sides on the aftermath of 2010 - all of this was very possible, and Cameron believed that unless he got Clegg and the LDs to back him then he would never be PM.

    So the only people convinced Brown was "squatting" were a few newspaper editors and Mr Hindsight. At the time, staying in office was constitutional. As soon as Brown realised that the Con/LD deal was *likely* to go through (though not yet confirmed) he forced Clegg's hand and resigned as PM.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
    If that happened the USA would really have become a Banana Republic .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918

    Trump will be the GOP candidate. Any other candidate will see a significant number of voters stay at home and thus guarantee Biden wins re-election.

    This is the terrible mess the Republicans now find themselves in - a crook or they lose to someone they despise. On paper they should just suck it up, select Pence and let the justice system smash the Trump cult. In 2028 it would be easier to bring voters back on side.

    Or they could choose the other route. Go All In on Trump and the destruction of the American system that would result from a Trump win. I would hope that decent Republicans would stand for the republic, but there has been a terrible slide towards authoritarian tendencies in recent years.

    If an end to open democracy and free speech was the price to pay for the victory (on a permanent basis) for their party, how many of them will decide they are too far down the tracks to reverse course now?

    Provided Trump isn't convicted, or even if he is if he is just fined or gets a suspended sentence then it is hard to see him not getting the GOP nomination again.

    If he is convicted and jailed however even the Republican National Committe has limits, they would change the party rules before the Republican convention next July to make convicted criminals ineligible to be party nominee and most likely Pence would be picked as Republican candidate instead in smoke filled rooms at the convention by the party establishment
  • What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    In Georgia, because it's a state case and even if he was governor of Georgia, they removed that power, apparently related to a previous white supremacist governor who used it rather injudiciously:
    https://www.nytimes.com/1933/06/04/archives/georgia-governor-on-pardon-spree-talmadge-has-released-50-granted.html

    In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:

    a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case
    b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't
    c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
    I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    .
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
    Sigh.

    This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.

    The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.

    In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.

    In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.

    In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.

    Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.

    I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
    Was Brown not still talking to the LDs at the time though, right up until the other group of LDs that were speaking to the Tories managed to get a deal together for a coalition?

    With an inconclusive election result, I think Brown as the incumbent had the right to actually see a vote of confidence in the House. As it happened, the Coalition Agreement came first, at which point Brown realised the numbers didn’t add up and went to see Her Majesty.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Why the Saudi league isn’t really gonna work, whoever they buy*



    *until they build airconned stadia
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Nigelb said:

    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
    LOL but true.

    But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.

    There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    TOPPING said:

    Can I see that Trump has the wherewithal to orchestrate such a sophisticated criminal enterprise? Not 100% sure I can.

    Was it sophisticated?

    It seems he phoned the Governor and asked him to 'find' 12,000 votes.

    Everything else is nobody contradicting him.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175

    Nigelb said:

    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
    LOL but true.

    But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.

    There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
    At which point, a whole load of states declare independence?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148
    edited August 2023
    Morning all.

    Favourite headline of the morning:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66311632
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    Trump’s supporters will say that trying to knock out your political opponents in court, rather than at the ballot box, is exactly what happens in Russia, China, and Iran.

    Ask Alexi Navalny. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/22/alexei-navalny-13-years-more-jail-fraud

    The biggest questions of the next six months are going to be will that opinion continue to hold, and can anyone actually get a conviction against Trump before the primary season starts in January.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.

    Retrospective immunity...
  • Poor Donald! Daddy was too busy getting rich to teach him about respect for the law and other people, and about right and wrong...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
    Sigh.

    This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.

    The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.

    In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.

    In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.

    In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.

    Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.

    I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
    The so-called "rainbow coalition" was never on in hindsight. Not enough votes to be stable, not nearly enough. So yes, a change of government was the most likely option. But it wasn't the *only* option, and you can't say that Brown had lost the confidence of the House.

    Lets play the scenario. The LD / Tory negotiation breaks down. The Tories are less generous with ructions from the back benches and grandees at what Cameron was asking them for, the LD parliamentary party refuses to play and there is No Deal.

    Meanwhile Labour are offering the moon on a stick - including PR and Brown's exit that autumn. Clegg is forced into a confidence and supply arrangement to steamroller through as much as possible before the inevitable autumn election.

    I've read several books covering all sides on the aftermath of 2010 - all of this was very possible, and Cameron believed that unless he got Clegg and the LDs to back him then he would never be PM.

    So the only people convinced Brown was "squatting" were a few newspaper editors and Mr Hindsight. At the time, staying in office was constitutional. As soon as Brown realised that the Con/LD deal was *likely* to go through (though not yet confirmed) he forced Clegg's hand and resigned as PM.
    None of that was possible. All other considerations and assumptions aside, Labour were far more split on most of those matters than the Tories.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    Let's just be grateful that "Crooked Hillary" never made it to the White House.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    edited August 2023

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
    If Trump is in Georgia jail and elected President I find it hard to conceive of him remaining in jail. The pressure on the parole board to pardon him would be immense and besides, if he wanted to walk out with the power of the Federal government behind him, would the State prison guards really stand in his way?

    It would, of course, be extremely damaging to the rule of law in the US, but by that point a huge number of voters would have said they didn't value the rule of law, and it only survives as long as it is supported.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    algarkirk said:

    For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.

    Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
    If Trump is in Georgia jail and elected President I find it hard to conceive of him remaining in jail. The pressure on the parole board to pardon him would be immense and besides, if he wanted to walk out with the power of the Federal government behind him, would the State prison guards really stands in his way?

    It would, of course, be extremely damaging to the rule of law in the US, but by that point a huge number of voters would have said they didn't value the rule of law, and it only survives as long as it is supported.
    The President appointing Supreme court judges from his prison cell would be the ultimate irony
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    Let's just be grateful that "Crooked Hillary" never made it to the White House.

    Just imagine if 'lying Ted' had...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    edited August 2023
    Leon said:

    Why the Saudi league isn’t really gonna work, whoever they buy*



    *until they build airconned stadia

    What the hell, they’re actually playing football in Saudi in August? That’s totally bonkers, unless kickoff is at 5am, it’s horrible there in August, ridiculously hot and humid.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175

    Let's just be grateful that "Crooked Hillary" never made it to the White House.

    Actually, we might be in a better place today than if she had won in 2016. If the China virus had happened on her watch, Trump may well have won in 2020.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    tlg86 said:

    Let's just be grateful that "Crooked Hillary" never made it to the White House.

    Actually, we might be in a better place today than if she had won in 2016. If the China virus had happened on her watch, Trump may well have won in 2020.
    Unlikely he would have been the candidate.

    When was the last time the Republicans recalled a previous loser? I come up with Nixon 1968, before that Dewey in 1948.

    If he'd lost, it would have destroyed his claim he's a winner.

    America might well have ended up with say, Ted Cruz who is possibly worse, but not Trump.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Why the Saudi league isn’t really gonna work, whoever they buy*



    *until they build airconned stadia

    What the hell, they’re actually playing football in Saudi in August? That’s totally bonkers, unless kickoff is at 5am, it’s horrible there in August, ridiculously hot and humid.
    By contrast I've just had breakfast outside in the garden and it's delightful - sun, a gentle breeze and not much noise. Absolutely perfect.

    And it may rain later which will save me watering the garden.
  • This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    I wonder if Trump will have a similar trajectory to Boris. Boris was worshipped by a lot of people who thought he would deliver what they wanted, he was tolerated by another group who thought that the worst elements of his character could be suppressed, tolerated by another group who hated his attitudes and behaviours but wanted their party in power regardless.

    Issue after issue in his personal life and political actions came up and he still was immovable with the support of people in his party and support from a powerful part of the media.

    Then one day there was a tipping point and enough people who had supported and tolerated him said “enough”. There were many egregious acts that he could have been dropped for than what was the tipping point but eventually he went, when he tried to come back the party had enough time to think straight and say “not again” and eventually the wailing from his strongest supporters and media backers has faded to background noise.

    Surely there is an action by trump or a relegation that will be the point where enough republicans say “enough”?

    Apart from Nadine Dorries, nobody actually worshipped Johnson.

    There are people in America who believe Trump has actual Messianic qualities.
    The attempts to map Johnson onto the Trump template don't work. They are borne out of opinion pieces trying to connect all the populists movements around the world into a single movement.

    Every politician has backers. Even Liz Truss. The question is how far they are prepared to go, and how much their leader encourages and enables them. Some are a bit populist, but that is long, long way from Trump.

    Consider the Corbyn cult, for example. He simply walked away in defeat. He has given no sign of trying to take back even the Labour party. He has written a few pieces for the papers, but has shown little sign of even actively attacking the current Labour leadership. Unless vaguely musing about possibly thinking about running for Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone style.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    Nigelb said:
    Wouldnt that cut both ways ?

    All those people who hate Trump will also have less cause to vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    In Georgia, because it's a state case and even if he was governor of Georgia, they removed that power, apparently related to a previous white supremacist governor who used it rather injudiciously:
    https://www.nytimes.com/1933/06/04/archives/georgia-governor-on-pardon-spree-talmadge-has-released-50-granted.html

    In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:

    a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case
    b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't
    c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
    I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
    Incorrect. It would require a state constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified by a plebiscite.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,908
    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    Historically it's happened in all of those countries
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.

    The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.

    The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
    The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
    Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
    Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.

    So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
    Sigh.

    This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.

    The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.

    In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.

    In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.

    In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.

    Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.

    I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
    The so-called "rainbow coalition" was never on in hindsight. Not enough votes to be stable, not nearly enough. So yes, a change of government was the most likely option. But it wasn't the *only* option, and you can't say that Brown had lost the confidence of the House.

    Lets play the scenario. The LD / Tory negotiation breaks down. The Tories are less generous with ructions from the back benches and grandees at what Cameron was asking them for, the LD parliamentary party refuses to play and there is No Deal.

    Meanwhile Labour are offering the moon on a stick - including PR and Brown's exit that autumn. Clegg is forced into a confidence and supply arrangement to steamroller through as much as possible before the inevitable autumn election.

    I've read several books covering all sides on the aftermath of 2010 - all of this was very possible, and Cameron believed that unless he got Clegg and the LDs to back him then he would never be PM.

    So the only people convinced Brown was "squatting" were a few newspaper editors and Mr Hindsight. At the time, staying in office was constitutional. As soon as Brown realised that the Con/LD deal was *likely* to go through (though not yet confirmed) he forced Clegg's hand and resigned as PM.
    None of that was possible. All other considerations and assumptions aside, Labour were far more split on most of those matters than the Tories.
    Labour were split. Senior voices saying "we lost". But had Clegg given them a path to keep the Tories out even the doubters would have found it hard to abstain or vote against.

    You say "none of that was possible". But *Cameron* thought it was possible and has said so openly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    Nigelb said:

    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
    LOL but true.

    But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.

    There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
    Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that.
    But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.

    But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
    Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!

    But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Favourite headline of the morning:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66311632

    I initially read that as 'All trousers'. Which is only marginally more surreal.
  • This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?

    Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does:
    Serious threat to NATO
    Serious risk of war in the middle east
    Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states
    Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America
    Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war
    America as a pariah state

    America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
    I had a lovely lunch with the senior daughter in Falmouth yesterday. The food was pukka and the view most agreeable. But the prices did strike me. One smoked mackerel salad, one burger, two beers, one lemonade - about £45?

    I guess it was by the sea and quite gastro, but still. Falmouth used to be cheap
  • MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Favourite headline of the morning:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66311632

    I went to school with a guy called Al Trousers. Lovely bloke, Alistair, and I'm delighted he's at last getting the recognition he richly deserves.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    Cookie said:

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
    Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!

    But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
    Greene King is the place to go, just download their Greene King Sport app, play their football prediction game and you get 20% off drinks. In my local that equates to £3.20 for a pint of Fosters/San Miquel/Abbott. Only Wetherspoons is cheaper but Greene King have Sky/BT and Amazon on numerous TVs.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    tlg86 said:

    algarkirk said:

    For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.

    Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
    Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.

    I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404

    This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?

    Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does:
    Serious threat to NATO
    Serious risk of war in the middle east
    Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states
    Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America
    Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war
    America as a pariah state

    America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
    Project Fear is back I see,

    We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.

    Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,785
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.

    The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
  • Cookie said:

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
    Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!

    But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
    Greene King is the place to go, just download their Greene King Sport app, play their football prediction game and you get 20% off drinks. In my local that equates to £3.20 for a pint of Fosters/San Miquel/Abbott. Only Wetherspoons is cheaper but Greene King have Sky/BT and Amazon on numerous TVs.
    If Greene King is the answer, I really don't want to know the question. Horrible stuff.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Cookie said:

    Heh.


    One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
    Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!

    But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
    Yes. The reason, ironically, is the end of a piece of Rip Of Britain.

    Notoriously, in the Goode Olde Days, the alcohol industry had huge profits. Shops sold beer for prices close to that in pubs.

    The supermarket revolution in the 80s and beyond was about lower prices, and grabbing for market share. Cheaper booze was an easy low profit leader to get people in. So prices in shops fell, as better wages and conditions in the pubs took things the other way.

    The rise in the cost of even "cheap" labour is a fascinating thing to watch. As is the complaining from a number who, at least claimed to advocate such things. But when faced with insufficiently servile waiters....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Favourite headline of the morning:



    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66311632

    I went to school with a guy called Al Trousers. Lovely bloke, Alistair, and I'm delighted he's at last getting the recognition he richly deserves.
    At mine, there was an Al Mouth, and no Trousers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Telegraph headline: “Pay rises at fastest rate since records began”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/15/ftse-100-market-news-wage-growth-inflation-bank-england/

    Then immediately starts the article on why this is a bad thing.

    Pay is rising at the fastest pace since records began in 2001 in a blow to the Bank of England’s fight against inflation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot

    Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
    LOL but true.

    But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.

    There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
    Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that.
    But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.

    But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
    Maybe - but Trump would try and turn it into Feds vs State. And rule one of the Federal government is that it is supreme.

    I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Incidentally, on a very careful check of the Georgia State Constitution, it is very possible the Paroles and Pardons Board could *not* pardon Trump for this offence (if he were convicted) within five years of conviction, as it has a mandatory minimum sentence of that length. Although it doesn't specifically list the felonies on this indictment as one of the excluded offences, the general principle might well still apply.

    The only question might be whether this would be waived under an 'offences against the state' clause that's also included.

    Text is here (article iv section 2, page 38 of this version) for those interested.

    https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/state_constitution.pdf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.

    States' rights.
    LOL but true.

    But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.

    There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.

    If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
    Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that.
    But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.

    But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
    Maybe - but Trump would try and turn it into Feds vs State. And rule one of the Federal government is that it is supreme.

    I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
    If the US elected a convicted criminal, who has already attempted a coup, then the precise details of how it all goes to shit are somewhat academic.
This discussion has been closed.