Categories
Options
Trump indicted in Georgia – politicalbetting.com
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The devil went down to Georgia.
He can of course visit him in the state penitentiary.
https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-consideration/pardons-restoration-rights
https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/1691291299201122304
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.
What a lovely day, sun is shining, it's a beautiful fresh late summer morning. And Trump is up shit creek.
Although if he did flee the country, that would to a great extent solve the problem.
And keep an eye on those unemployment and participation rate figures. If those currently not in the labour supply start returning to work...
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.
He was, however, in his defence, pretty badly advised by Gus O'Donnell.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/august2023
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”?
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.
There are people in America who believe Trump has actual Messianic qualities.
So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
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.
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
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.
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?
Nor is it here.
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.
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
* of those expressing a preference
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.
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 .
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.
More importantly, also clearly on Ozempic. Looks like he’s lost 15 pounds. So much so, he’s got a bit of “Ozempic face”
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.
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
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.
*until they build airconned stadia
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4149548-gop-sees-turnout-disaster-without-trump/
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.
It seems he phoned the Governor and asked him to 'find' 12,000 votes.
Everything else is nobody contradicting him.
Favourite headline of the morning:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66311632
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.
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.
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.
And it may rain later which will save me watering the garden.
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.
All those people who hate Trump will also have less cause to vote.
You say "none of that was possible". But *Cameron* thought it was possible and has said so openly.
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.
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%.
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.
I guess it was by the sea and quite gastro, but still. Falmouth used to be cheap
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 ).
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.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
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....
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.”
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
I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
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