Buckle Up Buttercup

[SciFi Chick]

I appreciate your thoughts Sigma and Fisher, but every election, I'm told now is not the time for a third party. We're in between elections, and it looks like we might be headed in the direction of a third party, and that's the direction I'm going in. Still getting told now is not the time...

[SciFiFisher]

I appreciate your thoughts Sigma and Fisher, but every election, I'm told now is not the time for a third party. We're in between elections, and it looks like we might be headed in the direction of a third party, and that's the direction I'm going in. Still getting told now is not the time...

Most of the time people are told that change isn't happening just yet or that it's not time for change. When change does happen (almost) everyone is surprised by it. Sometime not for the better. If you want a ray of hope look at the primary election in New York. A young upstart social democrat unseated a long term incumbent.

It is not a third party per se but it could be a signal that the Democratic party is shifting in a direction that many people claim they want to see. Of course, one of her more radical platform stances is the abolishment of ICE. Frankly, I think she is probably going to get trounced in November. But, the effect of her primary win is going to have an effect.

[geonuc]

I think the young upstart is going to be seated in Congress.

Add my voice to those saying 'now is not the time'. It is far less risky to attempt to change the character of one of the two major parties than establish a third party. Both parties have undergone radical changes during the course of their history.

[SciFiFisher]

I think the young upstart is going to be seated in Congress.

Add my voice to those saying 'now is not the time'. It is far less risky to attempt to change the character of one of the two major parties than establish a third party. Both parties have undergone radical changes during the course of their history.

I'd be willing to bet you a beer on that. And happy to pay if she did win.

[Rommie]

So, Brett Kavanaugh.

Honestly, I don't know too much about the guy (which was totally going to be the case for anyone they nominated, to be fair), but I've come to the conclusion on this that as long as he doesn't think Roe v. Wade isn't settled precedent and that such things matter, I'll call this one as good as one can expect in the current climate.

[Thumper]

When he was nominated and appointed to the DC Circuit, a substantial majority of the ABA rated him as well qualified. So at least he appears to have the skill set and the experience for the job. That's alot better than many of the appointments made by the current administration.

[Rommie]

How low the bar has gotten!

During said confirmation though 30-something Dems voted against him, at a time when I don't think judge confirmations were quite as controversial as today. So, we'll see how this plays out.

[Thumper]

I'm sure it will go fine. Mitch warned the Democrats to treat him fairly...

[SciFiFisher]

I'm sure it will go fine. Mitch warned the Democrats to treat him fairly...

I think they should treat him as fairly as Mitch treated Merrick Garland.

[SciFiFisher]

He is considerably better qualified as a judge than most of the Trump administration picks. Of course he won't come right out and say that he wants to over turn Roe V Wade. What he wants is a case that he can use to overturn Roe V Wade. He has already gone on record as being anti-abortion, pro-business, anti-environmental, and anti-regulation.

Probably even more important for Trump is that Kavanaugh is on record that he believes a sitting president should not be tried for crimes or be subject to civil litigation while in office. And that was the kewpie doll prize for Trump. How perfect that you can actually appoint a Supreme Court judge who agrees that you are above the law as President.

Makes you wonder if he can pardon himself.

[Thumper]

Yep.

[geonuc]

That a sitting president can't be tried or sued is actually a legal stance that holds great favor among constitutional scholars, I believe. I'm not a scholar obviously, but I also take that stance.

The more relevant question with Kavanaugh, I think, is whether a president can pardon himself.

[SciFiFisher]

That a sitting president can't be tried or sued is actually a legal stance that holds great favor among constitutional scholars, I believe. I'm not a scholar obviously, but I also take that stance.

The more relevant question with Kavanaugh, I think, is whether a president can pardon himself.

I know that I may not sound like it at times but I am actually not against doctrine that says you cannot use legal maneuvers to drive a sitting president out of office. i.e. a sitting president probably should be immune from most forms of prosecution and civil torts.

I believe there is even some precedence apart from the executive branch. For example, as a government employee I cannot be personally sued for malpractice on the part of the government. There are some caveats but in general I don't have to worry about being personally liable. One of the perks of being a medical person who works for the Federal government.

I even agree with the intent of the doctrine. My challenge lies in the fact that we have a sitting president who has egregiously flouted ethics and the law. I am even strongly of the opinion that he has committed treason. There is sufficient smoke that the raging bonfire of ethical violations, laws broken, and blatant disregard for the common welfare of the U.S. is mind boggling. And what has me even more incredulous is the tidal wave of GOP and other supporters who turn a blind eye. In fact, it appears that many of them are willing accessories to the crimes. And are encouraged to commit crimes of their own.

And we have judges who seem willing to support, aid, and abet the crimes and ethical violations. I realize that the U.S. has always been a lot more chaotic than we pretend it has but I am not sure I recall any period in history where it was so open and obvious that we are being run by a bunch of common crooks.

[geonuc]

I even agree with the intent of the doctrine. My challenge lies in the fact that we have a sitting president who has egregiously flouted ethics and the law. I am even strongly of the opinion that he has committed treason. There is sufficient smoke that the raging bonfire of ethical violations, laws broken, and blatant disregard for the common welfare of the U.S. is mind boggling. And what has me even more incredulous is the tidal wave of GOP and other supporters who turn a blind eye. In fact, it appears that many of them are willing accessories to the crimes. And are encouraged to commit crimes of their own.

Nevertheless, the legal remedy cannot be to sue or try a sitting president. The president is (probably) immune and should be immune. Think about what it would mean if you COULD sue or try the president? Sure, you don't like this guy but how about the next president? Or Obama when he was in office? This is not a precedent that you even remotely want to have happen.

The remedy for a president who is breaking the law is clear and straightforward: impeachment.
The remedy for Congresscritters who will not impeach a president that needs impeaching is also clear: vote.
The remedy for a US Supreme Court that says corporations are people is also clear:a constitutional amendment.

Yes, I know there are massive difficulties and issues with the above (no one wants a President Pence, GOP gerrymandering is slowly making elections a joke, etc). But it's the system we have.

[SciFi Chick]

I agree geonuc. We may not like the system. But we need to fix the system. Not entirely dismantle and break the system.

[Rommie]

Yes, I know there are massive difficulties and issues with the above (no one wants a President Pence, GOP gerrymandering is slowly making elections a joke, etc). But it's the system we have.

I think a huge fraction of the voices I hear really pulling for circumventing these things and hoping they'll be saved in that way are frankly people who wish we could be saved from problems we face deus ex machina style. The more extreme version of this from the other side are the people who think Sandy Hook is actually a false flag, government conspiracy thing- because then you'd have to admit that you live in a world where things like that can happen.

We very unfortunately live in a world where we are barreling towards a constitutional crisis, and there's no one going to swoop in from the sides to solve the issue. My understanding is even Mueller thinks as geonuc does that the president can't be tried, and has to be impeached. But on the bright side, I do look forward to the rest of the fucking ship going down even if he can't.

[SciFiFisher]

I even agree with the intent of the doctrine. My challenge lies in the fact that we have a sitting president who has egregiously flouted ethics and the law. I am even strongly of the opinion that he has committed treason. There is sufficient smoke that the raging bonfire of ethical violations, laws broken, and blatant disregard for the common welfare of the U.S. is mind boggling. And what has me even more incredulous is the tidal wave of GOP and other supporters who turn a blind eye. In fact, it appears that many of them are willing accessories to the crimes. And are encouraged to commit crimes of their own.

Nevertheless, the legal remedy cannot be to sue or try a sitting president. The president is (probably) immune and should be immune. Think about what it would mean if you COULD sue or try the president? Sure, you don't like this guy but how about the next president? Or Obama when he was in office? This is not a precedent that you even remotely want to have happen.

The remedy for a president who is breaking the law is clear and straightforward: impeachment.
The remedy for Congresscritters who will not impeach a president that needs impeaching is also clear: vote.
The remedy for a US Supreme Court that says corporations are people is also clear:a constitutional amendment.

Yes, I know there are massive difficulties and issues with the above (no one wants a President Pence, GOP gerrymandering is slowly making elections a joke, etc). But it's the system we have.

I am not sure if I wish I disagree with you. LOL. I realize that we cannot railroad a bad one just because they are bad. Because then when someone wants to railroad a good one it just makes it easier. We do need to change things by using the process. Because the alternatives are probably a good example of killing the patient to cure them. Sigh.

[SciFiFisher]

I agree geonuc. We may not like the system. But we need to fix the system. Not entirely dismantle and break the system.

I find your lack of revolutionary spirit disturbing.

[SciFiFisher]

Yes, I know there are massive difficulties and issues with the above (no one wants a President Pence, GOP gerrymandering is slowly making elections a joke, etc). But it's the system we have.

I think a huge fraction of the voices I hear really pulling for circumventing these things and hoping they'll be saved in that way are frankly people who wish we could be saved from problems we face deus ex machina style. The more extreme version of this from the other side are the people who think Sandy Hook is actually a false flag, government conspiracy thing- because then you'd have to admit that you live in a world where things like that can happen.

We very unfortunately live in a world where we are barreling towards a constitutional crisis, and there's no one going to swoop in from the sides to solve the issue. My understanding is even Mueller thinks as geonuc does that the president can't be tried, and has to be impeached. But on the bright side, I do look forward to the rest of the fucking ship going down even if he can't.

One possible hope/thought is that Mueller may provide enough evidence that even the idiots in congress have no choice but to move to impeach.

[Rommie]

Yes, I know there are massive difficulties and issues with the above (no one wants a President Pence, GOP gerrymandering is slowly making elections a joke, etc). But it's the system we have.

I think a huge fraction of the voices I hear really pulling for circumventing these things and hoping they'll be saved in that way are frankly people who wish we could be saved from problems we face deus ex machina style. The more extreme version of this from the other side are the people who think Sandy Hook is actually a false flag, government conspiracy thing- because then you'd have to admit that you live in a world where things like that can happen.

We very unfortunately live in a world where we are barreling towards a constitutional crisis, and there's no one going to swoop in from the sides to solve the issue. My understanding is even Mueller thinks as geonuc does that the president can't be tried, and has to be impeached. But on the bright side, I do look forward to the rest of the fucking ship going down even if he can't.

One possible hope/thought is that Mueller may provide enough evidence that even the idiots in congress have no choice but to move to impeach.

I believe that's the dream...

[SciFi Chick]

So if today's performance is any indication, we might get a President Pence.

And if the Russians are convicted, does that mean the election is nullified?

[SciFiFisher]

So if today's performance is any indication, we might get a President Pence.

And if the Russians are convicted, does that mean the election is nullified?

That would depend on the current crop of congress critters actually realizing that they should probably impeach Trump. So far it does not look like they will. There may be some conservatives who think there are grounds but they are almost universally terrified of what the base will do to them if they crucify the Donald. Even the liberals are saying the risk of backlash gives them pause when it comes to talking about impeaching the man.


Good question. There is literally no precedent for nullifying a presidential election. The closet we came in recent memory was Gore challenging the Florida election results and he chose to drop it in the interest of unity and not splitting the country in two.

This is partly why we keep hearing the words "constitutional crisis". We would literally be on totally new ground in many respects if we actually decided that Trump won the election due to fraud and chicanery and we had to void his win. Would we have to run another election and give the GOP a chance to field a different candidate? Or would it mean that we would call Hilary and say "you are the new president"? And then what about the VP? Yep, he would have to go too. Or would he? Because of the way the ticket is created i.e. we vote for President and VP with one vote I would think so but lawyers might think differently.

As for the Russians they will probably never stand trial. While indicted they would have to be extradited to stand trial and that is probably not going to happen.

The reality is that if anything happens at all it will probably be an impeachment with Pence becoming president. He has done a bang up job of trying to look like the most ignorant man in the world about the shenigans that have been going on. And mostly succeeding. To the point where I have to wonder if the man can remember what the fuck he had for breakfast today.

But, I suspect that by the time this plays out fully Trump will have served his full 4 year term. And in truth it may drag on past that.

[Rommie]

I think honestly we will never truly know the full extent of the 2016 election, and thus it will never really be nullified because that's not possible (plus you know it's been two years). The constitution certainly does not address it.

I honestly don't know if today's Congress will actually do more than the jack shit they've been doing about the Surrender Summit today. Maybe I'm in a cynical mood, I don't know. My brother keeps insisting that the Dems will take the house in 2018, and Trump will become the first impeached president to be re-elected in 2020, so I'm always thinking it's not the dumbest thing to say given what shit he's survived so far.

I would btw be interested to hear the military members of this board tell me what the definition of treason actually is and whether you think Trump engaged in it.

[SciFiFisher]

I would btw be interested to hear the military members of this board tell me what the definition of treason actually is and whether you think Trump engaged in it.

There are a couple of aspects to treason. In the strickest military sense it boils down to assisting a foriegn power in a manner that injures the U.S. or gives a material advantage to a foreign power. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has some interesting aspects and there are number of articles that could be used to charge someone who did that. That is assuming that person actually was subject to the UCMJ. Which the president is not. And if you look up Treason in the UCMJ it usually defaults to the Espionage Article 109A from which that definition is taken.


The constitution itself gives us a little more to go with in regard to Treason. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

There are also some strick provisions against enlisting a foriegn power to help sway elections, using foriegn money to win elections, and other aspects that come into play. For example, he could be considered to be guilty of espionage which entails selling your country out in exchange for something. It's strongly similar to treason but does not require us to be in an active state of war to be charged with said crime.


On a personal level I strongly beleive that Donald J. Trump committed treason. I think,that if he goes down, the primary charges will probably be for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. One of the reasons for that is that treason is rarely used unless we are actually in a declared state of war. I beleive that Trump "adhered to our enemy" and that he provided them with "Aid and Comfort". But, a prosecutor might not actually use that charge due to the narrow definition that treason sometimes falls into.


The more we learn about Trump and how long he has possibly been influenced by the Russians (since at least the 1980's) it is not too much of a stretch to start thinking in terms of espionage and treason.

[geonuc]

Good question. There is literally no precedent for nullifying a presidential election. The closet we came in recent memory was Gore challenging the Florida election results and he chose to drop it in the interest of unity and not splitting the country in two.

No, not only is there no precedent, there is no mechanism for nullifying a presidential election once Congress certifies the Electoral College results.

Gore didn't give up. The US Supreme Court ruled against him.