Trump promises to subvert the law — first by freeing the Jan. 6 criminals

[robosmith]

Trump promises to subvert the law — first by freeing the Jan. 6 criminals

Quote

Of all the promises that Donald Trump has made for a second term as president, he’s all but certain to fulfill one if he’s reelected: pardoning most, if not all, of the rioters who’ve been arrested, pleaded guilty or been convicted by judges or juries for their roles in besieging the nation’s Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and injuring roughly 140 police defenders.

That’s nearly 1,400 people — “unbelievable patriots” all, in Trump’s noxious telling — who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Most of the former president’s other campaign vows — deporting millions who’ve long lived in this country, deploying federal troops against protesters, spending government funds at whim and gutting the civil service, for example — can be stopped by Congress or the federal courts. Many likely would be.

A president’s pardon power, however, is virtually unlimited, as the Supreme Court held in 1886. And Trump, though not alone among presidents in this, has abused that power before.

What could be more abusive or obscene than unilaterally absolving the would-be insurrectionists, nearly 900 currently, who have been fairly prosecuted and sentenced according to the rule of law that a president is sworn to uphold?

Yet, like so many of his outrageous statements, Trump’s pledge to wipe the criminals’ records clean and spring jailed “hostages” on “the first day we get into office” doesn’t shock as it should. It’s just Trump being Trump, shooting off his mouth.

But this vow isn’t like the implausible claims that he’d build a 2,000-mile border wall and Mexico would pay for it, or that he’d ban all Muslims from the country. A reelected Trump could and likely will make good on the vow that would erase accountability en masse for the fatal, antidemocratic violence on Jan. 6. 

Except, IT'S NOT "just Trump being Trump, shooting off his mouth" cause he is LIKELY to DO IT, cause he NEEDS HIS PERSONAL ARMY.

[ironstone]

How come you don't support ALL laws? How about federal immigration laws which routinely get ignored by sanctuary cities?

[gatomontes99]

Anyone else notice that all the allegations of subverting the law were all how Trump would use the legal avenues to achieve desired goals?

[sharkman]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump promises to subvert the law — first by freeing the Jan. 6 criminals

Except, IT'S NOT "just Trump being Trump, shooting off his mouth" cause he is LIKELY to DO IT, cause he NEEDS HIS PERSONAL ARMY.

Wow, you've been really busy on this forum.  Did you lose your job or something?

[Fluffypants]

3 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Wow, you've been really busy on this forum.  Did you lose your job or something?

It's cute that you think he had a job.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

How come you don't support ALL laws? How about federal immigration laws which routinely get ignored by sanctuary cities?

That's cause. There is no federal law requiring state or local officials to enforce immigration law--and they have a very good rationale for not wanting to be involved in doing so.

This is the point of a federated government.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, ironstone said:

How come you don't support ALL laws? How about federal immigration laws which routinely get ignored by sanctuary cities?

There is NO REQUIREMENT under the law that local law enforcement enforce FEDERAL LAWS.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

That's cause. There is no federal law requiring state or local officials to enforce immigration law--and they have a very good rationale for not wanting to be involved in doing so.

This is the point of a federated government.

So the left gets to cherry pick which laws they'll enforce and which one's they wont. Got it.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Anyone else notice that all the allegations of subverting the law were all how Trump would use the legal avenues to achieve desired goals?

John Eastman admitted that the schemes he was advocating to force a contingent election would NOT PASS MUSTER with the SCOTUS.

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

Wow, you've been really busy on this forum.  Did you lose your job or something?

I am retired. How about you?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

It's cute that you think he had a job.

I made enough at my last job for Boeing Satellite Systems that I could afford to retire EASILY. I was making over $250K for 2+ years and now I make enough in pensions and SS to pay ALL my expenses because I own my San Diego townhouse outright and have well over half a mil in the bank, not to mention my IRAs.

Maybe if you work hard, someday you can retire like that.

7 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So the left gets to cherry pick which laws they'll enforce and which one's they wont. Got it.

It's not JUST "the left." Where do you get ^this BULLSHIT?

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

I made enough at my last job for Boeing Satellite Systems that I could afford to retire EASILY. I was making over $250K for 2+ years and now I make enough in pensions and SS to pay ALL my expenses because I own my San Diego townhouse outright and have well over half a mil in the bank, not to mention my IRAs.

Maybe if you work hard, someday you can retire like that.

It's not JUST "the left." Where do you get ^this BULLSHIT?

Lol...he worked for Boeing.

Is anyone surprised?

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, ironstone said:

So the left gets to cherry pick which laws they'll enforce and which one's they wont. Got it.

The left? Lol. Yeah, they do. So does "the right." And everybody in the middle. That's the way our laws work.

For example, marijuana is illegal at the federal level, but legal or decriminalized in half the states. State law enforcement is not required --and often not allowed -- to enforce federal law. 

We have different court systems too. 

 

[Nationalist]

Did some looking and yup...states do not "have" to enforce federal immigration laws. Meh...it is what it is.

There is a solution though. Revoke all federal funding to the state.

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...he worked for Boeing.

Is anyone surprised?

Remember he is a super tall super genius that all the girls love.

He has all this time yet he can't be bothered to look things up that are common knowledge of anyone with a modicum political and economic knowledge and demands proof and when he gets it he either cherry picks or complains about the source.

[Nationalist]

36 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Remember he is a super tall super genius that all the girls love.

He has all this time yet he can't be bothered to look things up that are common knowledge of anyone with a modicum political and economic knowledge and demands proof and when he gets it he either cherry picks or complains about the source.

Meh...don't forget that the air is much more thin at the elevation of his head so...ya...there's that...

 

[User]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's cause. There is no federal law requiring state or local officials to enforce immigration law--and they have a very good rationale for not wanting to be involved in doing so.

This is the point of a federated government.

And to the point here... you cheer on the subversion of law this way... so don't complain when Trump uses his legal authority to pardon people. 

[gatomontes99]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

John Eastman admitted that the schemes he was advocating to force a contingent election would NOT PASS MUSTER with the SCOTUS.

I am retired. How about you?

That's not what we were talking about and you should know because you started this topic.

[User]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

Except, IT'S NOT "just Trump being Trump, shooting off his mouth" cause he is LIKELY to DO IT, cause he NEEDS HIS PERSONAL ARMY.

I hope his rhetoric is mostly hyperbole, and he will focus his pardons on only the misdemeanor cases and the ones where the DOJ has vindictively gone after people for what is trespassing. 

And he leaves the violent people in prison. 

 

[Hodad]

31 minutes ago, User said:

And to the point here... you cheer on the subversion of law this way... so don't complain when Trump uses his legal authority to pardon people. 

Lol. It's not a subversion of the law. It's explicitly how our legal system is designed, with intent. It is the law. And sanctuary cities have compelling reasons--responsibilities to their citizens--to keep their law enforcement officers from enforcing federal law. 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Hodad

[User]

Just now, Hodad said:

Lol. It's not a subversion of the law. It's explicitly how our legal system is designed. It is the law. And sanctuary cities have compelling reasons--responsibilities to their citizens--to keep their law enforcement officers from enforcing federal law. 

Glad you agree then. Trump isn't subverting anything either. 

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, User said:

Glad you agree then. Trump isn't subverting anything either. 

I do not agree. Pardon powers, like any powers attached to public office, are supposed to be exercised in the public interest. Sanctuary cities are acting in the public interest. Trump has used and would again use the pardon power to act in his self interest. 

[User]

Just now, Hodad said:

I do not agree. Pardon powers, like any powers attached to public office, are supposed to be exercised in the public interest. Sanctuary cities are acting in the public interest. Trump has used and would again use the pardon power to act in his self interest. 

I see... so subverting law is now based on if you think its in the public interest or not. 

I don't think letting illegal immigrants murder our citizens and kill them is in the public interest... that aside, this boils down to you are OK with breaking some laws that you don't like and support enabling that law breaking. 

You are just fine with subverting the law after all. 

 

[Hodad]

12 minutes ago, User said:

I see... so subverting law is now based on if you think its in the public interest or not. 

I don't think letting illegal immigrants murder our citizens and kill them is in the public interest... that aside, this boils down to you are OK with breaking some laws that you don't like and support enabling that law breaking. 

You are just fine with subverting the law after all. 

 

Neither the sanctuary cities nor Trump are breaking the laws. The latter is latter is certainly subverting it. 

And sanctuary cities do not "support" breaking the law. Do you really not know why sanctuary cities have that policy? Like you haven't stopped to wonder why? Do you assume it's out of spite? Is that how you make decisions?

[User]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Neither the sanctuary cities nor Trump are breaking the laws. The latter is latter is certainly subverting it. 

And sanctuary cities do not "support" breaking the law. Do you really not know why sanctuary cities have that policy? Like you haven't stopped to wonder why? Do you assume it's out of spite? Is that how you make decisions?

He is no more subverting than what you support with sanctuary cities. 

Why they have the policy is irrelevant to the fact that the law is being subverted. They are aiding people in breaking the law. Yes, much of it is political spite. 

[Fluffypants]

3 minutes ago, User said:

He is no more subverting than what you support with sanctuary cities. 

Why they have the policy is irrelevant to the fact that the law is being subverted. They are aiding people in breaking the law. Yes, much of it is political spite. 

What they forget is that it wasn't until Trump became elected that sanctuary cities and states became widespread because they didn't want him to enforce the law.

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Fluffypants