If Elected, Donald Trump Would Face Few Hurdles to Prosecuting Rivals- The New York Times (Free Article)
nytimes.com
In effect, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is becoming a referendum on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants to have in the future
Not American either, but the situation looking from the outside is pretty horrendous. The solution is not to vote for him, or to turn out in such numbers that it would be impossible for him to get in.
Here's the rub, about fifty percent of your voters either want him, or don't care enough either way.
So many millions of your people are toying with the idea of soaking yourselves in fuel and flicking a match.
You actually have the solution - get out and vote and get your families and friends out too, or suffer the consequences.
It’s less than 50%. The problem is there’s no stopping Trump supporters from voting in November.
Democrats historically only show up to vote in favor of a candidate, not in resistance to their opponent. It’s unbelievable how many people see voting as showing full support of a candidate’s policy, when it’s simply the most effective way for a citizen to strategically influence the nation.
“I can’t support anyone who supports genocide” is justification to stand aside and allow far more genocide of Ukrainians and Palestinians. The Palestinians’ options at the polls are currently bad or worse. Abstaining is allowing others to choose worse without your resistance.
Republicans are counting on the indifference of the left.
Inaction is action. Vote in November.
And since the Trump fans are talking about election fraud they will probably try to vote early and vote often.
That's voter fraud, and not something anyone in the know legitimately worries about.
Voter suppression is a way easier method to change elections and harder to prove.
That is the problem - his real vote is less than a winning vote, but he still may win. Not enough people care to stop him, including the voters (and non-voters) who don't want him.
It is a problem easily fixed and most Americans act like helpless spectators.
That's ok, join the rest of the world as we jointly watch it all unfold.
We'll get as many as possible to vote. It almost seems unfair that others in the world don't get a say in such an important election, since Biden winning could save the world from another world war. The stakes are once again, very high.
That is an interesting suggestion, and has been made many times before. Australia (for instance) is pretty much handcuffed to the US. Ever since WW2 we have been in lockstep with you guys. Every damn war and conflict. It would be nice to have a small say in who drags is into war that we never ask for.
But still, we do it to ourselves. Other countries don't.
If Joe doesn't get that he and his family may be in prison in 12 months... Trump has telegraphed that he will lock up or execute anyone who stands in his way. I hope voters get what's at stake here.
the maga people get it and want it I guess. Hopefully opposed people got it too and will vote
Do they really understand what they are asking for, and the scope of it? I have a hard time accepting that this many people fully understand who and what Trump is and entails, and voting for that.
No D next to his name, and they are pretty sure he'll hurt only the right people, so they are cool with it.
If elected, our problems are much bigger than one orange fascist traitor cunt.
How is it that it’s so hard to prosecute this sleazebag but somehow it’s easy for him to prosecute rivals?
E: after thinking about it it’s because his cronies will pile on making hearing after hearing and the judiciary is completely fucked with blatant political prejudice by conservative judges.
Because he wouldn't care about breaking the law, nor would his appointed prosecutors and judges
Branding. Democrats, for all their ills, do care about playing by the rules and optics of potential unfair conduct. Republicans generally know their base will believe anything they feed them but Democrats know people at home who make up their support are following along with the rule book. If they ditch their brand as the moral high ground between the two choices their goose is cooked.
Sorry, not American. Can an indicted person that have been plead guilty run for office there? It makes no sense to me.
Yes. Otherwise, a bad guy like Trump could push to have his political enemies convicted of random stuff just to put them in prison and keep them from running against him. Like Putin and Navalny, for example.
Of course the author of the law assumed that Americans would never be stupid enough to put an obvious, convicted felon and fraud into the presidency, but here we are.
This is why prisoners and felons need to be able to vote also. It wouldn't be all that difficult for Republicans to slap enough people in swing states with Felonies to change the election. We are talking about only thousands of votes in some instances.
Our politics have always had a built-in distrust of authority, ever since we cosplayed as natives to protest taxes by throwing tea into Boston Harbor. We tell ourselves that power comes from the people, and have instituted all sorts of checks on political power, with different branches and levels of government monitoring each other, to ensure that no one is deproved of their voice unjustly. This is why we consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, and we say that even a guilty conviction shouldn't prevent someone from running for office, because power ultimately comes from the people, not what the courts say.
The problem comes when:
So now we still think power comes from the people, but the people are outsourcing their beliefs to their devices, which are being filled with crap by algorithms who are convincing us to trust the wrong people.
(And it's not just a Smartphone thing: this goes back to Rush Limbaugh on AM Radio, and ultimately back to Roger Ailes, who thought that Nixon's real problem was that he didn't have his own news network who could attack his opposition and tell people what to think
AFAIK the reason it is allowed is to keep a corrupt government from charging and convicting all of their political rivals, leaving only their allies as eligible candidates. The idea was to let the people choose their leaders even when under a corrupt federal government.
That made sense before rich people and foreign interests figured out how to use the same tools to get people to part with their money, to also vote against their self interest.
Democracy cannot prevail when people are so easily dupped by ads, fake news, unregulated influencers, and social media algorithms. Democracy assumes people are critical thinkers with the time, energy, and knowledge to filter information.
He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of falsifying business records.
The only law in the Constitution preventing the holding of office for being a criminal is tied to insurrection and rebellion, of which he is not charged with inciting or assisting.
Which he also did, btw.
Yes, but he isn’t charged with incitement, assistance, or participation in a rebellion or insurrection. I honestly don’t know why.
For the record, he doesn’t have to be charged.
It’s enforced by a vote in congress as to if he’s eligible or not. Being that the one time this happened outside of participation in the civil war, it was a guy in congress, his chamber voted- but I assume it would take both houses to oust a president
Technically, yes, but without conviction it’s very easy for SCOTUS to overturn.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=Since%20Article%20VI%20of%20the,the%20Constitution%20could%20not%20stand.
I’m not sure how it would be contrary to the 14.3 and 14.5 amendments, but sure.
And oh, by the way, that would be gross partisanship and qualify scrotus for impeachment, as 14.5 assigned sole enforcement to congress.
It could be, but SCOTUS impeachment is exceedingly rare. The last attempt was Samuel Chase in 1805. He continued to serve until his death.
It also wouldn’t happen before November.
If the process that happened with whats-his-name-from-Wisconsin is followed, then they'd have to wait until after he's elected but before he's seated anyhow.
Further, Congress has the constitutional power to override SCOTUS decisions. It's happened five times. I don't know if SCOTUS has ever overturned a congressional action that was taken under the direct authority of the constitution.
if you're going to use 'this is incredibly unprecedented'... yes. it fucking is. It's incredibly unprecedented that a sitting US president used riots and insurrection to attempt to overturn the will of the people. such a blatant and unprecedented violation of democracy requires unprecedented responses. (like locking up an ex pres for insurrection.)
It makes no sense to us either, but yes, nothing stops a felon from becoming president
Oh good! Says the right-wing
Clinton and others will probably be ready, and probably do better in court.
And if their judge was appointed Trump, such as Aileen Cannon?
According to WP she's "Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida" so it's unlikely she'd be hearing their cases; and I don't think she'll be hearing his appeals. Trump's convictions might be dismissed by SCOTUS, but 5 November 2024 is 151 days away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon
I said "such as", because Trump appointed a lot more judges than just her. She's presiding over one of his current cases and is doing everything she can to help Trump. It's more than possible that could happen on future cases against Trump's rivals.
good points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_States,_civil_case
As someone living in the UK, I almost want him to get in to see what happens. The planet is fucked anyway, so why not go out with a bang?
How positively myopic of you.
It was a joke, but never mind. Probably should have added a /s to avoid confusing those who like getting angry at people.
I'm in the UK and I'm pretty certain if trump wins and fulfils his promise of pulling the US out of NATO, the world will be going to war, and don't think for a second that the US will be on our side.
Cause it can always get worse???
Just spitballing here, but oxygenated cooled buildings for the rich, middle class subscribe for oxygen bottles while they are awake, lower class literally unable to think straight.
If you’re talking nuclear war, then there’s going to be another population bottleneck in human history. Not like we haven’t gotten past 6 already.
Like Colonel Sanders in the matrix says: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.
Dying slowly from radiation sickness may be your way to go out, but I'd prefer something a little less horrific.
You guys are completely fucked if trump wins. There is still some hope with a tepid democrat in office.
This was a reasonable 2016 viewpoint. I'd prefer not to hasten my country's descent into an authoritarian nightmare, please.
This absolutely was NOT a reasonable viewpoint in 2016. He's been clear about who and what he was going back to the 80s, at least.