• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Good2Golf said:
Anyone taking odds yet on how long Ghislaine Maxwell stays alive once she’s moved to minimum security in Texas?
Click to expand...
PMedMoe said:
I was going the other way; how long until she's pardoned?
Click to expand...
How about a hybrid: minimum security move (already reportedly done), quiet (like that’ll be possible) pardon, followed by the US equivalent to a fall out of a second floor Russian window … 🍿
 
The Bread Guy said:
How about a hybrid: minimum security move (already reportedly done), quiet (like that’ll be possible) pardon, followed by the US equivalent to a fall out of a second floor Russian window … 🍿
Click to expand...
Deportation to Israel where she has an 'accident'
 
McG said:
Are either of those countries obliged to recognize a foreign pardon for a trafficker to pedophiles?
Click to expand...
Only for the US Charges - they are more than welcome to do their own thing.
 
brihard said:
“Recognize” meaning what?
Click to expand...
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
 
Haggis said:
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
Click to expand...
Yeah, zi was thinking from an immigration standpoint it probably doesn’t ter.
 
Haggis said:
I'm sptiballing here, but an example would be that the US does not recognize Canadian record suspensions (formerly pardons) and will still require persons seeking entry with certain criminal convictions to apply for and be granted an entry waiver.

As she holds UK and French citizenship, she may be able to enter the UK or France by right, unless either country revokes her citizenship.
Click to expand...
Fairly certain, thanks to her father, she has the right/ability to have Israeli citizenship as well.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Fairly certain, thanks to her father, she has the right/ability to have Israeli citizenship as well.
Click to expand...
But unless she actually holds it, the "right/ability" to do so means nothing. She's still a foreign national.
 
This article is an important read to understand where things are with Trump, with tariffs and a possible good reason why Carney and team are not sweating right about now.


How Trump’s $150 billion tariff brag could backfire​

A court could rule the administration has to repay tariff revenue, which would undercut one of the president’s central selling points for its sweeping trade policie

Some key pieces from the article:

1) Trump’s own Justice Department has acknowledged in legal briefs filed with a U.S. Court of Appeals in recent months that if the tariffs were ruled unlawful, importers would be entitled to refunds,

2) Perhaps more damaging for the president, it would also undercut one of the core arguments he’s made to justify his trade agenda: that his tariffs are bringing in unprecedented revenue that can help pay for his tax cuts and, one day, could replace the income tax altogether.

3) already alarming some Trump allies who strongly support his tariff policies, but also are pessimistic that the duties the administration imposed under emergency law will survive the Supreme Court.

4) “Two separate courts have already ruled strongly against them, so the idea that this is a sure thing doesn’t hold up,” said a person close to the White House. “The odds of this going against them are way higher than 50-50.”

5) trade experts interviewed for this article didn’t rule out the possibility that the court could order some form of repayment. While the lawsuit only seeks repayment of tariffs collected from the plaintiffs, five experts interviewed for this article said a ruling granting those damages would likely prompt a wave of similar legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement.

6) And the administration has said clearly in court that if the tariffs are ruled illegal, they’ll pay the money back, with interest. So they’re not fighting the fact that the duties would have to be returned.”
 
Haggis said:
But unless she actually holds it, the "right/ability" to do so means nothing. She's still a foreign national.
Click to expand...
Mind you, if she was deported to Israel, she’d be far from the first crew criminal kicked out of the US to not quite the right spot these days.
 
Czech_pivo said:
This article is an important read to understand where things are with Trump, with tariffs and a possible good reason why Carney and team are not sweating right about now.


How Trump’s $150 billion tariff brag could backfire​

A court could rule the administration has to repay tariff revenue, which would undercut one of the president’s central selling points for its sweeping trade policie

Some key pieces from the article:

1) Trump’s own Justice Department has acknowledged in legal briefs filed with a U.S. Court of Appeals in recent months that if the tariffs were ruled unlawful, importers would be entitled to refunds,

2) Perhaps more damaging for the president, it would also undercut one of the core arguments he’s made to justify his trade agenda: that his tariffs are bringing in unprecedented revenue that can help pay for his tax cuts and, one day, could replace the income tax altogether.

3) already alarming some Trump allies who strongly support his tariff policies, but also are pessimistic that the duties the administration imposed under emergency law will survive the Supreme Court.

4) “Two separate courts have already ruled strongly against them, so the idea that this is a sure thing doesn’t hold up,” said a person close to the White House. “The odds of this going against them are way higher than 50-50.”

5) trade experts interviewed for this article didn’t rule out the possibility that the court could order some form of repayment. While the lawsuit only seeks repayment of tariffs collected from the plaintiffs, five experts interviewed for this article said a ruling granting those damages would likely prompt a wave of similar legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement.

6) And the administration has said clearly in court that if the tariffs are ruled illegal, they’ll pay the money back, with interest. So they’re not fighting the fact that the duties would have to be returned.”
Click to expand...

So then, patience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top