• 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

brihard said:
Not to my knowledge. In the case of the ‘pre-emptive pardons’ it was for periods of time that had already passed, not pardons for hypothetical future acts. Maybe that’s the difference?
Click to expand...
So the reverse of getting busted for an offence you might commit?
 
ModlrMike said:
I think that the real risk to Trump is that it opens the door to impeachment. It doesn't matter if he is immune from prosecution, or if he has the power to pardon in this instance. Any effort to twart the judiciary here would be a clear violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...
If they didn’t impeach him for sicking a mob on the Capitol to beat cops to an inch of their lives and didn’t impeach him when he pardoned every single one of them, he will not be impeached.
ModlrMike said:
He can't pardon them until they've been tried and found guilty. That's going to be a really bad look.
Click to expand...
Pre-emptive pardon is now a thing, apparently. Coupled with immunity for official acts, this will not end well.
 
The next step in this part of the saga is that they select a number totally irredeemable savages from some prison in Texas for example, and send them out. They will use their villainy as justification. This will then evolve into the "right" to "deport" US citizens, whom they have the power to decide are criminals. They will then manufacture the offence of disagreeing with the government, or protesting against it. Make no mistake, the Ábrego García case is the very thin edge of the wedge.
 
RangerRay said:
Pre-emptive pardon is now a thing, apparently. Coupled with immunity for official acts, this will not end well.
Click to expand...
"Pre-emptive pardon" is pre-emptive in the sense that it precedes a theoretical trial, but it cannot extend past the present. It is not "pre-emptive" in time (pardoning people for future crimes that might be committed).
 
ModlrMike said:
The next step in this part of the saga is that they select a number totally irredeemable savages from some prison in Texas for example, and send them out. They will use their villainy as justification. This will then evolve into the "right" to "deport" US citizens, whom they have the power to decide are criminals. They will then manufacture the offence of disagreeing with the government, or protesting against it. Make no mistake, the Ábrego García case is the very thin edge of the wedge.
Click to expand...
All of this is possible. The scenario even makes sense: choose the most unsympathetic pawns at each step. Persecuting people without due process is almost a step beyond the usual lawfare administrations conduct against critics from time to time; certainly people have been persecuted by the US government in the past by various means formal and informal.

It isn't the very thin edge of the wedge, though. That can be traced at least back to "GWOT". In particular, the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention/incarceration facility was a template for putting people beyond the reach of US domestic judicial oversight. This is the wedge broadening to add new categories of undesirables.

The power to deport people who have foreign citizenship isn't controversial; foreign criminals illegally in the US are just a subset of foreign people illegally in the US. When and how naturalized citizens are deportable is still an open question, and criminal conviction might be one of the determining factors. I hold that citizens by birth shouldn't be deportable, irrespective of whether they hold other citizenship. Deportation must follow a prescribed legal process, which is one of the alarm points right now. Deportation to incarceration outside the US, of course, has already been established, and over six presidential terms (including the one in which it was established) none who have the power to end it have done so.

A very few consistently principled critics forewarned of this. Many of the publicly well-known current administration critics (people I recognize by name) supported some parts of past policies. Them, I pay no attention to. The question is whether the silent majority are willing to become unsilent and heed the very few principled critics in a way that will prevent the critics-of-convenience from lapsing if they gain power/influence in future. I suspect attempts to deport lawful American citizens, with or without convictions, will flip public opinion decisively. As usual, it is mainly the Bush-era neo-cons who still have platforms at places like The Bulwark and occasionally The Atlantic I regard with contempt.
 
used to watch Bill Maher all the time but got tired of the anti-muslim stuff


i honestly dont know what to make of this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top