Yeah, the voters made a bad pick. Do you think our congress will reliably make better ones?
That’s not the topic. The topic is whether they are competent to write laws that set criminal offenses. We pretty much have to agree to that. Should they also be able to include terms that say, “Hey, this one is serious enough to disqualify someone convicted of it for public office.”
At this point, it’s an extremely short list. So I would say the actual evidence in front of us is, yes, they are competent to do that. As opposed to speculation that they might not be, which currently has no evidence at all. Because they haven’t done so yet in 250+ years.
3 Likes
We do have evidence of what Congress does, in the places they’ve been able to bar people from other activities. We know that Congress has been happy to use political party as a grounds to strip rights (Taft Hartley Act), but we’ve also never seen the voters elect someone convicted of the crimes you are worried about. If we can’t trust the voters to decide who should hold office, we don’t have a democracy in any sense of the word.
Taft-Hartley? Shitty law, but I don’t see how it’s germane to this discussion.
As for trusting voters or not, that still is a hell of a stretch to apply that to convicted criminals. It’s not a conflict to say, trust the voters to choose and also restrict people who’ve acted directly against the interests of the country (which is similarly codified in the 14th Amendment!) from being eligible for office.
You’re acting like it’s some kind of tragedy if someone is prohibited from public office. There are millions of people who can do that job, not just a handful of brilliant assholes.
I trust the voters to choose one from the field of eligible candidates.
3 Likes
For an absolutely ideal scenario, let’s have the Orange Shit running third-party, too.
He wouldn’t have to siphon away many percentage points to turn things into an absolute massacre for GOP.
5 Likes
That’s my fantasy for after he loses the GQP nom after a lengthy, bloody primary battle. Then his primary nemesis is DeSantis and all of his idiot energy is directed at spinning lies against him until Nov.
7 Likes
New information explaining at least part of the motive for stealing and holding on to all the documents in the first place.
Trump thought the National Archives had some documents that would prove the investigation into Russian interference of the 2016 election was a “hoax” but they wouldn’t let him have them. So he thought he could strong-arm them into a “trade” in which he returned the documents he had no right to keep in exchange for other documents he had no right to have (if they even existed).
8 Likes
sounds like just another typical delaying tactic. a sort of, oh yeah, call my bluff.
that is to say if it did happen, and isn’t just another thing he made up to signal to his supporters his continued upset over needing russian support to win the election
any documents he’d have been given, he’d simply have held on to without giving anything back. but truly, i don’t believe the story. ive never heard any evidence before that he plans ahead
he’s the exact opposite of a grandmaster. ( though he would probably put a device up his butt to help him cheat )
6 Likes
Nonetheless, Mr. Cannon told associates that the boxes needed to be shipped back as they were, so the professional archivists could be the ones to sift through the material and set aside what they believed belonged to Mr. Trump. What is more, Mr. Cannon believed there was the possibility that the boxes could contain classified material, according to two people briefed on the discussions, and none of the staff members in Mr. Trump’s presidential office at Mar-a-Lago had proper security clearances.
It was around that same time that Mr. Trump floated the idea of offering the deal to return the boxes in exchange for documents he believed would expose the Russia investigation as a “hoax” cooked up by the F.B.I. Mr. Trump did not appear to know specifically what he thought the archives had — only that there were items he wanted.
Mr. Trump’s aides — recognizing that such a swap would be a non-starter since the government had a clear right to the material Mr. Trump had taken from the White House and the Russia-related documents held by the archives remained marked as classified — never acted on the idea.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Ditto. It’s bullshit.
Also getting tired of Ms Haberman the Trump whisperer.
8 Likes
For the love of GOP, Montrumpsor!
6 Likes
Now there’s a wall I wouldn’t mind seeing them build.
7 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
