Support NeoGAF

[Ogodei]

Apparently MacArthur (of the MacArthur amendment) is getting *rekt* in his town hall.

Vague transcript:

MacArthur: “I want to go back to my daughter.” Grace his special needs child who died at age 11. Audience member: “We know about her.”

The audience continues to boo his dead daughter

MacArthur ask for “respect.” Audience: “Can I be disrespectful on behalf of all the people you’re going to kill.”

MacArthur booed and hit w "shame on you" for long wind-up story about his daughter. "I will say, shame on you, quite honestly," he says.

Damn. Knives out at that one.

 

[Tall4Life]

Oh god please let this finally fucking stick

 

[The Technomancer]

It's literally been a day and we're already getting leaks from across the spectrum.

Good job, Trump. You didn't just kick the hornet's nest, you set it on fire.

I'm amazed that this is literally exactly what we all thought would happen if he fired Comey but we didn't think he would be stupid enough to fire Comey

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

It's literally been a day and we're already getting leaks from across the spectrum.

Good job, Trump. You didn't just kick the hornet's nest, you set it on fire.

He done picked it up and used it as a basketball

 

[Paches]

Apparently MacArthur (of the MacArthur amendment) is getting *rekt* in his town hall.

Vague transcript:

MacArthur: “I want to go back to my daughter.” Grace his special needs child who died at age 11. Audience member: “We know about her.”

The audience continues to boo his dead daughter

MacArthur ask for “respect.” Audience: “Can I be disrespectful on behalf of all the people you’re going to kill.”

MacArthur booed and hit w "shame on you" for long wind-up story about his daughter. "I will say, shame on you, quite honestly," he says.

Damn. Knives out at that one.

No holds barred.

 

[Barzul]

The Time's source is usually Trump himself though, so.

True but not always and I think it's almost a crutch because they can't be as venomous in their reporting as a result.

 

[RastaMentality]

It's kind of crazy that Feinstein is running for another term in 2018. She'll be 85 when she runs and 91 when her theoretical term ends.

There's a lot of ambitious Democrats in CA looking to move up, though.

she really needs to step aside for younger POC candidates. it'd be awesome for Cali to be the first state with two black/latino senators.

 

[SexyFish]

Boy I'd love for Trump to be stupid enough to fire Comey right now.

I guess this still stands if the hornet's nest is still as fucked as it is now.

Jesus. Can't believe I was only a week early.

 

[Killthee]

https://t.co/xR7YdQ2CAw?amp=1

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm not saying he has a chance in hell, but the Democrat running in the Alabama special election is a true hero. He was the guy who successfully prosecuted the 1963 Birmingham church bombers.

 

[Emerson]

I'm well aware these people should be taken with a very large chunk of salt, but the Taylor/Mensch/Schindler crew are going bananas on Twitter tonight.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I'm not saying he has a chance in hell, but the Democrat running in the Alabama special election is a true hero. He was the guy who successfully prosecuted the 1963 Birmingham church bombers.

Dems in the South are gonna have to be from legal backgrounds to be successful like this guy and AG Hood here. If you're in a position like that, everyone likes what you do (maybe in NYC there are shades of grey and all, but here in MS, Hood just prosecutes thieves and child sex offenders, which has bipartisan support obviously).

 

[~Kinggi~]

I'm well aware these people should be taken with a very large chunk of salt, but the Taylor/Mensch/Schindler crew are going bananas on Twitter tonight.

after schindler gathered the appropriate amount of guns and ammo he says he has big news for tomorrow!

 

[Emerson]

They're basically claiming arrests will be coming in the next few days.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

If arrests start happening, Trump will immediately start pardoning. He doesn't give a fuck about optics.

 

[Wilsongt]

Sean talking to the distinguished Dr. Gorka, intelligence expert, about the firing of Comey.

 

[Blader]

If arrests start happening, Trump will immediately start pardoning. He doesn't give a fuck about optics.

Yeah I've been thinking about that now too. On the other hand, he may only reserve that for people under investigation that he actually likes, like Flynn. He might not give a shit about Page, for instance.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah I've been thinking about that now too. On the other hand, he may only reserve that for people under investigation that he actually likes, like Flynn. He might not give a shit about Page, for instance.

...can they just be arrested again?

 

[numble]

...can they just be arrested again?

No.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

 

[The Technomancer]

No.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

drat

 

[BigWeather]

He can't pardon people who are indicted by the NY AG (RICO case), though, right? Also, if he does start pardoning it will be a bloodbath for what little support remains of this administration.

 

[StopMakingSense]

He can't pardon people who are indicted by the NY AG (RICO case), though, right? Also, if he does start pardoning it will be a bloodbath for what little support remains of this administration.

He can pardon any federal crime, I believe.

 

[pigeon]

No.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

I'm unclear on how your link proves your thesis.

If Trump started pardoning his cronies out of hand it would be another step into uncharted territory. Nixon explicitly shied away from that for political reasons!

I suspect we would end up annulling the pardons, but it would be new law, either through the judiciary or legislative.

 

[Ogodei]

He can't pardon people who are indicted by the NY AG (RICO case), though, right? Also, if he does start pardoning it will be a bloodbath for what little support remains of this administration.

There's still a solid core of GOP support. The problem with pardoning is that it de facto admits guilt, unlike use of the fifth amendment.

 

[pigeon]

There's still a solid core of GOP support. The problem with pardoning is that it de facto admits guilt, unlike use of the fifth amendment.

Kind of. Ford pardoned Nixon for anything he MIGHT HAVE done to avoid him having to admit guilt.

 

[exmachina64]

I'm not saying he has a chance in hell, but the Democrat running in the Alabama special election is a true hero. He was the guy who successfully prosecuted the 1963 Birmingham church bombers.

I would actually expect Roy Moore to win the Republican primary and election.

 

[Wilsongt]

On Tuesday, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s hate crime law does not cover anti-gay assaults or any crime committed on the basis of sexual orientation. Its 3–2 decision marks a setback for civil rights advocates’ efforts to persuade courts that laws prohibiting violence and discrimination on the basis of sex also protect LGBTQ people. The loss, however, is a narrow one—and the poorly reasoned majority opinion is unlikely to affect the growing consensus in the federal judiciary that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is always “because of sex."

Tuesday’s decision in West Virginia v. Butler emerged from a disturbing case of anti-gay bias. In 2015, Steward Butler, a college football player, allegedly attacked two men for kissing in public after shouting homophobic slurs. Prosecutors charged Butler not only with battery but also with a hate crime. West Virginia’s hate crime statute does not explicitly include sexual orientation, but it does bar violence “because of sex.” Prosecutors argued that Butler’s alleged attack fell under this prohibition because it was motivated by sex stereotyping, and because sex lay at the root of the brutality: Butler allegedly beat each man for intimately associating with a person of the same sex, and if either were different sex, he would not have assailed them.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Allen H. Loughry II rejected this theory, writing that the “common and ordinary meaning” of the word “sex” simply “imparts being male or female, and does not include ‘sexual orientation.’ ” He reached this conclusion by citing several dictionary definitions and ignoring Supreme Court precedent interpreting sex discrimination to encompass “the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.” Loughry also noted that the legislature has repeatedly tried and failed to add “sexual orientation” to its hate crime statute. Its failure to add these words, Loughry asserted, indicates that the legislature did not intend to protect LGBTQ people from hate crimes.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...es_anti_gay_assaults_are_not_hate_crimes.html

 

[NihonTiger90]

He can pardon any federal crime, I believe.

Yes. If Schneiderman does start lobbing indictments for state RICO charges, Trump can do jack shit about it. He can only pardon federal crimes.

Kind of. Ford pardoned Nixon for anything he MIGHT HAVE done to avoid him having to admit guilt.

Correct. And he paid for it politically by being run back all the way to Grand Rapids.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I'm unclear on how your link proves your thesis.

If Trump started pardoning his cronies out of hand it would be another step into uncharted territory. Nixon explicitly shied away from that for political reasons!

I suspect we would end up annulling the pardons, but it would be new law, either through the judiciary or legislative.

A succeeding president can actually rescind pardons. Ulysses Grant undid two of Andrew Johnson's pardons and (some) conservatives tried to get W. to undo some of Clinton's.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Grant had tried to rescind a third pardon but the man in question had already left the prison and no effort was made to put him back in it. The law is, truly, just whatever you're willing to enforce.

 

[kirblar]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...es_anti_gay_assaults_are_not_hate_crimes.html

The last paragraph is actually pretty clear on this one. It's not the judges' fault that the state's so shitty.

 

[numble]

I'm unclear on how your link proves your thesis.

If Trump started pardoning his cronies out of hand it would be another step into uncharted territory. Nixon explicitly shied away from that for political reasons!

I suspect we would end up annulling the pardons, but it would be new law, either through the judiciary or legislative.

My thesis is they cannot be arrested again for crimes they are pardoned for. There is no constitutional precedent for the annulment of a Presidential pardon that has already been delivered. I think you would be able to legally challenge a hypothetical legislative annulment on ex post facto grounds and a hypothetical judicial annulment on double jeopardy grounds.

A succeeding president can actually rescind pardons. Ulysses Grant undid two of Andrew Johnson's pardons and (some) conservatives tried to get W. to undo some of Clinton's.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Grant had tried to rescind a third pardon but the man in question had already left the prison and no effort was made to put him back in it. The law is, truly, just whatever you're willing to enforce.

He was only able to revoke pardons that had not been delivered yet.

 

[Holmes]

You know I just read the replies to one of Pence's tweets and I just. I don't know.

 

[Holmes]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...es_anti_gay_assaults_are_not_hate_crimes.html

That's a reach from the Chief Justice if there ever was one. Especially considering he's "mistaking" sex for gender, contrary to court records and prededent.

edit: oops dp. Post more you guys.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

He was only able to revoke pardons that had not been delivered yet.

True, but George W. Bush was also able to undo his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, so the notion of revocation is certainly there. If a pardon is revocable even after "delivery" (which is meaningless in the modern age) and Grant succeeded in revoking a previous administration's ill-advised pardons then I think the argument is actionable. Certainly worth a supreme court case over.

 

[numble]

True, but George W. Bush was also able to undo his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, so the notion of revocation is certainly there. If a pardon is revocable even after "delivery" (which is meaningless in the modern age) and Grant succeeded in revoking a previous administration's ill-advised pardons then I think the argument is there. Certainly worth a supreme court case over.

Toussie's pardon was still not signed or delivered. It was not delivered. It isn't meaningless in the modern age because the judicial system still works on the idea of papers being formally filed.

 

[Barzul]

The hits keep coming apparently the Deputy AG threatened to quit after being cast as the reason for Comey being fired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.5f43449bb65f

Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Toussie's pardon was still not signed or delivered. It was not delivered. It isn't meaningless in the modern age because the judicial system still works on the idea of papers being formally filed.

Oops! This is why they pay numble the big bucks.

 

[Plinko]

Wait, Trump wants Gowdy to replace Comey?

LOL

 

[Joe]

My theory:
Russia employed advisors close to Trump to attempt to cause instability in our government and attempt to sway the election. All parties kept Trump truly in the dark about this.

Meanwhile, Trump is in the pockets of Russian oligarchs. He uses his teams of lawyers and accountants to deeply bury and hide these connections but is still worried it leaking out into the public (possibly for legal reasons).

It creates a complete Russian connection within the campaign but one that is partly coincidental and partly manufactured by Russia. It would explain why he hasn't released his tax returns, it explains why he's truly baffled about the investigation in the first place (since everyone kept him in the dark and he believes there's a real witch hunt against him), and it would explain why he's angry and defensive about the investigation behind-the-scenes but also able to be the 'same-ol Trump' in front of the cameras (business ties are extremely well hidden but the weight of the FBI nags at his confidence and worries him).

 

[pigeon]

My thesis is they cannot be arrested again for crimes they are pardoned for. There is no constitutional precedent for the annulment of a Presidential pardon that has already been delivered. I think you would be able to legally challenge a hypothetical legislative annulment on ex post facto grounds and a hypothetical judicial annulment on double jeopardy grounds.

I agree that there's no existing precedent. I just think, you know, the law is a social construct. People wouldn't accept the idea that if Trump pardoned Flynn he'd be off scot free even if Trump got impeached, so I believe the branches together would find a way to retroactively declare those pardons illicit, either by limiting the presidential pardon power, or by directly targeting the individual pardons, and everybody would go along with it for the sake of justice.

 

[Wilsongt]

True, but George W. Bush was also able to undo his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, so the notion of revocation is certainly there. If a pardon is revocable even after "delivery" (which is meaningless in the modern age) and Grant succeeded in revoking a previous administration's ill-advised pardons then I think the argument is actionable. Certainly worth a supreme court case over.

I saw your avatar and was afraid you were HUELEN for a little bit.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Wait, Trump wants Gowdy to replace Comey?

LOL

That would be a goddamn disaster.

 

[Zips]

My theory:
Russia employed advisors close to Trump to attempt to cause instability in our government and attempt to sway the election. All parties kept Trump truly in the dark about this.

Meanwhile, Trump is in the pockets of Russian oligarchs. He uses his teams of lawyers and accountants to deeply bury and hide these connections but is still worried it leaking out into the public (possibly for legal reasons).

It creates a complete Russian connection within the campaign but one that is partly coincidental and partly manufactured by Russia. It would explain why he hasn't released his tax returns, it explains why he's truly baffled about the investigation in the first place (since everyone kept him in the dark and he believes there's a real witch hunt against him), and it would explain why he's angry and defensive about the investigation behind-the-scenes but also able to be the 'same-ol Trump' in front of the cameras (business ties are extremely well hidden but the weight of the FBI nags at his confidence and worries him).

My problem with theories like this is that it gives trump the benefit of the doubt. That he is not the boil on the anus of humanity that we know him to be, as if he would not have totally gone for getting help from Russia if he thought he could get away with it.

Trump's associates are no doubt involved, and may have helped create the connection in the first place (e.g. Flynn, Stone, etc.), but Trump is not surrounded by awful people by sheer idiocy and chance. He is a magnet for such people because he is so terrible himself.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I saw your avatar and was afraid you were HUELEN for a little bit.

the reality was much worse

 

[whyamihere]

I saw your avatar and was afraid you were HUELEN for a little bit.

omg same

 

[numble]

I agree that there's no existing precedent. I just think, you know, the law is a social construct. People wouldn't accept the idea that if Trump pardoned Flynn he'd be off scot free even if Trump got impeached, so I believe the branches together would find a way to retroactively declare those pardons illicit, either by limiting the presidential pardon power, or by directly targeting the individual pardons, and everybody would go along with it for the sake of justice.

The social contract is upheld when the public throws them out of office for doing something like this. They did not annul Ford's pardon of Nixon, they put in Democrats in the Senate, House and Presidency. There have been elements of illicitness in many past pardons, but that has not limited the legal pardon power.

 

[RustyNails]

Wait, Trump wants Gowdy to replace Comey?

LOL

Trump you clueless child. Do you even understand how it works.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Wait, Trump wants Gowdy to replace Comey?

LOL

I would actually be afraid of how spineless the GOP is if he nominates Gowdy. Only 3 need to say no, but...

 

[chadskin]

We're getting to the point where the attempts to cover up and slow down the investigation (read: obstruction of justice) may be just as incriminating as any 'smoking gun' evidence of collusion during the 2016 campaign.

 

[Barzul]

@jonathanvswan 2m2 minutes ago
I can independently confirm reporting that President Trump has been sounding people out about removing Sean Spicer as Press Secretary. 1/2

@jonathanvswan 1m1 minute ago
The President feels his press team poorly served him yesterday. He believes it was incompetence on their part, not lack of time. 2/2

Who else saw this coming?