2020 US Presidential Election

[WelshBluebird]

I have this mental image of Trump sitting on his own all sad looking at his phone blankly.

Part of me kind of wishes they could have shadow banned him (i.e. he can still send tweets, but nobody else can see them!)

 

[Typhoon]

Regarding pardoning. Trump appears to have lost his 'fall-back' position of resigning, letting Pence take over and pardoning him. I don't think he could rely on Pence doing that. While find many of Pence's position on a number of different policy areas objectionable, I do think he has played a pretty straight bat on the election.

 

[birchesgreen]

Pence heard Trump supporters chant they wanted to execute him (Pence) so i suspect he probably has gone a bit cool on Don.

 

[nlogax]

Trump scheduled to be on Fox News in an hour or two to whine incessantly like a giant orange child in a suit talk about tech firm bans.

 

[najaB]

Pence heard Trump supporters chant they wanted to execute him (Pence) so i suspect he probably has gone a bit cool on Don.

They apparently haven't spoken since Wednesday.

 

[py_megapixel]

Well, this tweet aged well...

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1060281830845415631

Spoiler: Text transcript, for accessibility purposes

Charlie Kirk [@charliekirk11] - Nov 7, 2018

Hey liberals, do you notice that when conservatives lose races we don’t riot, scream, smash windows, burn cars, assault people, or need days off of work?

It’s amazing how mature and civil conservatives are

Please remember this and take notes when we get Trump re-elected in 2020

 

[DarloRich]

Brain wave:

Trump resigns before term ends and gets a pardon from Pence. Is that likely considering how the facists wanted to hang mike pence for upholding his oath!

If granted that would surely prevent any challenge to said pardon as it was granted by another president

(Ford/Nixon situation?)

 

[najaB]

Brain wave:

Trump resigns before term ends and gets a pardon from Pence. Is that likely considering how the facists wanted to hang mike pence for upholding his oath!

It's not really that much of a brainwave, people have basically been predicting that since the first impeachment.

Before Wednesday it was pretty much a sure thing that Pence would have gone along with it, now it's much less likely given that the mob was literally calling for Pence's neck.

 

[brad465]

Not good, but not surprising either:

Trump supporters planning armed protests ahead of Biden inauguration, FBI warns

Law enforcement officials warn of plans to hold armed protests before Joe Biden's inauguration.

www.bbc.co.uk

The FBI is warning of the possibility of armed protests being held across the US in the days before Joe Biden is sworn in as president.

There are reports of armed groups planning to gather at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC in the run-up to his 20 January inauguration.

The fears come as security plans are hardened for the event itself.

On Monday, Mr Biden told reporters he was not afraid to take the oath of office outside of the US Capitol.

Both he and Kamala Harris are still expected to be sworn in outside the building, only two weeks after it was the site of a deadly raid by radical supporters of President Donald Trump opposing the election result.

Security officials are resolute there will be no repeat of the breach seen on 6 January - when thousands of pro-Trump supporters were able to break into the grounds of the complex where members of Congress were voting to certify the election result.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's not really that much of a brainwave, people have basically been predicting that since the first impeachment.

Before Wednesday it was pretty much a sure thing that Pence would have gone along with it, now it's much less likely given that the mob was literally calling for Pence's neck.

Agreed. My guess is also that Trump is unlikely to resign because he'd view that as being seen to give up and looking like a 'loser'. Also, resigning wouldn't play well with his base supporters. And to be honest, I wouldn't be that surprised if even now he's still privately trying to work out insane schemes to subvert the election and stay on as President.

For Mike Pence's part, I think it would be in Pence's interest for Trump to stay to the end and then get impeached - because if Trump is barred from standing again, that makes it more likely that Pence could run in 2024. Pence will also not want to be seen to be stabbing Trump in the back since that would lose the support of much of the Republican base who'll be voting in primaries in 2024 - those two reasons possibly account for Pence's refusal so far to invoke the 25th Amendment.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not really that much of a brainwave, people have basically been predicting that since the first impeachment.

Before Wednesday it was pretty much a sure thing that Pence would have gone along with it, now it's much less likely given that the mob was literally calling for Pence's neck.

Shouldn't post when tired. I had more or less rejected the concept as unlikely simply because I could never see Trump giving up power. However, I wondered if it was a more likely option after the last few days which, I think, have shown Trump that he overreached, may not be immune from prosecution, has had his access to social media curtailed and does not have the armed forces and law enforcement professionals on his side in his bonkers crusade to "stop the steal".

If it has been very clearly explained to him ( perhaps with crayon) that his only route to immunity is to resign and have Pence pardon him could he take that as a way out? The man is a coward afterall. Personally, I don't think he will because I suspect he will give himself and his family a pardon on the way out of the door. However, IMO a self pardon is likely to be either challenged at the Supreme Court or be revoked by President Biden as bait to tempt Trump to take the case to the Supreme Court.

those two reasons possibly account for Pence's refusal so far to invoke the 25th Amendment.

And that he needs all of the cabinet to agree to it.

 

[trebor79]

I should clarify what I meant by "ignore Trump". Absolutely he and the mob need to face justice and punishment, but I'm not convinced pressuring Pence to use the 25th Amendment or impeaching him will serve that purpose particularly well.
What I meant was ignoring his political rantings, starving him of airtime makes him politically impotent. Wait quietly for a couple of weeks whilst rounding up the mob, then arrest and charge him once he's no longer head of state. If the Democrats were thinking more strategically, they could even have done a deal with Pence to avoid the risk of Trump resigning so that Pence could pardon him. FWIW, I think Trumps ego is too big to ever make it possible for him to resign.
Going for the jugular straight away is rarely the best strategic option.

[Pence using 25th amendment] And that he needs all of the cabinet to agree to it.

I thought he only needed a simple majority?

 

[DarloRich]

I thought he only needed a simple majority?

Correct - a majority. However, in a room I assume to be filled with Trump loyalists would that be an easy sell? It isn't a given that would be enough. Trump can declare himself fit and have the matter considered by both houses of parliament.

 

[Typhoon]

Correct - a majority. However, in a room I assume to be filled with Trump loyalists would that be an easy sell? It isn't a given that would be enough. Trump can declare himself fit and have the matter considered by both houses of parliament.

Three cabinet members have been appointed this month (and one near the end of last month). I assume that they were chosen partly for their loyalty to the cause (and partly because they didn't turn down the role quick enough) so the majority would have to come from the rest (unlikely, as you suggest). If any of the remaining cabinet members were suspected of supporting the invoking of the 25th they may find themselves dismissed with immediate effect.

 

[edwin_m]

Three cabinet members have been appointed this month (and one near the end of last month). I assume that they were chosen partly for their loyalty to the cause (and partly because they didn't turn down the role quick enough) so the majority would have to come from the rest (unlikely, as you suggest). If any of the remaining cabinet members were suspected of supporting the invoking of the 25th they may find themselves dismissed with immediate effect.

At least two have resigned claiming doubts over what happened last week. Which conveniently gets them out of having to make a choice if the 25th is proposed, and also reduces the number likely to vote for removal.

I'm not sure if Trump's numerous "acting" appointments (such as the head of Homeland Security who has also quit) are entitled to vote in this.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I agree they shouldn't be going after trump. It adds fuel to the fire and gives him ammunition with which to rally supporters. It needs them to be clever and play the long game.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure if Trump's numerous "acting" appointments (such as the head of Homeland Security who has also quit) are entitled to vote in this.

I believe ( cant recall my American civics elective - sorry) acting appointments can be considered for this purpose.

 

[Typhoon]

At least two have resigned claiming doubts over what happened last week. Which conveniently gets them out of having to make a choice if the 25th is proposed, and also reduces the number likely to vote for removal.

I'm not sure if Trump's numerous "acting" appointments (such as the head of Homeland Security who has also quit) are entitled to vote in this.

To be honest, it probably doesn't matter. Two who spoke out against Trump's incitement (so, presumably, might have voted for article 25) have gone. Interestingly, one, Elaine Chao, who was 'deeply troubled' by the turn of events is married to (current) Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell. Homeland Security - one Acting Secretary has been replaced by another.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree they shouldn't be going after trump. It adds fuel to the fire and gives him ammunition with which to rally supporters. It needs them to be clever and play the long game.

Again I'm not sure appeasing them is the right approach. They've already stormed the US Capitol and whilst most of them were perhaps just out for a 'good time' it seems quite clear that some of them were very prepared to take hostages and I think we know how that would have ended. Quite apart from the explosive devices recovered at both the RNC and DNC offices (drawing away precious Capitol police resources at the moment they were needed at the Capitol).

Meanwhile the FBI are warning of further armed protests:

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC​

The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

The news comes as security measures are being stepped up ahead of Inauguration Day, with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies preparing for the possibility of more violence after rioters stormed the US Capitol last week leaving five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

Even as federal investigators continue to track down suspects from last week's attack, the bulletin highlights concerns that the US Capitol siege was perhaps just the beginning of potentially violent actions from supporters of President Donald Trump who have been animated by his lies about a stolen election.

"Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January," the FBI bulletin states. It also suggests there are threats of an "uprising" if Trump is removed via the 25th Amendment before Inauguration Day.

"On 8 January, the FBI received information on an identified group calling for others to join them in 'storming' state, local and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event POTUS is removed as President prior to Inauguration Day. This identified group is also planning to 'storm' government offices including in the District of Columbia and in every state, regardless of whether the states certified electoral votes for Biden or Trump, on 20 January," the bulletin adds.

The FBI is also tracking reports of "various threats to harm President-Elect Biden ahead of the presidential inauguration," the bulletin states. "Additional reports indicate threats against VP-Elect Harris and Speaker Pelosi."

ABC News was first to report the FBI bulletin.

The FBI said in a separate statement that its "efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity," and that its "focus is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and destruction of property."

The government, meanwhile, held Continuity of Government Operations -- a standard practice in the event that someone tries to disrupt the transition that took on new urgency in light of threats surrounding this year's inauguration.

According to a senior administration official, the interagency rehearsal aimed to ensure a seamless chain of command in the event of a national emergency in the days leading up to the inauguration and on that day itself. Monday's rehearsal focused heavily on "readiness in the event that somebody tries to disrupt or stop the inauguration," the official said.

The calls for new protests in Washington and states across the country have law enforcement and local officials bracing for more possible violence in the coming days.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser on Monday urged Americans to avoid the city during Biden's inauguration next week and to participate virtually following last week's deadly domestic terror attack on the US Capitol.

Speaking at a news conference Monday, Bowser, a Democrat, stressed that she was concerned about more violent actors potentially coming to the city in the run-up to the inauguration, saying, "If I'm scared of anything, it's for our democracy, because we have very extreme factions in our country that are armed and dangerous."

"Trumpism won't die on January 20," said Bowser, who has asked Trump and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf to declare a pre-disaster declaration for DC. The White House said in a statement Monday night that Trump approved the emergency declaration requested by Bowser.

The mayor had told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that she will also ask the Department of Homeland Security to begin a "national special security event" timeline sooner than planned, as well as include the US Capitol in their coverage area for the inauguration.

...

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

edition.cnn.com

But sure, let's not do anything now about what happened last week and play the long game. I'm sorry but that just doesn't wash, when you've had a terrorist attack on the seat of government with quite strong overturns of it being an attempted coup (a stupid one to be sure but still) you don't just sit back and play the long game and try to avoid 'adding fuel to the fire'. They're adding more then enough fuel on their own. Appeasing them in the hopes that they'll behave is not going to work.

 

[nlogax]

It feels to me as though this impeachment is doomed to failure as the previous one was and as the 25th Amendment push was. That said I do think there's something that needs to be done to prevent Trump from ever assuming any position of federal power again. Not doing anything leaves the door wide open to more of this in the future with extremists emboldened to field and support candidates.

A simple set of psychological tests may have prevented Trump taking power. Former Democrat Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once said "in America anyone can be president. That's one of the risks you take". The last four years - especially the last three months - may change that.

 

[najaB]

It feels to me as though this impeachment is doomed to failure as the previous one was and as the 25th Amendment push was.

I really wish that people wouldn't see the first impeachment as failed. Yes, the Senate refused to hold a trial, so he didn't get removed from office, but he was impeached, that's a stain on his record that will never go away. And he's likely to go down in history as the only president to be impeached twice.

Importantly, if the Senate refuses to return early to hold the trial I've been led to believe that the articles of impeachment will survive into the new Congress and Kamala Harris will get to cast the deciding vote on if to bar him from holding an office of the United States in the future, since that only requires a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote.

 

[nlogax]

I really wish that people wouldn't see the first impeachment as failed. Yes, the Senate refused to hold a trial, so he didn't get removed from office, but he was impeached, that's a stain on his record that will never go away. And he's likely to go down in history as the only president to be impeached twice.

That 'stain on the record' wasn't enough to change how he governed the country and conducted himself, especially as the resolution was defeated. If anything it emboldened his behaviour and that of his supporters. They deemed him to be untouchable.

I'm not convinced that a post-inauguration vote is feasible for someone no longer sitting as president. Lots of talk of going with a route that uses section 3 of the 14th Amendment instead.

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[ainsworth74]

A simple set of psychological tests may have prevented Trump taking power. Former Democrat Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once said "in America anyone can be president. That's one of the risks you take". The last four years - especially the last three months - may change that.

It has always struck me as ironic (or perhaps terrifying) that the man who has the sole, de jure unchecked, authority to direct the US military to use nuclear weapons does not have to pass any sort of assessment before being granted that power. Meanwhile the men and women who are actually the button pushers, who look after them and would actually use them on command of the president are subject to the Personnel Reliability Program which is a fairly stringent (though not without its flaws) assessment to try and ensure that only suitable people are given access to and control of nuclear weapons (or Chemical and Biological weapons).

There's quite a lot of information in a US Airforce memo here but for our purposes Appendix 4 (page 41 of the document, likely 43 on your pdf reader) is perhaps the most illustrative and I've lifted some key extracts below (there's more detail on things to consider and mitigations in the pdf itself):

a. Personal Conduct. Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not be suitable for enrollment in PRP.

b. Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorders. Emotional, mental, and personality disorders can cause a significant deficit in an individual’s psychological, social, and occupational functioning. These disorders present suitability concerns for individuals subject to PRP because they may indicate a defect in reliability. The certifying official will take the necessary actions to ensure that the individual is properly screened both medically and psychologically. As with all potentially disqualifying medical conditions, the certifying official must decide each case on the specific medical and other pertinent evaluations of the individual involved. Any suspected suicidal behavior will result in the individual’s suspension from PRP duties pending the results of a mental health assessment.

c. Financial Considerations. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

d. Criminal Conduct. A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

e. Substance or Drug Misuse and Drug Incidents. Improper or illegal involvement with drugs raises questions regarding an individual’s suitability for PRP. Substance use disorder may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an individual’s inability to ensure the safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Pre-Service use of marijuana, hashish, or other cannabis-based product does not necessarily render an individual ineligible for consideration for or retention in a PRP position. It is incumbent on the certifying official, with Competent Medical Authority (CMA) consultation, to determine the degree that pre-service use impacts the individual’s reliability.

f. Alcohol Use Disorder and Alcohol-related Incidents. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of an individual inability to meet their PRP responsibilities to ensure the safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Individuals diagnosed with mild, moderate, or severe alcohol use disorder, or who have been involved in an alcohol related incident will be, at a minimum, suspended from PRP duties. The certifying official, after consultation with the CMA or conducting an investigation of the circumstances of an incident, will determine the degree to which the diagnosis affects the reliability of the individual being considered for or who is currently under PRP assignment. Those individuals may be returned to PRP duties after successfully completing a prescribed rehabilitation program or treatment regimen, when they have displayed positive changes in job reliability and lifestyle, and receive a favorable medical prognosis by the CMA.

g. Sexual Harassment and Assault. Sexual harassment imposes significant costs, such as impairing unit readiness and disrupting unit cohesion.

h. Security Violations. Noncompliance with security regulations raises doubt about an individual’s trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to safeguard classified information.

i. Misuse of Information Technology Systems. Noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual’s trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to properly protect classified systems, networks, and information.

I think Trump would fall flat straight away on points a, b and c. He likely fails on d and g, probably also on h and i. There's no-way that the man with the launch codes could pass the test that the men and women with their fingers on the buttons have to pass through. I suppose you could argue that it's the role of the electorate to make that judgement so there's no need for a separate assessment but damn. Like I say I can't help but find it ironic (or terrifying). Looking at that list there may well be a few other presidents that would have struggled to pass the PRP as well to be honest.

 

[nlogax]

There's quite a lot of information in a US Airforce memo here but for our purposes Appendix 4 (page 41 of the document, likely 43 on your pdf reader) is perhaps the most illustrative and I've lifted some key extracts below (there's more detail on things to consider and mitigations in the pdf itself):

Thanks.. that list is pretty comprehensive and puts into stark relief how things could be so different with a little bit of oversight. Independent tests for potential candidates from all parties a year two before a general election enabling them to go forward with the process could save so much trouble down the line.

 

[najaB]

That 'stain on the record' wasn't enough to change how he governed the country and conducted himself, especially as the resolution was defeated. If anything it emboldened his behaviour and that of his supporters. They deemed him to be untouchable.

That's the key thing there - it is his supporters in the GOP that enabled him. As a sitting President he was still useful to them, now he is not.

I'm not convinced that a post-inauguration vote is feasible for someone no longer sitting as president.

Of course it is. That's like saying that someone can't be convicted of an offence they committed while in a job just because they aren't in the job any more.

 

[nlogax]

Of course it is. That's like saying that someone can't be convicted of an offence they committed while in a job just because they aren't in the job any more.

I've just found this which seems to suggest what the situation is. And yes, it does talk about a post-Jan 20th trial

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nt-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale Law School and author of a multivolume series, We the People, dealing with the dynamics of American constitutional development over the past two centuries. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen professor at Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis and the author of a forthcoming article dealing with the amnesty provisions of the 14th Amendment.

House Democrats’ plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won’t work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn’t be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution’s meaning.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Isn't the issue with leaving any vote until after Jan 20th is that we go back to the discussion about could Trump pardon himself? Until he leaves office, I have zero trust that he won't try something like that.

 

[nlogax]

Isn't the issue with leaving any vote until after Jan 20th is that we go back to the discussion about could Trump pardon himself? Until he leaves office, I have zero trust that he won't try something like that.

I have no doubt that he'll try it anyway. What the scope of that pardon is and how SCOTUS would treat it remains to be seen, from what I've read it'd be an unprecedented situation in terms of US politics.

Re. pardoning himself against an impeachment conviction is 'unlikely'. Article 2 of the Constitution expressly forbids it.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

 

[najaB]

I've just found this which seems to suggest what the situation is. And yes, it does talk about a post-Jan 20th trial

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nt-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

The impeachment and the trial are two separate things. The impeachment would happen while he is still president, the Senate action would be to determine if he is suitable to hold office again. I'd say that having been impeached twice is a pretty strong argument against his fitness.

Re. pardoning himself against an impeachment conviction is 'unlikely'. Article 2 of the Constitution expressly forbids it.

The risk isn't that he pardons himself to protect against impeachment, but against a charge of sedition (or tax evasion, or treason, or any of the myriad federal offences he's committed).

 

[nlogax]

I'd say that having been impeached twice is a pretty strong argument against his fitness.

It is, no doubt about that - but surely the need is to set something in stone from a legal sense. Double impeachments are indeed a stain on the record but that provides absolutely zero certainty of stopping him running again. Something stronger is required.