VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
No bio...
User ID: 411
I agree that insurrection is not the right word, but neither is riot. The crowd was trying to stop the election certification, not just registering dissent.
urged on a rally by supporters
This is a ridiculous way to describe January 6
"But what about all this other stuff that I really disagree with...!"
I accept your opinion that it is bad, but it is a different kind of thing than shadiness.
Because the stakes are much higher
There were genuine issues at stake there. When the courts spoke, both sides accepted the result. Not even remotely comparable.
I am mostly referring to his procedural attempt to overturn the election by having Pence refuse to certify the results. But yeah. Refusing to issue any kind of statement asking his supporters to stand down while they invaded the capitol was also indefensible.
I appreciate the thoroughness and earnestness of your list of stuff that presidents have done that you disapprove of, but none of those is worse than trying to overpower a presidential election after the fact with procedural trickery.
Anyway, come on. Trump is a shady guy. He always has been. Trump University was indefensible, and that's par for the course for him.
There's an easier path to extend this ruling to states (it pretty much has to be extended under its own logic for vertical separation of power reasons) than to extend the Presidential pardon power to state crimes.
No one else has done anything comparable to January 6th
It kind of seems like you're just making your rhetoric more aggressive without really responding to my comment.
He'd also face that choice if his own attorney general weren't inclined to prosecute him but the next one might be
I saw some headlines partway through the debate and immediately pulled up Manifold Markets to see if it was really as bad as the headlines made it sound. The red line was indeed spiking upward at that point. So I watched the debate later that evening.
So I guess it depends on which betting markets you were watching. Manifold in particular seemingly moved in realtime.
The Court, for its entire existence, has steadfastly refused to provide advisory opinions such as this comment.
The Court routinely offers advice to potential litigants in this manner directly in majority opinions. Elements of the opinion not necessary to reach its conclusions are usually referred to as "dicta" and are not considered legally binding (although of course the question of which elements of the opinion constitute dicta is itself often controversial).
Advisory opinions are forbidden insofar as the Court won't rule absent a case or controversy, which requires a plaintiff with standing.
Hillary faced calls for criminal consequences for her emails as secretary of state. Biden also inappropriately retained classified information and faced a criminal investigation.
But yeah, I'll bite the bullet, Trump is unusually shady.
Others have done an exhaustive job of responding to your vibrant hypothetical. I'll just add that yes, you're right in general (regarding other fact patterns that aren't quite so dramatic) that there is some increased risk of presidents misbehaving if they are above the law, and there is a cost associated with that.
But there is also a cost associated with presidents facing criminal charges after they step down. Peaceful transfer of power is a remarkable thing that we shouldn't take for granted. You really don't ever want a president nearing the end of his term to have to decide between sacrificing himself to the criminal justice system or attempting an auto-coup. That is a much bigger risk, and cost, and the law should focus on mitigating that second risk over the first.
Technically the states could still charge him.
Here are two polling aggregators. None of the polls they register have extended beyond 5/31. In another two weeks, we will probably get an initial read. If they don't show a bump toward Biden of 1-2 points, I think that will be meaningful preliminary evidence that this hasn't hurt Trump. If they do show that bump, it doesn't necessarily say much about whether the Biden bump will last. For that, we'll probably need another two months or whatever.
Anyway, that's what evidence will look like. Anecdotes about forum posters and real life acquaintances and conversations aren't meaningful data points.
All very interesting but none of them is a poll
I'm pretty comfortable extending this to the electorate
You shouldn't be. It's just not reasonable to extrapolate your personal social experience to the electorate, no matter how badly you want to.
It probably would have worked with fewer
Posters on the fora you inhabit are not a representative sample of the electorate, no matter how many fora you inhabit nor how much you post.
There's not one person in this country who has decided this is the moment to hop off the fence, "Okay, now I won't vote for the man."
Elections are won and lost by a percentage point or two. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that possibly one to two in a hundred American voters doesn't like Biden but won't vote for Trump after enough messaging about him now being a convicted felon. It also may not have any such effect, or have a reverse effect. Time will tell. But you're overconfident.
I mean, I can't speak for Smotrich, but if his goal is to crush the dream of Palestinian statehood, that project does seem to be further along now than it was on October 6.
That is what I was thinking of, yes :)
I think you're right, but I'm very curious as to what theory they would use to overturn it if they couldn't grasp at some idiosyncratic procedural glitch to spare themselves from having to confront the core question.
More options
Context Copy link