Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Tazkar]

That guy is an avowed democrat so take anything he says with a titanic grain of salt.

He's a professional first from everything I've seen. And dismissing someone solely on the basis of what their political leanings are is just a moronic thing to do. As then you just start the chain of 'That guy's an avowed republican take anything he says with a grain of salt." "That guy is an avowed independent he's wishy washy take what he says with a grain of salt."

You judge people on their actions not whether they have an R or D infront of their name. One or the other may raise suspicion but it's not a reason to outright dismiss someone.

[kail]

This quote from Election Day is actually quite funny.

Because yes, Biden got steamrolled in Florida. He didn't lose by the projected 200k votes, he lost by more than 300k.

And yes, GOP turnout was at historic proportions. Republicans came out to vote like never before.

And yet Trump still lost.

All of his posts on the 3rd are funny. He predicted that turnout as accurate as his civil war.

[Belize]

We goota be looking at 320 EVs for Trump at least.

So, how'd this turn out?

[Breccia]

Arizona certifies.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, Gov Doug Ducey (R) and state Attorney General Mark Brnovich were all in attendance to sign off on the documents that declared Biden had won the state by more than 10,000 votes. Both Hobbs and Ducey vouched for the accuracy and security of the election, even as Trump has continued to sow doubt about the outcome.

"Every Arizona voter has my thanks and should know that they can stand proud that this election was conducted with transparency, accuracy and fairness in accordance with Arizona's laws and elections procedures despite numerous unfounded claims to the contrary," Hobbs said at the brief signing event.

"The system is strong, and that is why I have bragged on it so much," Ducey added.

Trump's coffin is like 90% nails at this point.

[PhaelixWW]

Unfortunately there is precedent for a president to use pardons to completely exonerate people, if they think the person is actually innocent. Trump has done this, Ford did it, HW Bush did it. It's rarely done, but trump has been drumming up the unfairness, witch hunt, bullshit where my guess is, he'll pardon himself, claim exoneration(even though it'll just be another lie), and my guess, even if it goes to SCOTUS, they'll let him off anyways, and then even more precedent for this kind of shit to happen further down the line.

But he can only issue a pardon for federal crimes.

And Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)...

...was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

• A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
• To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

The Supreme Court ruled that [a] pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession...

So if Trump pardons himself, he should be brought up on charges, and then SCOTUS can decide whether pre-pardoning works. Even if they do decide that, it would force Trump to "introduce the pardon" and thus forever admit his guilt.

[cubby]

To be fair, Ford issued the pardon, but its legitimacy was never challenged in court. If Trump pardons himself, then it could still go before the SCOTUS to decide whether pre-pardoning is valid.

Also, per case law, in order for Trump to accept his own pardon for a specific crime, he'd have to admit guilt for said crime. If he's never charged with a specific crime, then he never has to openly admit his guilt in order to claim his pardon, so going through the above court case would be eminently worth it, from my perspective.

Let Trump pardon himself for federal crimes, formally charge him in order to force him to admit guilt, then let him be immune to federal charges while you have a slam-dunk series of non-federal charges armed with his admission of guilt.

I really don't think criminal charges are going to stick to Trump. I hope they do, but I feel like at the end of the day he will either weasel out of charges or repercussions. Regardless, he won't see jail time. I hope I'm wrong.

What I think has a much greater chance of success is seizing Trump's assets. The government has almost carte blanche authority to do this when they have the evidence to initiate criminal actions against a company. The DoJ or the IRS can also seize bank accounts they believed are linked to criminal activity - and that action does not require a judgement.

Next on the possibilities list - criminal actions against his family. I expect blanket Pardons to all his children prior to exiting office. However, as you mentioned above, that does not eliminate State charges, and NY AG's office along with the Manhattan DA is already to go with some of those charges now. Moreover, all evidence collected by federal authorities can be used by state authorities - inter-government cooperation is not pardonable.

(@PhaelixWW - I know you know this stuff, I'm just commenting in general)

[beanman12345]

But he can only issue a pardon for federal crimes.

And Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)...


So if Trump pardons himself, he should be brought up on charges, and then SCOTUS can decide whether pre-pardoning works. Even if they do decide that, it would force Trump to "introduce the pardon" and thus forever admit his guilt.

5 myths about presidential pardons.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

I'm willing to bet trump goes with the exoneration pardon, even if it's all bullshit. I want this man to face justice as much as anyone not in his cult, but I'm thinking our only chance of that happening on a criminal basis, is the DA of Manhatten. That's not to say Trump won't have other problems as there are a shit ton of civil cases which pardons don't cover and he'll I hopefully he'll end up penniless and in confinement for the rest of his short life.

- - - Updated - - -

There's different levels of evidence. And you apparently do not understand them.

In a criminal court, the level of evidence required is most stringent.

In a civil court, there is a bit more leeway. Testimony evidence (such as sworn affidavits from GOP poll monitors) is stronger evidence in civil court and has a greater chance of scoring a victory. That might be enough for people to sue the eternal hell out of several swing states and cost them millions and millions of dollars.

Then there is Trump working with republican state legislatures to convince them to either send the GOP electors or not send any electors. That is NOT a court at ALL. That is just an assembly of representatives. ZERO evidence is legally required (although they may ask for evidence). They could decide the moon is too bright and send the GOP electors. But at the 11th hour, they can look at some testimony by new expert witnesses, decide that is enough, and send Trump back to the White House for second term.

PA Legislature has adjourned until January. Another swing and miss.

[Xeones]

Biden campaign manager Jen Dillon trying to massage fears by saying 20 mins ago that Biden can still win even without PA and FL. Yikes.

They could have, is it still a yikes?

[PhaelixWW]

5 myths about presidential pardons.

I'm willing to bet trump goes with the exoneration pardon, even if it's all bullshit. I want this man to face justice as much as anyone not in his cult, but I'm thinking our only chance of that happening on a criminal basis, is the DA of Manhatten. That's not to say Trump won't have other problems as there are a shit ton of civil cases which pardons don't cover and he'll I hopefully he'll end up penniless and in confinement for the rest of his short life.

<sigh> Touche. Fair enough.

PA Legislature has adjourned until January. Another swing and miss.

I mean, realistically, the PA legislature couldn't have overturned the Democrat governor's eventual veto on this even had they attempted to take action. That they were still "swinging", regardless, just underscores the fact that they're all just piss and wind.

[Breccia]

So if Trump pardons himself, he should be brought up on charges, and then SCOTUS can decide whether pre-pardoning works. Even if they do decide that, it would force Trump to "introduce the pardon" and thus forever admit his guilt.

This is why Trump should be grovelling at Pence's feet for the next month and a half.

Simply put, if Trump pardons himnself and Pence doesn't, he takes the massive risk that the pardon doesn't work when he needs it to. Pence removes that doubt immediately.

There is no sane future in which Trump takes this chance.

[Orange Joe]

Unfortunately there is precedent for a president to use pardons to completely exonerate people, if they think the person is actually innocent. Trump has done this, Ford did it, HW Bush did it. It's rarely done, but trump has been drumming up the unfairness, witch hunt, bullshit where my guess is, he'll pardon himself, claim exoneration(even though it'll just be another lie), and my guess, even if it goes to SCOTUS, they'll let him off anyways, and then even more precedent for this kind of shit to happen further down the line.

Who and when? Just because Trump supporters say it does doesn't make it True. The simple fact that giving a pardon specifically implies the party was guilty proves this statement wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

5 myths about presidential pardons.

people gotta stop using a paywall site as a source

[beanman12345]

Who and when? Just because Trump supporters say it does doesn't make it True. The simple fact that giving a pardon specifically implies the party was guilty proves this statement wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



people gotta stop using a paywall site as a source

Sorry, had to go incognito to quote for the post since I originally saw it on Chicago Tribune which took it from WaPo, which is another paywall site.

BUT something to keep in mind, none of this is tested in a court, if trump can even pardon himself, and also the admission of guilt is also untested, and we're not sure if Trump will test either, or he'll step down to get pardoned, or he won't even pardon cause I mean, I do think he's stupid enough not to try.

[Benggaul]

Trump's conspiracy theory bullshit is (again) about to get some people hurt.

Proud Boys Member Threatens Armed Revolt Outside Giuliani Meeting: 'Not Going to Stand Back and Stand By Anymore'

A member of the Proud Boys threatened an armed revolt during a "Stop the Steal" rally in Phoenix, Arizona on Monday as President Donald Trump continues to push unverified claims of widespread voter fraud in an attempt to reverse his election defeat.

Speaking at the rally in Phoenix, Arizona—taking place outside of where Rudy Giuliani was meeting with GOP lawmakers to cast doubt on Trump's loss in the state—one member told the crowd, "It is the moment that we've got to fight back."

"At the moment, we're free. But the moment they start trying to take our Constitution is the moment the Second Amendment kicks in," he said. "It's the moment where we've got to start telling them, we're not taking it anymore.

"We're not going to 'stand back and stand by' anymore. We're standing up and going after you if you come after us," the man added.

Pretty sure everyone--including the FBI--saw this coming and have been quietly preparing for it, but it's still disappointing nonetheless.

[Breccia]

'Not Going to Stand Back and Stand By Anymore'

Yes they will. As we've seen here, Trump supporters have basically gone silent, crying all night into their single scoop of ice cream.

I've called people craven fucking cowards for refusing to answer a 24-hour challenge. If you can't even answer a simple question in 24 hours, you're not taking up arms against a legal election, either.

[Benggaul]

Yes they will. As we've seen here, Trump supporters have basically gone silent, crying all night into their single scoop of ice cream.

I've called people craven fucking cowards for refusing to answer a 24-hour challenge. If you can't even answer a simple question in 24 hours, you're not taking up arms against a legal election, either.

For the vast, vast majority, this absolutely holds true. However you know as well as I that there are people who will try something. The person shouting this shit outside the building might not, but someone else would (else we wouldn't have had multiple stories of FBI thwarting the kidnappings of government officials).

There's not going to be some army of racist fucks taking up arms against the government, but there's bound to be some lone fuck who thinks shooting at elected Democrats is "patriotic" and acts on it.

[Poopymonster]

Paint fumes?

Paint fumes is not enough for that level of insanity. He's been imbibing Trump's cranial fluid for sure.

Refusal to hear facts, maybe he can't hear the facts...
Not paint fumes, they've been huffing air horn gas.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd love to see the fracas if NYState tries to drag him back to NYC for trial and Florida tries to block that. I'm neither an expert nor a Space Alien, but maybe @cubby can weigh in: I think the only way one state refuses to extradite is if they themselves have the guy on trial, which means Florida would have to charge him with a crime. True?

Then dismiss the charges?

[Kathranis]

For some reason I get people like timpool on my feed despite the fact I've never watched his videos. I'm fact other than clownfishtv I hardly watch politics on youtube. Clownfish deals with more of the entertainment side. Talking about disney, comics, etc.

I don't watch either of them but from what I've seen in thumbnails it looks like clownfishtv is a channel dedicated entirely to pushing victim narratives like "omg woke liberals on twitter attack comic books" so it's no surprise that the rest of the incel brigade starts showing up in your recommended if that's what you're watching.

[Benggaul]

So...a witness in Sidney Powell’s Michigan lawsuit says he thinks there’s something weird about election results in Edison County.

There is no Edison County in Michigan.

She needs to be fucking disbarred.

[Ursus]

So...a witness in Sidney Powell’s Michigan lawsuit says he thinks there’s something weird about election results in Edison County.

There is no Edison County in Michigan.

She needs to be fucking disbarred.

Well clearly that's what is so weird about it. Sidney Powell is playing 5D chess, we can't even hope to be on her level.

[Kaleredar]

I don't watch either of them but from what I've seen in thumbnails it looks like clownfishtv is a channel dedicated entirely to pushing victim narratives like "omg woke liberals on twitter attack comic books" so it's no surprise that the rest of the incel brigade starts showing up in your recommended if that's what you're watching.

Yeah, I generally tend to stay away with any youtube channel that headlines its videos with "x OUTRAGED at y!" or "A's new WOKE b FAILS at c!"