What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Candidates for office have been elected from jail in the past.  The only conviction that would bar running would be impeachment.

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

[Barrister]

Candidates for office have been elected from jail in the past.  The only conviction that would bar running would be impeachment.

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

So far there is no evidence to say that the multiple indictments and impeachments have done anything to drive support away from Trump.  Hard to believe a conviction  would be any different.

[grumbler]

I thought I read recently there had been a change to that but Florida was doing something shady like still not letting them vote until they had paid of debts to the state. So sort of nullifying to some extent what voters had tried to change.

Florida changed the law to allow felons who had served their sentences (including probation) and had paid all their fines and debts to vote, but that won't be the case for Trump in 2024 if convicted.

[grumbler]

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

Actually I forgot that the Fourteenth Amendment had altered the requirements:

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.

Makes for some interesting legal wrangling as to the definition of "aid or comfort to the enemies" and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."

Not that any legal rulings will stand in the way of the USSC overturning that clause if it benefits Trump.

Trumps criminal indictments, and even conviction, won't dampen the ardor of his cult, but I can't see many independent voters holding their noses to vote for a felon.

[jimmy olsen]

Candidates for office have been elected from jail in the past.  The only conviction that would bar running would be impeachment.

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

So far there is no evidence to say that the multiple indictments and impeachments have done anything to drive support away from Trump.  Hard to believe a conviction  would be any different.

The 2nd indictment moved the dial more than the 1st. Could be a cumulative effect.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-jan-6-indictment-polls/

[Barrister]

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

Actually I forgot that the Fourteenth Amendment had altered the requirements:

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.

Makes for some interesting legal wrangling as to the definition of "aid or comfort to the enemies" and "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."

Not that any legal rulings will stand in the way of the USSC overturning that clause if it benefits Trump.

Trumps criminal indictments, and even conviction, won't dampen the ardor of his cult, but I can't see many independent voters holding their noses to vote for a felon.

Look you can agree or disagree with various USSC rulings all you want.

But I am going to suggest that despite the 6-3 conservative majority on the court, there is nothing to suggest that Trump appointed USSC Justices have been in the bag for Trump, and indeed seem quite willing to rule against him personally.

[PJL]

There is zero chance that the USSC is going to rule against Trump during an election year. The entire Republican machinery is going to support him no matter what.

[garbon]

I thought I read recently there had been a change to that but Florida was doing something shady like still not letting them vote until they had paid of debts to the state. So sort of nullifying to some extent what voters had tried to change.

Florida changed the law to allow felons who had served their sentences (including probation) and had paid all their fines and debts to vote, but that won't be the case for Trump in 2024 if convicted.

Ah got it. Thanks.

[grumbler]

Look you can agree or disagree with various USSC rulings all you want.

But I am going to suggest that despite the 6-3 conservative majority on the court, there is nothing to suggest that Trump appointed USSC Justices have been in the bag for Trump, and indeed seem quite willing to rule against him personally.

Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett (and Clarence Thomas) have all indicated that they would have overturned a circuit court ruling that denied Trump's claim that he, as ex-President, could invoke executive privilege even against the incumbent President.  Kavanaugh wasn't willing to go so far as to accept Trumps absurd claim that he had absolute immunity to grand jury and prosecutorial requests for records (Coney-Barrett and Clarence Thomas did accept that claim).  There's evidence, indeed, that Trump's appointees are at least partially in the bag, and others could be braver when the issues become less ridiculous.

[Barrister]

Look you can agree or disagree with various USSC rulings all you want.

But I am going to suggest that despite the 6-3 conservative majority on the court, there is nothing to suggest that Trump appointed USSC Justices have been in the bag for Trump, and indeed seem quite willing to rule against him personally.

Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett (and Clarence Thomas) have all indicated that they would have overturned a circuit court ruling that denied Trump's claim that he, as ex-President, could invoke executive privilege even against the incumbent President.  Kavanaugh wasn't willing to go so far as to accept Trumps absurd claim that he had absolute immunity to grand jury and prosecutorial requests for records (Coney-Barrett and Clarence Thomas did accept that claim).  There's evidence, indeed, that Trump's appointees are at least partially in the bag, and others could be braver when the issues become less ridiculous.

Your statement was:

Not that any legal rulings will stand in the way of the USSC overturning that clause if it benefits Trump.

LIke I said - you can disagree with Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett on the extent of executive privilege, but I would reject the notion that the USSC conservative majority will automatically vote in favour of Trump's interests.

[Jacob]

LIke I said - you can disagree with Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett on the extent of executive privilege, but I would reject the notion that the USSC conservative majority will automatically vote in favour of Trump's interests.

It appears likely that we'll have an occasion to find out.

[Barrister]

LIke I said - you can disagree with Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett on the extent of executive privilege, but I would reject the notion that the USSC conservative majority will automatically vote in favour of Trump's interests.

It appears likely that we'll have an occasion to find out.

Well the USSC showed absolutely zero interest in Trump's election fraud claims, much to Trump's dismay...

PArt of the devil's bargain Trump made with the GOP back in 2016 was that Trump promised to appoint justice's from a list supplied by the conservative Federalist Society.  He won, and he followed through with that promise.  Those three justices (Kavanaugh, Comey-Barrett, and Gorsuch) have absolutely followed through on some very conservative decisions.  But they have not shown any personal loyalty to Trump.

If Trump were to win in 2024 I don't think he'd make the "mistake" of appointing Federalist Society judges - he'll insist on 100% loyalty.

[Jacob]

Well the USSC showed absolutely zero interest in Trump's election fraud claims, much to Trump's dismay...

PArt of the devil's bargain Trump made with the GOP back in 2016 was that Trump promised to appoint justice's from a list supplied by the conservative Federalist Society.  He won, and he followed through with that promise.  Those three justices (Kavanaugh, Comey-Barrett, and Gorsuch) have absolutely followed through on some very conservative decisions.  But they have not shown any personal loyalty to Trump.

That's a fair point. It looks like there'll be another opportunity to put the point to the test with the current indictments.

If Trump were to win in 2024 I don't think he'd make the "mistake" of appointing Federalist Society judges - he'll insist on 100% loyalty.

No doubt he will. Though I wonder, what tools will he have to enforce such loyalty?

[Oexmelin]

Candidates for office have been elected from jail in the past.  The only conviction that would bar running would be impeachment.

Thanks.

So from an electoral perspective the main question is to what degree a potential conviction would drive support away from or towards Trump.

It's what the Founders would have wanted.

[Oexmelin]

Isn't it at least possible that the USSC runs out the clock, until the VP acting as President issues a presidential pardon?