Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (2 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[DaveXA]

While that's true, and I'm certain that the FBI went after him because they had him dead to rights and they thought he could help them with the bigger investigation. But, that doesn't change the overall issue. He lied. He could have said, "yes, I had that conversation because I thought that if Russia reacted, it would only make things worse, so I thought by getting them to hold off until after the inauguration, we could calm things down." Instead, he denied having the conversation, and made up a false story to back up his lie.



In all fairness about that, it's fairly uncommon for a president to influence the DOJ and CIA to the extent that Trump has done. They might ask questions to lead in a certain direction, but it's unheard of for them to take the kind of direct action to get them to do specific actions to aid the president.

I agree Trump broke a lot of norms and traditions during his time in office and it's totally not normal. That said, the reason it needs to be done now is to prevent future Presidents from doing the same thing. Who knows? We could get another Trump in the future. Sooner we put guardrails in, the better imo.

 

[MT15]

I feel exactly this way

 

[efil4]

I feel exactly this way

This is the table he said it from.

On Thanksgiving. Someone trolled this man with a kids table.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He&#39;s taking questions from the little kids table on Thanksgiving <a href="https://t.co/fZYp9CgsLV">pic.twitter.com/fZYp9CgsLV</a></p>&mdash; seanwithaw (@seanwithaw) <a href="">November 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[J-DONK]

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that Trump is going to run in 2024. I imagine this is just the start of the pardons. Also, there was Andrew McCabe statement about "secret intelligence exist that would cast Trump in a very negative light".

 

[superchuck500]

This is the table he said it from.

On Thanksgiving. Someone trolled this man with a kids table.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He&#39;s taking questions from the little kids table on Thanksgiving <a href="https://t.co/fZYp9CgsLV">pic.twitter.com/fZYp9CgsLV</a></p>&mdash; seanwithaw (@seanwithaw) <a href="">November 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[superchuck500]

President just losing his shirt over a hashtag.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[nolaspe]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

President just losing his shirt over a hashtag.

What a whiny, little...he just guaranteed that #DiaperDon will trend until the day his son Don Jr dies.

 

[zztop]

anyone mention the little tantrum he threw at the same tiny desk press conference?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is all types of petty here...

 

[where yat brah]

The Maria Bartitomo interview was a lesson in pandering and embarrassing.

'This is propaganda': Fox News' Maria Bartiromo slammed for 'softball' Trump interview

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo faced criticism Sunday for failing to challenge President Trump on his claims of widespread election fraud.

www.google.com

 

[FullMonte]

I honestly don't get that. I understand that he isn't the most knowledgeable guy about the law, but SOMEONE had to explain this to him.

Section 230, as I understand it, says that if I post something on Twitter, then I (and not Twitter) am responsible for the content of that post. So, if it is defamatory, or illegal in some way, I (and not Twitter) can be held accountable for that.

Removing Section 230 would mean that Twitter would have to put tighter clamps on everything (and censor more) because they would bear the legal burden of all content.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I honestly don't get that. I understand that he isn't the most knowledgeable guy about the law, but SOMEONE had to explain this to him.

Section 230, as I understand it, says that if I post something on Twitter, then I (and not Twitter) am responsible for the content of that post. So, if it is defamatory, or illegal in some way, I (and not Twitter) can be held accountable for that.

Removing Section 230 would mean that Twitter would have to put tighter clamps on everything (and censor more) because they would bear the legal burden of all content.

Yep. Probably the reason why he never followed through on his other threats other than that EO that did absolutely nothing.

 

[Booker]

Trump plagiarizing from Elle Woods/Legally Blonde is even better than Melania plagiarizing from Michelle Obama...

 

[FullMonte]

Legal Question here....

I know we've all seen talk of Trump announcing his 2024 candidacy. There is also talk of him either resigning so Pence can pardon him (which I don't see happening), or pardoning himself.

Since accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, would that mean that if he accepts a pardon, he is admitting guilt of a crime, and therefore ineligible to run for president in 2024?

 

[bdb13]

Legal Question here....

I know we've all seen talk of Trump announcing his 2024 candidacy. There is also talk of him either resigning so Pence can pardon him (which I don't see happening), or pardoning himself.

Since accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, would that mean that if he accepts a pardon, he is admitting guilt of a crime, and therefore ineligible to run for president in 2024?

Without looking anything up, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution or federal law that actually would preclude a person who's been convicted of a crime from running for and being elected to the Presidency.

Either way I'm nearly positive the answer to your question will be that it doesn't work like that.

 

[Nebaghead]

Without looking anything up, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution or federal law that actually would preclude a person who's been convicted of a crime from running for and being elected to the Presidency.

Either way I'm nearly positive the answer to your question will be that it doesn't work like that.

I’ve also heard he might pardon himself and not announce it and have the pardon document ready if he is ever indicted on something that happened before the pardon.