2022 Midterm Election thread

[bundabergdevil]

I don't think there's a law saying he can't run from prison, which is what I assume you meant (though rally attendance might take a hit). Or with even a criminal record. The idea being: Get elected, pardon yourself.

Wait. The constitution doesn't say it but I thought the Mar-a-Lago raid was a big deal because of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:


(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

[dudog84]

Wait. The constitution doesn't say it but I thought the Mar-a-Lago raid was a big deal because of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:


(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Well, if you're gonna cite U.S. Code on me...

[PackMan97]

Yeah, I don't think I agree with this take. In fact, I think I feel like there are likely several somewhat moderate and younger Republicans that Biden would have had real trouble against**. But, none of them even came close to running. Regardless, I know for a fact that none of us know the answer to this question even though you stated it like it was a certainty.



I don't think anyone was implying that the Newt Gingrich of today would be a good standard-bearer of the GOP. The same can be said of virtually all other politicians who were party leaders in the early 90s because they are all 30 years older today than they were then. I mean... really?!?

-Jason "off the top of my head: Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski... heck, maybe Mitt Romney" Evans

I should never post from my phone, I always try and be too brief.

Allow me to expound, if instead of Trump and Trump loyalists with half baked election stealing conspiracy theories on one side and empty sound bites, "We'll stop inflation because reasons" on the other side and instead the Republican party had been able to put forth a coherent and detailed vision for the future, as the Republicans did in their "Contract with America" in 1994, it could have been a complete bloodbath for the Democrats. Speculative? Of course, but isn't that half the fun of these discussions?

The Democrats did so well in this year's midterms, in part because the Republican party is at war with itself and the crazy half won the battle for the midterm nominations.

Pesonally, I feel our country is stronger when both parties are putting forth strong POSITIVE (I don't need to go into this qualifier do I?) visions for our country. In many respects, I had high hopes after the 2008 election where everyone was excited to talk about the issues facing our country that quickly fell apart once the business of governoring and being the minority opposition fell into the sterotypical roles.

[dudog84]

I was just thinking...even if he is indicted, tried, and found guilty, there is no way this plays out in 23 months. Because there is no way a conviction is not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And used as a cudgel during election season, but that cudgel could swing both ways.

[OldPhiKap]

Wait. The constitution doesn't say it but I thought the Mar-a-Lago raid was a big deal because of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:


(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

There is a theory (with some credence) that the Constitution does not have such a limit, and therefore a mere statute purporting to limit the qualifications of the office are invalid. Constitution trumps statutes (no pun intended).

No court ruling on it AFAIK, but theoretically that rationale holds some water.

[Kdogg]

DOJ appoints a special prosecutor for Trump. I wonder what the political impact of Trump being unable to run in 2024 would be —- I feel like this would be the best possible political scenario for GOP operatives. Get rid of the guy most of them have quietly hated while getting to cudgel Democrats for a politically motivated attack on a former president popular with the base.

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong but I think this takes it away from the House Judiciary committee purview. That means no cuts to the budget and no interference. There is only a record at the end. McCarthy couldn’t end it even if he wanted to. He’s already juggling three factions within his party. It’s one less headache for him.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I was just thinking...even if he is indicted, tried, and found guilty, there is no way this plays out in 23 months. Because there is no way a conviction is not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And used as a cudgel during election season, but that cudgel could swing both ways.

It won't be DJT against just the DOJ, though. It will be DJT vs. the DOJ and every other GOP candidate in his way, and at some point those other candidates are going to weaponize his legal troubles. He's not going to make it through the gauntlet of primary season in a successful campaign once indicted.

[dudog84]

It won't be DJT against just the DOJ, though. It will be DJT vs. the DOJ and every other GOP candidate in his way, and at some point those other candidates are going to weaponize his legal troubles. He's not going to make it through the gauntlet of primary season in a successful campaign once indicted.

I'm not so sure. The dude has more lives than an alley cat.

[PackMan97]

I'm not so sure. The dude has more lives than an alley cat.

Trump has to defend against all attacks, but his opponents only have to be successful once.

[CameronBlue]

It won't be DJT against just the DOJ, though. It will be DJT vs. the DOJ and every other GOP candidate in his way, and at some point those other candidates are going to weaponize his legal troubles. He's not going to make it through the gauntlet of primary season in a successful campaign once indicted.

I’m not quite so sure the battle lines are drawn that clearly at least in the minds of the DOJ. It’s still perplexes me why they named an independent investigator after nearly 2 years of investigation? Do they really think they’re going to convince anybody who supports Donald Trump that it’s not a “political witchhunt“? That faction of the Republican caucus Will scream just as loud as uever. Nothing the DOJ does that ends up in an indictment of Donald Trump is going to shut them up. And those political adversaries of Trump will probably acquiesce as well thinking it never hurts to play the victim game. Trump seems to have gotten so far into Garland’s psyche he doesn’t know Where the battle lines have been drawn.

[tommy]

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong but I think this takes it away from the House Judiciary committee purview. That means no cuts to the budget and no interference. There is only a record at the end. McCarthy couldn’t end it even if he wanted to.

Hadn’t thought of this. It’s a great point. If Youre correct about it that provides a very good reason why this move was made.

[YmoBeThere]

Trump has to defend against all attacks, but his opponents only have to be successful once.

Do you work in online security for a bank?

[PackMan97]

Do you work in online security for a bank?

Not for a bank,but yes to the cyber security.

[Phredd3]

Trump seems to have gotten so far into Garland’s psyche he doesn’t know Where the battle lines have been drawn.

I strongly disagree with this take. Quite to the contrary, I think Garland takes ethics very seriously. At this point, the prosecution of Trump boils down to one candidate charging a political opponent with a crime. Appointing a Special Prosecutor removes politics from that equation to the maximum extent possible. I completely agree with Garland that it was the right thing to do, regardless of what the other side is going to say. In fact, I would argue that taking into account what the opposition would do is a much more an "in your psyche" moment. Trump's possible response to the appointment has no bearing on whether or not the appointment was appropriate.

Garland did the right thing.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I strongly disagree with this take. Quite to the contrary, I think Garland takes ethics very seriously. At this point, the prosecution of Trump boils down to one candidate charging a political opponent with a crime. Appointing a Special Prosecutor removes politics from that equation to the maximum extent possible. I completely agree with Garland that it was the right thing to do, regardless of what the other side is going to say. In fact, I would argue that taking into account what the opposition would do is a much more an "in your psyche" moment. Trump's possible response to the appointment has no bearing on whether or not the appointment was appropriate.

Garland did the right thing.

I absolutely agree with this.

[YmoBeThere]

Not for a bank,but yes to the cyber security.

Okay, makes sense. That was an oft used phrase at the financial services company I used to work for.

[bundabergdevil]

Okay, makes sense. That was an oft used phrase at the financial services company I used to work for.

We say something similar about trusting farts.

[acdevil]

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong but I think this takes it away from the House Judiciary committee purview. That means no cuts to the budget and no interference. There is only a record at the end. McCarthy couldn’t end it even if he wanted to. He’s already juggling three factions within his party. It’s one less headache for him.

In addition, multiple members of the house judiciary comm are targets of the investigation which would make things very dicey without the SC.

[dudog84]

Trump's possible response to the appointment has no bearing on whether or not the appointment was appropriate.

Trump says he "won't partake" in any investigation. So I guess it's over already.

I won't partake in the cranberry sauce this Thursday. And you can't make me.

what-is-in-canned-cranberry-sauce-2000.jpg

[Skydog]

Trump says he "won't partake" in any investigation. So I guess it's over already.

I won't partake in the cranberry sauce this Thursday. And you can't make me.

what-is-in-canned-cranberry-sauce-2000.jpg

Just more evidence of the brilliance of Trump. How many of us would have thought to say “No, thanks.” when faced with a criminal prosecution?