RFK jr to announce ban on all vaccines until he understands what they are

[tarheelbillie]

"RFK jr to announce ban on all vaccines until he understands what they are"

Until HE understands what they are??
Guess that means the end of vaccines! Maybe there is one thing RFKJR and I can agree on... reduce the amount of chemical additives in processed foods. Hope he starts with the simplest... sodium (sodium chloride) and sugars.

 

[GeeWhy]

Screw that. Vaccines? Fine. Keep your damn hands off my salt, sugar, and fats.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Rfk is nothing but a Trump bootlicker like everyone else he hires

 

[ZenMode]

OTOH, Trump walks in the door as an elderly lame duck. Getting reelected is really all that mattered to him and SCOTUS wrote him a blank check to ignore the law. Will he have anyone on a leash? What does he care?

I won't claim to know Trump's true intention. He just talks. He talks constantly and often with no apparent direction; rambling incoherently, saying every thought that comes to mind, with no concern about whether or not it's rationale or reasonable.

The people he's surrounding himself with are generally unqualified for their positions, but aren't dumb and several have a legal background. SCOTUS may have given Trump a pass on "Presidential" actions, but the same doesn't apply to his cabinet.

One thing the Mueller Report made pretty clear, as it related to obstruction, is that the people around him did NOT follow his orders because they knew it would be their ass on the line, from a legal perspective, if they followed through. I think the same will largely be true during Trump's second term.

 

[finesse]

I won't claim to know Trump's true intention. He just talks. He talks constantly and often with no apparent direction; rambling incoherently, saying every thought that comes to mind, with no concern about whether or not it's rationale or reasonable.

The people he's surrounding himself with are generally unqualified for their positions, but aren't dumb and several have a legal background. SCOTUS may have given Trump a pass on "Presidential" actions, but the same doesn't apply to his cabinet.

One thing the Mueller Report made pretty clear, as it related to obstruction, is that the people around him did NOT follow his orders because they knew it would be their ass on the line, from a legal perspective, if they followed through. I think the same will largely be true during Trump's second term.

There's no adults left in the room.

 

[lawtig02]

I won't claim to know Trump's true intention. He just talks. He talks constantly and often with no apparent direction; rambling incoherently, saying every thought that comes to mind, with no concern about whether or not it's rationale or reasonable.

The people he's surrounding himself with are generally unqualified for their positions, but aren't dumb and several have a legal background. SCOTUS may have given Trump a pass on "Presidential" actions, but the same doesn't apply to his cabinet.

One thing the Mueller Report made pretty clear, as it related to obstruction, is that the people around him did NOT follow his orders because they knew it would be their ass on the line, from a legal perspective, if they followed through. I think the same will largely be true during Trump's second term.

Doesn’t really matter when the fully immune president has unfettered pardon power.

 

[nycfan]

I won't claim to know Trump's true intention. He just talks. He talks constantly and often with no apparent direction; rambling incoherently, saying every thought that comes to mind, with no concern about whether or not it's rationale or reasonable.

The people he's surrounding himself with are generally unqualified for their positions, but aren't dumb and several have a legal background. SCOTUS may have given Trump a pass on "Presidential" actions, but the same doesn't apply to his cabinet.

One thing the Mueller Report made pretty clear, as it related to obstruction, is that the people around him did NOT follow his orders because they knew it would be their ass on the line, from a legal perspective, if they followed through. I think the same will largely be true during Trump's second term.

Yeah, I hope you are right (and in some cases like Rubio think that is correct), but Trump is aware of that too — he calls it deep state interference. This time he is seeking people who will go along with his whims — Patel is a prime example. And he has indicated a willingness to use his pardon power to extend his cloak of immunity far and wide as suits him — so just stay in his good graces.

 

[StrangePackage]

I won't claim to know Trump's true intention. He just talks. He talks constantly and often with no apparent direction; rambling incoherently, saying every thought that comes to mind, with no concern about whether or not it's rationale or reasonable.

The people he's surrounding himself with are generally unqualified for their positions, but aren't dumb and several have a legal background. SCOTUS may have given Trump a pass on "Presidential" actions, but the same doesn't apply to his cabinet.

One thing the Mueller Report made pretty clear, as it related to obstruction, is that the people around him did NOT follow his orders because they knew it would be their ass on the line, from a legal perspective, if they followed through. I think the same will largely be true during Trump's second term.

I wonder if your flummoxed by Mack Brown getting fired, since last time he took us to the top of college football.

 

[ZenMode]

Doesn’t really matter when the fully immune president has unfettered pardon power.

That would only apply if Trump was still President and the accused had been charged, convicted and sentenced, right? Presidents can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted and is "doing time"? (I'm legitimately asking)

 

[finesse]

That would only apply if Trump was still President and the accused had been charged, convicted and sentenced, right? Presidents can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted and is "doing time"? (I'm legitimately asking)

On June 16, 1992, Weinberger was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. Bush pardoned him before his trial. Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s national security adviser, was convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain he faced two years of probation before Bush’s pardon came though.

 

[lawtig02]

That would only apply if Trump was still President and the accused had been charged, convicted and sentenced, right? Presidents can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted and is "doing time"? (I'm legitimately asking)

It’s never been done, but there’s about a zero percent chance this SCOTUS would interfere with a preemptive blanket pardon.

 

[farce©]

That would only apply if Trump was still President and the accused had been charged, convicted and sentenced, right? Presidents can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted and is "doing time"? (I'm legitimately asking)

Remember Ford’s preemptive pardon of Nixon?

 

[ZenMode]

Remember Ford’s preemptive pardon of Nixon?

Yes and other examples have been provided.

The lack of conviction, as I've heard, was the reason no president has pardoned Edward Snowden. Apparently that is incorrect.

 

[superrific]

Yes and other examples have been provided.

The lack of conviction, as I've heard, was the reason no president has pardoned Edward Snowden. Apparently that is incorrect.

There are only two potential limits on the presidential pardon power. I say potential because they haven't been addressed by the courts, but as far as I know, all other questions have been and they have been resolved conclusively in favor of the pardon. The two possible outer limits are:

1. Can the president pardon himself?
2. Can the president pardon acts that have not yet been committed? The president can issue a pardon on, say, Feb 1, 2026, saying, "I hereby pardon XXXX for any and all offenses, known or unknown, in violation of federal law," and everything done until that point is wiped out. If XXXX then kills someone on March 1, 2026, can that be covered by the pardon?

Those are the only possible limits. In terms of Trump's cabinet, he can pardon them for everything with a blanket pardon.

 

[Zoo_View]

On June 16, 1992, Weinberger was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. Bush pardoned him before his trial. Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s national security adviser, was convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain he faced two years of probation before Bush’s pardon came though.

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon was charged or indicted.

Jimmy Carter pardoned 10’s of thousands of draft dodgers who hasn’t been charged or indicted.

 

[finesse]

Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon was charged or indicted.

Jimmy Carter pardoned 10’s of thousands of draft dodgers who hasn’t been charged or indicted.

I went for the most self serving example. Bush was afraid Weinberger was going to testify against him. That's why he pardoned the ones already convicted so they would keep their mouths shut.

ETA: After all, that's the record we can expect Trump to break.

 

[lawtig02]

The last several posts on this thread are a great example of why the information environment in this past election was so freaking frustrating. I bet there are millions of people who voted for Trump who have no clue the extent to which the guardrails that could potentially constrain his absolute and self-serving exercise of power have been completely eliminated. And that’s in addition to the tens of millions who know about it but voted for him anyway because they WANT Trump to act like a dictator. The notion that there are any legal or political restraints that would keep Trump and his extremist companions from doing anything they want to do is just fantasy.

 

[superrific]

The notion that there are any legal or political restraints that would keep Trump and his extremist companions from doing anything they want to do is just fantasy.

I don't think this is quite right. The future has yet to be written. I would say that it's fantasy to assume that there will definitely be legal or political constraints. It's unwise to be confident in their emergence. But it's not impossible.

I read one article quoting a staffer on Capitol Hill (note that there are so many staffers that the value of a staffer comment is probably quite low, but anyway) as saying (this is a paraphrase), "these people are in the Senate because they want power. They aren't going to just hand it all over to Trump." The first part is true, at least in many cases. It's hard to see Dave McCormick as anything but a rich guy who is bored with being rich and wants power instead. It's the second part of that statement that remains the open question.

 

[wmheel1287]

I don't think this is quite right. The future has yet to be written. I would say that it's fantasy to assume that there will definitely be legal or political constraints. It's unwise to be confident in their emergence. But it's not impossible.

I read one article quoting a staffer on Capitol Hill (note that there are so many staffers that the value of a staffer comment is probably quite low, but anyway) as saying (this is a paraphrase), "these people are in the Senate because they want power. They aren't going to just hand it all over to Trump." The first part is true, at least in many cases. It's hard to see Dave McCormick as anything but a rich guy who is bored with being rich and wants power instead. It's the second part of that statement that remains the open question.

What those people want is immaterial. The voting public believes Trump is a God and he will be treated as such by all Republicans in Congress lest they lose their seat along with their power....and they damned well know it.

 

[lawtig02]

I don't think this is quite right. The future has yet to be written. I would say that it's fantasy to assume that there will definitely be legal or political constraints. It's unwise to be confident in their emergence. But it's not impossible.

I read one article quoting a staffer on Capitol Hill (note that there are so many staffers that the value of a staffer comment is probably quite low, but anyway) as saying (this is a paraphrase), "these people are in the Senate because they want power. They aren't going to just hand it all over to Trump." The first part is true, at least in many cases. It's hard to see Dave McCormick as anything but a rich guy who is bored with being rich and wants power instead. It's the second part of that statement that remains the open question.

I’ll maintain that there are no constraints until the Dems reclaim at least one house of Congress. I do think we’ll have elections in 2026, and if Dems do well, some accountability could be restored. But I’ve seen nothing that would suggest Trump will be constrained by any political or legal process over the next two years at least.