Robert, I want to offer a very deep and profound thank you for everything you’ve written over the years. I have been a silent follower for about 8 years now. Your words have not only soothed my immediate anxiety, but also armed me with the tools I need to cope with anxiety and overly bleak news on my own. I was extremely hopeful for this election, but find myself in a similar mode of panic and anxiety that I was 8 years ago. However, I truly believe that when people are challenged by hatred and division, we also see the best in them. I still believe in all the good things that people have to offer the planet and each other. I feel that no matter how dire the news seems, it only hardens our resolve to work towards a better future. So I will see this moment in time as a challenge to better myself, and do my part in passing it on to those around me. Again, thank you for the tremendous amount of time you’ve spent helping others you've ’e never even met.
Thanks for this Robert. It’s hard not to feel like everything’s bleak and hopeless right now, but your words offer a guiding light. I especially thank you for your section on suicide prevention—I fear a lot of people are going to be consumed by anxiety and despair after this
Thanks. I wrote it as a result of a member of our Facebook group saying her trans kid had attempted suicide when the news of Trump's win came out. Thankfully not successfully! They are clearly a very vulnerable group right now and need special attention.
No it changes nothing. Most laws can't be passed unless it gets a 60 seat vote there and it is way short of that, 53 to 54 seats. And the thing is that for any far right laws it needs not just a Republican but a far right majority. The Republican party spans a very broad range of views which in countries with multi-party coalitions would probably cover at least 5 different parties who all have to agree on any legislation. Any of those factions could block anything they don't like. That's especially so in the House where the majority will likely be single digits out of 218 for a one seat majority.
BLOG: Trump won’t be able to pass anything except blandest partisan laws or bipartisan with Democrats - because of narrow majority in the House and 45+ Democrats can filibuster to stop laws in the Senate
A 60 seat majority in the Senate. Most laws can't be passed unless it gets a 60 seat vote there and it is way short of that, 53 to 54 seats. And the thing is that for any far right laws it needs not just a Republican but a far right majority. The Republican party spans a very broad range of views which in countries with multi-party coalitions would probably cover at least 5 different parties who all have to agree on any legislation. Any of those factions could block anything they don't like. That's especially so in the House where the majority will likely be single digits out of 218 for a one seat majority.
I’m making my way through your article, one point I slightly disagree with is the idea of a World War. Trump may not be a hawk, but he is an appeaser, a capitulator. His inability or unwillingness to help Ukraine or stop Putin may be enough if Putin and Kim Jung Un decide to March across Poland and the Baltic’s.
Okay - I think you are right. Strictly speaking Jack Smith has just paused it to 2nd December while he assesses what to make of the new circumstances but it seems likely it won't go ahead.
QUOTE STARTS
Smith said that his team needs to “assess the unprecedented circumstances and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy,” according to the court filing.
Next month, Smith will file a report or will inform the court of his office’s deliberations on the matter, the court papers say, which added that Trump’s attorneys have not objected to their request after conferring with them.
...
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice (DOJ) told The Epoch Times that the department has a longstanding policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents in response to questions on whether it will drop the Smith cases.
his is a convention of the Department of Justice which is why Jack Smith is going to wind the cases down. Because he was a DoJ special prosecutor. Nobody else who takes out a case against him is bound by it.
If it was serious enough, it's not just theoretically, they WOULD prosecute a president for e.g. murder or serious fraud or embezzlement or some such. He would normally impeached and convicted first but it could move to a prosecution right away in some circumstances.
The story of Ulysses S. Grant is the one they use as precedent to show that a sitting president can be prosecuted even though he never attended the court.
The Jan 06 case likely wouldn't have gone to trial for a year anyway.
I don't think this prevents them taking up the two cases again in 2029 after the end of Trump's second term if the then president wants to do it.
Then he is not going to be sentenced for the Hush Money conviction either. That is under State law - but Trump's team could argue that even before he becomes president
it would interfere with the orderly transfer of power for him to be dragged away to a court case.
But what's not clear is if the sentence will just be halted or postponed for 4 years. Nobody has ever been in such a situation before.
QUOTE STARTS
In theory, the judge who presided over the hush money trial, Justice Juan Merchan, could try to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled and order that any sentence be deferred until 2029, when Trump will complete his term. But even that would pose problems, as Trump’s lawyers are sure to argue that hauling the president-elect into a state courtroom in the middle of the presidential transition would impede the orderly transfer of power.
If Merchan feels he cannot conduct the sentencing hearing on Nov. 26, it’s not clear if he would cancel it altogether or try to hold the case in abeyance for four years with a plan of sentencing Trump when he leaves office.
Merchan is separately scheduled to rule on Nov. 12 on a request by Trump that the guilty verdict be set aside in light of the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity. If the judge sides with Trump on that request, the sentencing hearing would become moot. But many legal experts see Trump’s immunity argument in the hush money case as a longshot.
Merchan probably won’t tip his hand on the sentencing date until Trump’s legal team files a motion on the issue. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche did not respond to questions Wednesday.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, will also likely weigh in on whether the sentencing should take place. Legal experts said they don’t expect Bragg to oppose a request to cancel the Nov. 26 hearing.
The district attorney’s office didn’t oppose the two earlier sentencing postponements that Trump requested.
“I don’t see the sentence being imposed even assuming the judge agrees that the case should proceed toward the sentencing,” said former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland.
“The former president/president-elect does not get sentenced.”
So - it is all convention not any legal requirement and of course for something very serious they wouldn't be bound by convention.
But he was only going to get probation or a short prison sentence for a first time offence for the hush money. And for the Jan 06 it was going to be a long time until the trial and the people have obviously decided that he can run for president again after Jan 06.
So - I think it is to do with getting in the way of the will of the people there.
I hope Judge Chutkan's pretrial decision does go ahead as that will help clarify that he wasn't immune from prosecution for Jan 06.
In theory, the judge who presided over the hush money trial, Justice Juan Merchan, could try to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled and order that any sentence be deferred until 2029, when Trump will complete his term. But even that would pose problems, as Trump’s lawyers are sure to argue that hauling the president-elect into a state courtroom in the middle of the presidential transition would impede the orderly transfer of power.
If Merchan feels he cannot conduct the sentencing hearing on Nov. 26, it’s not clear if he would cancel it altogether or try to hold the case in abeyance for four years with a plan of sentencing Trump when he leaves office.
Merchan is separately scheduled to rule on Nov. 12 on a request by Trump that the guilty verdict be set aside in light of the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity. If the judge sides with Trump on that request, the sentencing hearing would become moot. But many legal experts see Trump’s immunity argument in the hush money case as a longshot.
Merchan probably won’t tip his hand on the sentencing date until Trump’s legal team files a motion on the issue. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche did not respond to questions Wednesday.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, will also likely weigh in on whether the sentencing should take place. Legal experts said they don’t expect Bragg to oppose a request to cancel the Nov. 26 hearing.
The district attorney’s office didn’t oppose the two earlier sentencing postponements that Trump requested.
“I don’t see the sentence being imposed even assuming the judge agrees that the case should proceed toward the sentencing,” said former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland.
“The former president/president-elect does not get sentenced.”
Robert, I want to offer a very deep and profound thank you for everything you’ve written over the years. I have been a silent follower for about 8 years now. Your words have not only soothed my immediate anxiety, but also armed me with the tools I need to cope with anxiety and overly bleak news on my own. I was extremely hopeful for this election, but find myself in a similar mode of panic and anxiety that I was 8 years ago. However, I truly believe that when people are challenged by hatred and division, we also see the best in them. I still believe in all the good things that people have to offer the planet and each other. I feel that no matter how dire the news seems, it only hardens our resolve to work towards a better future. So I will see this moment in time as a challenge to better myself, and do my part in passing it on to those around me. Again, thank you for the tremendous amount of time you’ve spent helping others you've ’e never even met.
This is a beautiful comment. Thank you for sharing
Thanks for this Robert. It’s hard not to feel like everything’s bleak and hopeless right now, but your words offer a guiding light. I especially thank you for your section on suicide prevention—I fear a lot of people are going to be consumed by anxiety and despair after this
Thanks. I wrote it as a result of a member of our Facebook group saying her trans kid had attempted suicide when the news of Trump's win came out. Thankfully not successfully! They are clearly a very vulnerable group right now and need special attention.
The GOP has a majority in the senate, does that change anything?
No it changes nothing. Most laws can't be passed unless it gets a 60 seat vote there and it is way short of that, 53 to 54 seats. And the thing is that for any far right laws it needs not just a Republican but a far right majority. The Republican party spans a very broad range of views which in countries with multi-party coalitions would probably cover at least 5 different parties who all have to agree on any legislation. Any of those factions could block anything they don't like. That's especially so in the House where the majority will likely be single digits out of 218 for a one seat majority.
See my:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/trump-wont-be-able-to-pass-anything
BLOG: Trump won’t be able to pass anything except blandest partisan laws or bipartisan with Democrats - because of narrow majority in the House and 45+ Democrats can filibuster to stop laws in the Senate
Only if it’s a filibuster-proof supermajority.
What do you mean?
A 60 seat majority in the Senate. Most laws can't be passed unless it gets a 60 seat vote there and it is way short of that, 53 to 54 seats. And the thing is that for any far right laws it needs not just a Republican but a far right majority. The Republican party spans a very broad range of views which in countries with multi-party coalitions would probably cover at least 5 different parties who all have to agree on any legislation. Any of those factions could block anything they don't like. That's especially so in the House where the majority will likely be single digits out of 218 for a one seat majority.
See my:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/trump-wont-be-able-to-pass-anything
Thanks for this edition Jasmine
I’m making my way through your article, one point I slightly disagree with is the idea of a World War. Trump may not be a hawk, but he is an appeaser, a capitulator. His inability or unwillingness to help Ukraine or stop Putin may be enough if Putin and Kim Jung Un decide to March across Poland and the Baltic’s.
Breaking news, there IS NO Chutkan pre-trial. At least, that's what I see out of this. I dunno.
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3lahecsiw672j
Okay - I think you are right. Strictly speaking Jack Smith has just paused it to 2nd December while he assesses what to make of the new circumstances but it seems likely it won't go ahead.
QUOTE STARTS
Smith said that his team needs to “assess the unprecedented circumstances and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy,” according to the court filing.
Next month, Smith will file a report or will inform the court of his office’s deliberations on the matter, the court papers say, which added that Trump’s attorneys have not objected to their request after conferring with them.
...
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice (DOJ) told The Epoch Times that the department has a longstanding policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents in response to questions on whether it will drop the Smith cases.
his is a convention of the Department of Justice which is why Jack Smith is going to wind the cases down. Because he was a DoJ special prosecutor. Nobody else who takes out a case against him is bound by it.
If it was serious enough, it's not just theoretically, they WOULD prosecute a president for e.g. murder or serious fraud or embezzlement or some such. He would normally impeached and convicted first but it could move to a prosecution right away in some circumstances.
The story of Ulysses S. Grant is the one they use as precedent to show that a sitting president can be prosecuted even though he never attended the court.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-president-ulysses-s-grant-was-arrested-for-speeding-in-a-horse-drawn-carriage-180981916/
The Jan 06 case likely wouldn't have gone to trial for a year anyway.
I don't think this prevents them taking up the two cases again in 2029 after the end of Trump's second term if the then president wants to do it.
Then he is not going to be sentenced for the Hush Money conviction either. That is under State law - but Trump's team could argue that even before he becomes president
it would interfere with the orderly transfer of power for him to be dragged away to a court case.
But what's not clear is if the sentence will just be halted or postponed for 4 years. Nobody has ever been in such a situation before.
QUOTE STARTS
In theory, the judge who presided over the hush money trial, Justice Juan Merchan, could try to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled and order that any sentence be deferred until 2029, when Trump will complete his term. But even that would pose problems, as Trump’s lawyers are sure to argue that hauling the president-elect into a state courtroom in the middle of the presidential transition would impede the orderly transfer of power.
If Merchan feels he cannot conduct the sentencing hearing on Nov. 26, it’s not clear if he would cancel it altogether or try to hold the case in abeyance for four years with a plan of sentencing Trump when he leaves office.
Merchan is separately scheduled to rule on Nov. 12 on a request by Trump that the guilty verdict be set aside in light of the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity. If the judge sides with Trump on that request, the sentencing hearing would become moot. But many legal experts see Trump’s immunity argument in the hush money case as a longshot.
Merchan probably won’t tip his hand on the sentencing date until Trump’s legal team files a motion on the issue. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche did not respond to questions Wednesday.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, will also likely weigh in on whether the sentencing should take place. Legal experts said they don’t expect Bragg to oppose a request to cancel the Nov. 26 hearing.
The district attorney’s office didn’t oppose the two earlier sentencing postponements that Trump requested.
“I don’t see the sentence being imposed even assuming the judge agrees that the case should proceed toward the sentencing,” said former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland.
“The former president/president-elect does not get sentenced.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-sentencing-probably-wont-happen-00187999
So - it is all convention not any legal requirement and of course for something very serious they wouldn't be bound by convention.
But he was only going to get probation or a short prison sentence for a first time offence for the hush money. And for the Jan 06 it was going to be a long time until the trial and the people have obviously decided that he can run for president again after Jan 06.
So - I think it is to do with getting in the way of the will of the people there.
I hope Judge Chutkan's pretrial decision does go ahead as that will help clarify that he wasn't immune from prosecution for Jan 06.
In theory, the judge who presided over the hush money trial, Justice Juan Merchan, could try to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled and order that any sentence be deferred until 2029, when Trump will complete his term. But even that would pose problems, as Trump’s lawyers are sure to argue that hauling the president-elect into a state courtroom in the middle of the presidential transition would impede the orderly transfer of power.
If Merchan feels he cannot conduct the sentencing hearing on Nov. 26, it’s not clear if he would cancel it altogether or try to hold the case in abeyance for four years with a plan of sentencing Trump when he leaves office.
Merchan is separately scheduled to rule on Nov. 12 on a request by Trump that the guilty verdict be set aside in light of the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity. If the judge sides with Trump on that request, the sentencing hearing would become moot. But many legal experts see Trump’s immunity argument in the hush money case as a longshot.
Merchan probably won’t tip his hand on the sentencing date until Trump’s legal team files a motion on the issue. Trump lawyer Todd Blanche did not respond to questions Wednesday.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, will also likely weigh in on whether the sentencing should take place. Legal experts said they don’t expect Bragg to oppose a request to cancel the Nov. 26 hearing.
The district attorney’s office didn’t oppose the two earlier sentencing postponements that Trump requested.
“I don’t see the sentence being imposed even assuming the judge agrees that the case should proceed toward the sentencing,” said former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland.
“The former president/president-elect does not get sentenced.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-sentencing-probably-wont-happen-00187999
I see. I did here somewhere that what is an official & unofficial act was already determined, but I am not too sure.