Floating the idea may give his enablers pause for more careful thought about whether the orders he gives are illegal. With Trump looking likely to lose, I think it’s far more likely that a credible threat of consequences would make enablers back off on illegal acts rather than the possibility that @kbfriender suggests that they might take the risky path of doubling down with further crimes gambling that his reelection will protect them.
Like I said, it depends on whether or not they think that they can control him. They’ve had a good time so far, pushing through judges and tax cuts and other Republican candy. They’d love to go back to a 2017-2019 congressional makeup, so that they can continue their work of dismantling our country.
Failing that, though, just giving Trump the power to sign the orders they tell him to sign, and let him play president the rest of the time is still a valid option. Especially with the courts stacked to enable him, and even an opposing congress can’t do much if it can’t muster veto proof majorities.
Like you said, Trump’s too dumb and entitled not to think that other people would be handing him a dictatorship because he deserves it.
We’ll see Emperor Donald and Regent McConnell, if it comes to that.
The problem for McConnell is if Trump is just smart enough to realize that, even as a puppet, the presidency has real powers, and the executive branch and military answers to president, not the senate.
Is that particular scenario the way things will go down? I don’t know, but neither do you. I don’t see what stops it.
The motivations of the administration is clear. Their resources are the entirety of the government. The biggest reason I have to doubt my scenario, or any other that is proposed, is because they will do something else that no one thought of. There are a near infinite ways this plays out, gaming them all is not a great use of time. Staying observant and aware of the goals of those who are seeking to disrupt our democracy is what is necessary.
It’s hard not to see that there is a constitutional crisis ahead, or even already here, where it will not be the words of dead men or the writings on a piece of parchment, but the decisions of people here and now that determine the direction we go.
Do you not think that any of them have already committed crimes that would be prosecuted by a Biden administration?
Do you think people have already committed crimes that are so heinous that further crimes would have no greater consequences?
Dammit, I wish people would shut the hell up about that - keep quiet until after we win the election, because…
The crap I took this morning is better informed than the president.
Yes, I think it is quite likely that there are those in the administration that, if fully prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, would lose everything, and be sentenced to prison for longer than they have left to live. (Some of the younger ones may get to try to pick up their lives in their golden years. Better hope Social Security sticks around)
I could point fingers and speculate (Barr), but in the end, they know who they are, and they know they have nothing left to lose.
How positive are you that no one has committed crimes so heinous that further crimes would have no greater consequences?
I’m less interested in prosecuting Trump than I am in taking some of those “norms” that he’s violated and making then inviolable. For instance, Barr is probably guilty of nothing more than “politicizing the Justice Dept”. How do we stop that from happening again?
Off the top of my head, here are the departments that Trump has politicized:
Justice
Intelligence
Census Bureau
Postal Service
NASA/NOAA
CDC
You know, Obama should have demanded loyalty from his people the way Individual-ONE does, because then maybe he would not have been constantly beset by former staff turning on him and exposing his failings and misdeeds. Good thing that is not happening to Individual-ONE.
Because historically it is far, far safer to be the power behind the throne than the one on it. The person on the throne is always going to be the main target of the public outrage.
Mitch’s problem, of course, is that the free press has made a large percentage of the population aware of who (one of) the power behind the throne is.
The company Individual 1 hired to hide the coronavirus data from the CDC is refusing to answer questions by the Senate, claiming they signed a nondisclosure agreement.
Right, because Congressional oversight doesn’t count if you got an NDA.
We’ll see your NDA and raise you a subpoena.
Yabbut try getting McConnell (or one of his committee chairs) to allow an actual subpoena to go out.
That’s the cliche but I don’t think it’s true.
Historically when the head of a regime is attacked, all of his ministers and courtiers are attacked with him. It wasn’t like Louis was the only one who got guillotined; there were plenty of other heads lying alongside his. So a self-serving power behind the throne knows his position is only as secure at the king’s is. Such a person doesn’t want a bad king on the throne who will draw public outrage.
The other downside of being the power behind the throne is the king can fire a minister but a minister can’t fire the king. The minister might get fired because he’s doing a bad job, because he’s doing too good a job and making the king look bad, because he’s getting too big and the king is starting to worry about being replaced, because he’s taking too big a bite out of the rewards the king feels should be his, or because the king screwed up and needs somebody else to pin the blame on. But in any of these scenarios, a self-serving power behind the throne can see that being the king is a more secure position than being the minister.
So, wait, does that mean he slept with them?
This is what Trump has feared all along, that he’d be prosecuted after he left office. This validates that fear, and you’re right: it’ll just make him dig in that much harder.
So if they don’t do what he wants, he’ll sleep with them again?
I realize this is probably a question nobody in this administration is asking but can the President legally ask anyone to sign a nondisclosure agreement when they’re fulfilling a government contract? Aren’t government reports public information by their nature? (With the exception of classified information but I don’t see how that can apply to a public health report.)
Of course, this particular President has required members of his own family to sign nondisclosure agreements. Think about the implications of that.
Evidently, he defines family the same way Manson did.
And Genovese too.