NYTimes.com: Bill Maher: Why I Want an Open Convention

[John Clark]

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription.

Bill Maher: Why I Want an Open Convention

An open convention wouldn’t be a disaster for the Democrats. It might even help them win.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/opinion/bill-maher-open-convention.html?unlocked_article_code=1.300.57DI.tfrHYXrCm3u9&smid=em-share

[Brent Meeker]

As I understand the problem no other plausible candidate has raised money for a Presidential campaign and it's not legal for Biden to just redirect money given to him for his campaign.  I'm not sure how this affects PAC money; maybe they can direct spending to whomever.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ayYBiX-NDEuJw1p4RVwpzn5n0tHs8mKVyR8Mu925eTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 8:25 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I understand the problem no other plausible candidate has raised money for a Presidential campaign and it's not legal for Biden to just redirect money given to him for his campaign. 

That is my understanding as well, and there would be a lot of other problems if Biden were to release his delegates and let them vote for whoever they want in an open convention, but nevertheless it needs to be done because it's the last chance American democracy has; if that wasn't clear before it certainly is now after yesterday's Imperial Court decree. 

The betting odds, which historically has consistently proven itself to be better at predicting this sort of thing than any expert, says that if it's a Trump versus Biden election then there is a 33% chance Biden will win (personally I think that figure is too high), but if the Democrats nominate California governor Gavin Newsom there would be a 62% chance he would beat Trump. Vice President Harris would do slightly better than Biden but not nearly as well as Newsom.

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tbg

[PGC]

The recent Supreme Court ruling crowns the President as King of the USA though. From AP:

The justices, for instance, wiped out Smith’s use of allegations that Trump tried to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to undo the election results, holding that his communications with agency officials is plainly protected from prosecution.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-immunity-supreme-court-capitol-riot-trial-72ec35de776315183e1db561257cb108

If "communications with agency officials" is enough to make something a public act... then all the "killing your political rival for whatever purpose" brought up by commentators and even by Justice Sotomayor is theoretically covered. Hypothetically, Biden (or Trump, if elected) could "communicate with some government agency" to have a SEAL Team waiting in a water hazard on a golf course, their opponent frequents, to remove a clear danger to the "democracy" (but more Kingdom of the US, now).

All hail King and Kingdom of the USA, where prosecution is now toothless against Presidents committing acts officially. Just be in the office, talk to somebody in a government office, put whatever you want in writing, and stamp it with a red "official" stamp. 

Jokes aside: the specificity of those rulings is deliciously corrupt. From the same article:

Sotomayor pointed to historical evidence, from the founding fathers to Watergate, that presidents could potentially face prosecution. She took a jab at the conservative majority that has made the nation’s history a guiding principle on issues like guns and abortion. “Interesting, history matters, right?”

Then she looked at the courtroom audience and concluded, “Except here.”

The majority feared that the threat of potential prosecution could constrain a president or create a “cycle of factional strife,” that the founders intended to avoid.

Sotomayor, on the other handed, pointed out that presidents have access to extensive legal advice about their actions and that criminal cases typically face high bars in court to proceed.

“It is a far greater danger if the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law, buoyed by the knowledge of future immunity,” she said. “I am deeply troubled by the idea ... that our nation loses something valuable when the president is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.” 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 8:24 AM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "If "communications with agency officials" is enough to make something a public act... then all the "killing your political rival for whatever purpose" brought up by commentators and even by Justice Sotomayor is theoretically covered. Hypothetically, Biden (or Trump, if elected) could "communicate with some government agency" to have a SEAL Team waiting in a water hazard on a golf course, their opponent frequents, to remove a clear danger to the "democracy" (but more Kingdom of the US, now)."

When Trump runs for a third term in 2028 (never mind the trivial fact that a third term is unconstitutional) I have long maintained that it would not be out of character for Trump to order Seal Team Six to assassinate his leading political rival, and after yesterday's sinister Supreme Court decision I'm even more certain of it. That's why if Trump wins in November, as he almost certainly will if Biden remains his opponent, then 2024 will be the last presidential election this country ever has, if you don't count the sort of "elections" they have in Russia and North Korea.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eth

tbg