Balta1701

Just for reference, no not in the least.

Well, that's the type of move they should be making.

I think they are planning for that by not signing people and cutting costs. If the season is 162 games, they pay their full salaries, but almost the whole league is going to start the season with attendance restrictions. So either you lose money or you have an extra salary restriction.

But look at the breakdowns in that poll. 61% of self-identified Republicans in that poll believe that Donald Trump did Nothing Wrong, and 69% say he deserves not much blame or no blame at all for the Rioting that occurred last week in Washington DC.

Saying this again - even if they don't convict, get the Senate on record with a vote saying they're ok with this. You can already write the ad saying "Marco Rubio protected Donald Trump from consequences after a violent mob stormed the Capitol building". Joe Biden can call them out to their faces during a joint session of Congress in a few weeks. Even if a conviction doesn't happen, voting against it should be made to carry a large political price. Furthermore, God knows what is going to happen over the next weeks and months. According to the Washington Post, right wing groups are celebrating their big victory and using it to grow and fundraise, so we can likely expect more attempts at domestic terrorism to be spurred by this success.

FWIW, there are actually groups including Turning Point USA apparently bused people in, got them hotel rooms, and said they were doing so that morning in now-deleted tweets. Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sits on their advisory board. Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner has donated them money. They have a whole lot of fossil fuel and mining funding reported.

Read the linked article. It actually answers that question, with perspective from historians and a description from Alexander Hamilton.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/trump-has-power-pardon-mob-attacked-us-capitol Does not matter if charges are delayed. He could do so right now.

As I understand it, effectively no. The President's pardon power is one of the strongest powers of that office, it is virtually unlimited. The only legit question would be whether the President could pardon himself, or arrange for a pardon of himself through blackmail.

What happens if the President issues a pardon?

We will see if this statement holds up next week, but I think the Saints, when healthy, are solidly better than the Bucs.

You're assuming: 1. A legal method to install Biden. If they aren't presented with the votes of the electoral college, they cannot vote for that. 2. A quorum. If, hypothetically, more than 1/2 of the House of Representatives could not reach the House, the House would be unable to reach a Quorum and could not legally vote on anything. House Members cannot be replaced without a legally recognized election in their districts, unlike Senators there is no way to appoint them. If 220 members of the House were killed or taken hostage, there would be no legal way to vote for a new speaker or install a President. Without these, Biden would not legally be president. He could not legally give an order to the military. He could not legally direct federal agencies. The Courts could not simply sort this out later, courts cannot write laws. Biden would only be President if an entirely new government was established. You would somehow need the states to reapprove the US Constitution, with a restart rule built in. Effectively, that situation is a complete collapse of the US Federal government.

To be clear, that doesn't mean that Trump would stay in power. Rather, it means that the US Government has broken. There would be no one in the country who could give a legal order to the military as of noon on January 20.

After the 9/11 attacks, a commission including members of the moderate left wing Brookings institution and the right wing American Enterprise Institute took a look at potential ways that the US government could be completely broken by a terrorist attack, such as situations where Congress needs to approve a President or Vice President but there is no quorum, as required by the law for a vote to happen, and recommended a number of legal changes that would make things more secure in the face of a possible mass casualty event in DC. The commissions chairs were Ford and Carter. The recommendations, for the most part, have not been adopted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Government_Commission

Thankfully Cruz is no longer my Senator. He’s your problem.

I believe that US law has no ability to handle a situation like that, and you cannot write and pass a new law to establish what to do if the electoral college information has been destroyed without the Presidents signature. This is why there is a “Designated Survivor”. Because there are scenarios where the US government has made no law to cover them, and if one of them happens, there is no legal way to clean things up. If the entire line of Presidential succession is gone, this country has no legal way to fix it.

No, while court cases worked up to the Supreme Court, we would be onto the procedure outlined in the amendments if no President has been legally approved, it would go to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. Whose lives were in jeopardy there. If those two were killed, or taken prisoner, the cabinet expires on January 20 I believe. That would leave 0 people in the line of succession. (Edit: if you see a font change it wasn’t deliberate).

Oh you want one? They get the box full of pages stating who won each state and destroy it. The law doesn’t have any provisions for what to do in that case, it doesn’t say explicitly they can be reprinted. So when Cruz and Harley object, they actually have something of a solid legal objection. If that box had been destroyed, then right now whether the Congress could approve Biden as President-Elect would be in the courts.

LaVine's problem continues to be that he could be a strong #2 option on a team, but the Bulls are a team unlikely to have a #1 option while LaVine is here. If they develop one internally it will take time, and LaVine signing another big extension will make it difficult to land a #1 option via free agency while still holding the set of young guys they have right now, particularly given the issues with (points to the whole world). By the time the Bulls are ready for LaVine to be in the role where he should be, LaVine may have wasted the best years of his career. I don't know which team yet, but I really would like to see him prove himself more under Donovan, then be moved for a package of first round picks this trade deadline. He's just not what the Bulls need right now, and as of now that isn't very much his fault.

We...don't know. Especially when some of the Capitol police aided and abetted the attack on that facility, and there were other people from law enforcement nationwide in the mob...I would call that a legitimate concern.

Can you please tell this to "The Chicago White Sox", rather than to their fans? Because their fans are responding to their behavior, where they seem to have a strong payroll limit where they are flat out unwilling to go after the top players. Consider our competition in San Diego. This offseason, they just added a starting pitcher, highly paid but very effective the last year and a half, under contract for several years. They are about to sign their second $300 million+ contract. Some of the moves they make will not look good at the end - some already don't, but they realize they can beat the Dodgers right now and are acting like it. If they take losses the next year or two, they believe it will be worth it because they can bring a title to San Diego. Compare that to the Chicago White Sox. They see Lance Lynn, who has been almost as good the last few years, and say "this is a guy we need to add!". Yes! We can win this year! Then, they see a major hole in right field, where White Sox fans have been eyeing George Springer, a playoff proven player who would be a nearly perfect fit, who even hit righties better than lefties the last 2 years so that platoon thing isn't a big worry - and they say "We signed Adam Eaton for $6 million before someone else could get him!!!". They look at their need of a reliever, in this thread, where we could get this done right now if we were willing to go to about $50 million give or take, and see "yes, that would be a fair contract for that player, he is the best reliever on the market and would absolutely be a perfect fit for our championship team the next 2 years, and that's why we won't pay that price and will only take him if he's a bargain." If the White Sox are operating with such a stringent payroll requirement that they cannot risk losing money like the Padres, even though their stadium has been 1/2 full for a decade so there's plenty of opportunity for revenue growth and they've been immensely profitable in recent years...then they need to act like it and hoard years of control. If you cannot afford to play with the big boys in San Diego of all places, then you cannot give up 6 years of a potentially decent starter for 1 year of a hopefully very good starter. You cannot waste money in noncompetitive years (2019's wasted $50 million), you cannot trade young players for expensive closers who you hold in 1 competitive season, you cannot trade away your international signing dollars because your scouts are lazy and your owner is stubborn, you cannot put a potential long term starter in your bullpen rather than starting to stretch him out and preserving his service time, and this list of issues could go on. If you have such a salary limit, you have to run with the things you can develop and already control, and you have to try to steal guys with years of control. You may have a more money to play with, but you have to think like the A's, Baseball Club Cleveland, or Rays, and pinch every penny. Maybe you have enough money you don’t have to trade away every good player, but you have to constantly be thinking long term. If the White Sox are going to trade controlled young players for 34 year old starters who have been very good the last few years but have 1 year of control remaining, then they need to act like they're going to win right now and they're willing to lose money to do it.. Hendricks's contract may be Herrera bad in year 4, but if you have 2 straight world series appearances and a title, congrats on the 38,000 season tickets sold in 2024. If you're right, and this roster could be substantially weaker after 2024, then they need to act like the 2nd of these. If they can't afford to, then they shouldn't have put themselves in a position where they are giving away players they control after that point like Dunning and spending years of control on Crochet in the bullpen. Pick a path.

If we were anywhere close to approaching herd immunity, then areas that had the most cases should eventually start seeing fewer. If we are no where close, then more cases in the past should correlate with more cases in the future, because more chains that can be continued. Statistically it is the latter.