Jan 20 Predictions

[I-5]

I've said before I think he will leave the country to escape the legitimate lawsuits coming after him. My good friend predicts he will escape to Saudi Arabia by way of Turnberry in Scotland, where he will travel to play golf instead of attending the Jan 20 inauguration (being the narcissist loser he is). He also says that Melania will split with Trump, and stay with Barron in the US, since no one is after her. Jarred and Ivanka might need a place to hide as well (they are poison in New York the city they love), so they might end up with daddy.

Let's hear yours.

[RiverDog]

I've said before I think he will leave the country to escape the legitimate lawsuits coming after him. My good friend predicts he will escape to Saudi Arabia by way of Turnberry in Scotland, where he will travel to play golf instead of attending the Jan 20 inauguration (being the narcissist loser he is). He also says that Melania will split with Trump, and stay with Barron in the US, since no one is after her. Jarred and Ivanka might need a place to hide as well (they are poison in New York the city they love), so they might end up with daddy.

Let's hear yours.

I haven't a clue, and frankly, I don't care. All I care about is that he's rendered irrelevant. I suppose if he lived overseas he would be less of a martyr to his followers and certainly less accessible.

[I-5]

No one has a clue, that’s why it’s called a prediction

He will be stripped of power, but you know and I know his base will still see him as the rightful king, so as much as I would love for him to be irrelevant, that’s a fantasy that Jan 20 won’t magically fix.

However, seeing him running scared while pursued by the law would make it all worthwhile.

[RiverDog]

No one has a clue, that’s why it’s called a prediction

He will be stripped of power, but you know and I know his base will still see him as the rightful king, so as much as I would love for him to be irrelevant, that’s a fantasy that Jan 20 won’t magically fix.

However, seeing him running scared while pursued by the law would make it all worthwhile.

Most predictions have a certain number of 'clues' they use. Otherwise, they're called guesses.

If convicted in an impeachment trial, Trump will still be perceived as the 'rightful king', but except as it applies to his influence over his base, which is likely to recede somewhat after 1/20, he won't be a threat to other politicians and won't be able to exercise the same amount of influence over them like he would if we were still a viable candidate.

IMO impeachment is a much better option than judicial proceedings, which can go through an appeal process that can last years, which would allow him to stay in the news. The odds of Trump ever spending time in jail is extremely remote. Even if he was convicted, he stands a chance of reversing his conviction on appeal. And while you and I might enjoy seeing him running scared while being pursued by the law, it's going to fan the flames within his supporters. He'd have defense funds and rallies ahead of trials.

An impeachment would only last a couple of months, and if convicted, there is no appeal.

[Hawktawk]

I read an op Ed months ago that was written by a high ranking intelligence department officer . He referred to Trump as a classic flight risk “ and suggested he might try to leave and just not return . Lord knows he’s done enough for many despotic regimes he may be welcome. I continue to worry about serious violence in the streets of DC and elsewhere . Still not convinced he won’t declare martial law or attack Iran . I hope not but why did 10
Former sec of Def including Cheney and Rumsfeld as well as Mattis and esper write that article ? I’ve asked this before . If the president calls out the troops is it legal ? Can he be stopped without major bloodshed ? Everyone so confident the military is some paragon of virtue is uninformed. Thousands of QAanon members are troop as well as proud boys. A former general is calling for it . Trump is extremely popular with law enforcement rank and file . I don’t think anyone really can predict Jan 20 because this lunatic has been getting worse his entire term and I fear he will do something nobody realistically expects . So I’m not a predictor . I’m fearing the worst and hoping for the best .

[RiverDog]

I read an op Ed months ago that was written by a high ranking intelligence department officer . He referred to Trump as a classic flight risk “ and suggested he might try to leave and just not return . Lord knows he’s done enough for many despotic regimes he may be welcome. I continue to worry about serious violence in the streets of DC and elsewhere . Still not convinced he won’t declare martial law or attack Iran . I hope not but why did 10
Former sec of Def including Cheney and Rumsfeld as well as Mattis and esper write that article ? I’ve asked this before . If the president calls out the troops is it legal ? Can he be stopped without major bloodshed ? Everyone so confident the military is some paragon of virtue is uninformed. Thousands of QAanon members are troop as well as proud boys. A former general is calling for it . Trump is extremely popular with law enforcement rank and file . I don’t think anyone really can predict Jan 20 because this lunatic has been getting worse his entire term and I fear he will do something nobody realistically expects . So I’m not a predictor . I’m fearing the worst and hoping for the best .

Here's an article that might give you some comfort:

Speaking publicly on the issue last November, Gen. John Hyten, top US nuclear commander, said he would push back against an order from Trump for a nuclear strike if it were “illegal.”

“I provide advice to the President,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

While the President retains that authority, Hyten publicly emphasized that the US military always has the obligation to follow only legal orders, including those entailing the launch of nuclear weapons.

During that hearing, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, who served as the commander of US Strategic Command under President Barack Obama, explained that there are layers of safeguards within the system designed to ensure any order is legal and proportionally appropriate.

CNN military analyst John Kirby explained that military judge advocates and general counsel are active participants in the decision-making process at virtually every level, from the tactical to the strategic.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics ... index.html

Then there's this:

Can the military refuse an order from the commander-in-chief to occupy American streets and use force, if necessary, against American citizens?

Writing in the academic website The Conversation, former Naval officers Marcus Hedahl and Bradley Jay Strawser say the answer is yes. The oath sworn by all members of the military is to defend and support the Constitution, not necessarily the commander-in-chief, say Hedahl and Strawser, who now teach philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School.

"We often discuss with our classes the fact that military members are not duty-bound to follow illegal orders," they wrote. "In fact, they are expected, and sometimes legally required, to refuse to obey them."

It's informally called a "duty to disobey," and the Uniform Military Code of Justice speaks to it in Articles 90 and 92, which both deal with obligations to follow orders. While the Code is more concerned about the need to obey orders, it specifies that orders must be “lawful." If they're not, presumably, that leaves room for refusal.

Analyzing these sections, Retired Air Force First Sergeant Rod Powers explains that orders are always assumed to be lawful, except when they are “contrary to the constitution" or “laws of the United States," or are “patently illegal, … such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/ ... reets.html

IMO Trump has about the same chance of the military overturning the election as he did with a conservative SCOTUS, 1/3 of which he appointed.

[I-5]

I'm not worried at all about the military. That's never been an issue for me. Thankfully, they are run by actual professionals with cooler heads (though the Pentagon is filled with too many Trump hacks at the moment).

But I disagree 100% about his influence on republican politicians fading after 1/20. As long as he can say he is running again in 2024, then he is still a big time player, and his believers are still by far the loudest voice in the current party. Like I said elsewhere, it will take another figure in the party to forefully push back and shut him down for his power to fade. As much as I would like to see him impeached, I don't see that happening in the next 2 weeks. However, if the law prevents him from running again, THEN his power will be gone. That's the key.

I know you said you haven't a clue, but you've mentioned a couple times in this thread about his irrelevancy and fading power, so that's a clue. I think the conspirational talk will keep growing after 1/20, and if anything happens to Trump, he will be a martyr for his base.

[NorthHawk]

How many people in the Military are like Flynn?
So far there have been Senior Military people who are patriots to the Constitution, but there must be at least some who are at a minimum conflicted
about their role and duties - if Flynn is any indication and how the country is politically divided.

[RiverDog]

But I disagree 100% about his influence on republican politicians fading after 1/20. As long as he can say he is running again in 2024, then he is still a big time player, and his believers are still by far the loudest voice in the current party. Like I said elsewhere, it will take another figure in the party to forefully push back and shut him down for his power to fade. As much as I would like to see him impeached, I don't see that happening in the next 2 weeks. However, if the law prevents him from running again, THEN his power will be gone. That's the key.

After 1/20, Trump will no longer own the bully pulpit like he does now. IMO that fact alone is going to result in a significant waning of his influence. He will no longer be the lead story in 5 out of the 7 days of the week. Since the election, he has been losing Twitter followers in the thousands per day. After the 20th, that number is bound to increase. The world outside of the US will largely forget about him.

I know you said you haven't a clue, but you've mentioned a couple times in this thread about his irrelevancy and fading power, so that's a clue. I think the conspirational talk will keep growing after 1/20, and if anything happens to Trump, he will be a martyr for his base.

I agree that he's going to maintain a certain number of followers and that he'll continue to be a martyr for his base. That's part of my reasoning regarding pursuing him through the courts, that it will give credence to the notion that he's a victim of a witch hunt by the left/Democrats. But that following, although significant, is not going to be equal or greater than it is today.

[I-5]

After 1/20, Trump will no longer own the bully pulpit like he does now. IMO that fact alone is going to result in a significant waning of his influence. He will no longer be the lead story in 5 out of the 7 days of the week. Since the election, he has been losing Twitter followers in the thousands per day. After the 20th, that number is bound to increase. The world outside of the US will largely forget about him.

Like I said, if he can legally run again in 2024, he will maintain the bully pulpit. If he cannot run in 2024, then ok his power will fade. That is the only thing that will stop it.

I agree that he's going to maintain a certain number of followers and that he'll continue to be a martyr for his base. That's part of my reasoning regarding pursuing him through the courts, that it will give credence to the notion that he's a victim of a witch hunt by the left/Democrats. But that following, although significant, is not going to be equal or greater than it is today.

I disagree 1000% - he needs be pursued all the way to the bitter end. Anything less will not only embolden him, but the next, smarter, despot wannabe, and no one wants that. Pardoning him would be a mistake, and would not end any divisiveness whatsover - his believers would still feel wronged. No pardons, no excuses.

[RiverDog]

After 1/20, Trump will no longer own the bully pulpit like he does now. IMO that fact alone is going to result in a significant waning of his influence. He will no longer be the lead story in 5 out of the 7 days of the week. Since the election, he has been losing Twitter followers in the thousands per day. After the 20th, that number is bound to increase. The world outside of the US will largely forget about him.

Like I said, if he can legally run again in 2024, he will maintain the bully pulpit. If he cannot run in 2024, then ok his power will fade. That is the only thing that will stop it.

Which is why I advocate going the impeachment route.

I agree that he's going to maintain a certain number of followers and that he'll continue to be a martyr for his base. That's part of my reasoning regarding pursuing him through the courts, that it will give credence to the notion that he's a victim of a witch hunt by the left/Democrats. But that following, although significant, is not going to be equal or greater than it is today.

I disagree 1000% - he needs be pursued all the way to the bitter end. Anything less will not only embolden him, but the next, smarter, despot wannabe, and no one wants that. Pardoning him would be a mistake, and would not end any divisiveness whatsover - his believers would still feel wronged. No pardons, no excuses.

I didn't say anything about a pardon. The most viable chance of getting Trump on an election crime is via Georgia state laws, where a presidential pardon doesn't cover him, so it would be a moot point. But I do think that Biden needs to keep himself detached from this mess as much as possible. Concentrate on being President and ending the pandemic.

If I felt that convicting Trump of a crime was the best way to silence him, to render him irrelevant, I would be all for it. I don't want him to be a factor in American politics anymore than you or anyone else in this forum, perhaps more. But I strongly feel that the strategy of pursuing him for years would be counter productive, that it would make him even more of a martyr, more relevant, and more likely to successfully run again in 2024. Even if he were convicted, it wouldn't prevent him from holding office.

[I-5]

Which is why I advocate going the impeachment route.

What are the chances of impeachment happening in the next 14 days in your opinion? I would say zero to .000001%. Otherwise I'm all for it.

Biden has stayed at a pretty healthy distance from Trump's antics, to his credit, so I don't see any concern there. Also, he wouldn't be the one going after Trump in any case. I'm talking about the SDNY, not the feds. Yes, convicting Trump of crimes committed is the best way, and regardless, since when should we not go after criminals?

[RiverDog]

Which is why I advocate going the impeachment route.

What are the chances of impeachment happening in the next 14 days in your opinion? I would say zero to .000001%. Otherwise I'm all for it.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that a former President or other former office holders can't be impeached. The question may have to go to court first, but it would be a lot less lengthy of a process than a criminal trial.

Akhil Reed Amar, a renowned law professor at Yale University, wrote “America’s Constitution: A Biography.” “Yes, I believe that former officers are indeed impeachable,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... impeached/

Biden has stayed at a pretty healthy distance from Trump's antics, to his credit, so I don't see any concern there. Also, he wouldn't be the one going after Trump in any case. I'm talking about the SDNY, not the feds. Yes, convicting Trump of crimes committed is the best way, and regardless, since when should we not go after criminals?

Agreed about Biden and his hands off approach of Trump so far, so long as he doesn't take the bait.

As far as your last statement, prosecutors quite often refuse to prosecute criminals, especially if they don't think that they have a reasonable chance of getting them.

[I-5]

I know he CAN be impeached. The chances of that happening in the next 2 weeks? My money says no, but hey if it happens I'll be happy.

prosecutors quite often refuse to prosecute criminals, especially if they don't think that they have a reasonable chance of getting them.

Sure, if that's how the prosecutor feels. Here is a clue into the the NY AG Letitia James' thinking on one case involving Trump and his engineer for his Westchester Seven Springs Estate after a judge ruled that the Trump Org cannot claim any privileged communications in handing over documents between the two parties:

“We will immediately move to ensure that the Trump Organization complies with the court’s order and submits records related to our investigation. My office’s ongoing investigation will continue, as we continue to follow the facts wherever they may lead.” It doesn't mean they'll prosecute, but it's more likely than not. If they get a conviction, it would be for felony tax fraud.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-organization-must-cough-up-docs-on-seven-springs-engineer-to-new-york-attorney-general-manhattan-judge-rules/

[Aseahawkfan]

My prediction of Trump on January 20th and beyond:

Trump will leave office, keep whining to anyone that will listen, and go back to private life.

Trump will pay lawyers to partake in and settle litigation. He's far up the food chain and pays lots of expensive lawyers, accountants, and the like to ensure he is highly insulated from direct prosecution. I doubt the litigation will get Trump directly, though his businesses may have to pay a fine or something. Trump will pay lawyers to drag it out indefinitely.

Trump will keep his home base in Florida as it is now and travel a lot as he did before. He pretty rarely stays in one place too long. He likes to always be moving and traveling doing his dealings.

How invested will Trump stay in politics? Depends on what comes up. He may try to start a news station or he may just be someone who endorses a candidate here or there. But Trump likes to be the star of the show, so it's unlikely that he'll stay interested in politics where he's not the star of the show. He'll probably find something else to do like some new business venture or a political discussion program where he gets to talk the entire time. Trump doesn't like sharing the spotlight.

Trump is 74 years old. He's energetic for his age, but not ageless. I can't imagine he's got too many more good, high energy years to keep doing what he's doing.

Melania might divorce him, which means he'll probably look for some new trophy wife. Who knows, she may ride it out since she's last in line with a son for some of the Trump fortune.

I imagine with interest rates as low as they are, he'll make some new deals.

His dad lived to 94. So Trump might live quite a while. Maybe we'll see Trump vs. Biden 2024 if Trump still feels up to politicking and the coronavirus is under control. I think a lot of the fun of being president evaporated when the pandemic hit.

[Hawktawk]

Here's an article that might give you some comfort:

Speaking publicly on the issue last November, Gen. John Hyten, top US nuclear commander, said he would push back against an order from Trump for a nuclear strike if it were “illegal.”

“I provide advice to the President,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

While the President retains that authority, Hyten publicly emphasized that the US military always has the obligation to follow only legal orders, including those entailing the launch of nuclear weapons.

During that hearing, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, who served as the commander of US Strategic Command under President Barack Obama, explained that there are layers of safeguards within the system designed to ensure any order is legal and proportionally appropriate.

CNN military analyst John Kirby explained that military judge advocates and general counsel are active participants in the decision-making process at virtually every level, from the tactical to the strategic.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics ... index.html

Then there's this:

Can the military refuse an order from the commander-in-chief to occupy American streets and use force, if necessary, against American citizens?

Writing in the academic website The Conversation, former Naval officers Marcus Hedahl and Bradley Jay Strawser say the answer is yes. The oath sworn by all members of the military is to defend and support the Constitution, not necessarily the commander-in-chief, say Hedahl and Strawser, who now teach philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School.

"We often discuss with our classes the fact that military members are not duty-bound to follow illegal orders," they wrote. "In fact, they are expected, and sometimes legally required, to refuse to obey them."

It's informally called a "duty to disobey," and the Uniform Military Code of Justice speaks to it in Articles 90 and 92, which both deal with obligations to follow orders. While the Code is more concerned about the need to obey orders, it specifies that orders must be “lawful." If they're not, presumably, that leaves room for refusal.

Analyzing these sections, Retired Air Force First Sergeant Rod Powers explains that orders are always assumed to be lawful, except when they are “contrary to the constitution" or “laws of the United States," or are “patently illegal, … such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/ ... reets.html

IMO Trump has about the same chance of the military overturning the election as he did with a conservative SCOTUS, 1/3 of which he appointed.

Yeah the SCOTUS, losses in 60 lawsuits, certification of votes on the 15th, McConnel conceding along with many republicans, Bill Barr downloading etc, republican governors and election officials pushing back on him , really stopped Trump's sedition attempt didn't it? And all these reassuring articles and statements are great but we've already blown through norms by miles and the man is heading pell mell for god knows what.

If you saw his speech in georgia last night"I'm gonna fight like hell, I'm never giving up the presidency".

I dont see the military overturning the election. I fear trump will possibly TRY to command the military to go into the streets if he's able to create significant chaos

.Why did the Defense secs including arch conservatives warmongers Cheney and Rumsfeld write that warning about military involvement if the men who know best aren't extremely concerned?
To remind the current military brass of our american traditions with our military?
Directed at the new sycophant Sec of Defense who has espoused conspiracy theories?
The Assistant secretary, another trump sycophant?
He's a former staffer for R congressman Devin Nunes of california who behaved as a russian asset during the congressional Russia investigation.
Im positive Nunes will protest tomorrow. His dude is assistant sec of defense.

RD there has been a complete shakeup in the Sec of defense staff, all loyalists since the firing of Mark Esper AFTER LOSING THE ELECTION. I'm not sure they have the spine to stand up to Trump or even the inclination.
Esper said of his firing"who comes next and God help us" This is the top military officer in the US armed forces speaking of his commander in chief. I've never seen so many military brass including republicans go on the record with their concerns about this lunatic.
We aren't talking about nuclear war. I feared Trump would lose a nuclear pearl harbor, still might.There's time Don't want to be right but if I am were all an ash and nice knowing you all.

Im talking about troops in the streets which could set off a green on green conflict.

And again rules are rules and Im sure its illegal to serve in the military as a white supremacist but there are plenty of them.Remember Nichols and MCveigh? I've seen so much utterly irrational hair on fire acts by Trump and sycophants since he lost this election I will feel somewhat better when he's gone, not at all before.