General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDem4life1234
(2,040 posts)A damn shame the model of the world has a felon as a leader. Unacceptable. Embarrassing.
Immoral as hell.
I hope Trudeau stood up to the felon like President Sheinbaum did.
One would think that would have been in the Constitution to never allow a criminal to lead the country. Ugh.
COL Mustard
(7,037 posts)They never imagined the electorate would be stupid enough to elect a criminal.
Dem4life1234
(2,040 posts)But when Nixon was caught up with his shenanigans and was forced to step down, that was when they should have enacted some form of legislation banning people who got caught up in questionable activities. Something! This is just not right.
Americans who support him should be ashamed of themselves and cannot call themselves moral people.
COL Mustard
(7,037 posts)The only qualifications are:
Natural born US citizen
Over 35 years old
Resident in the US for 14 years.
That's it. Nothing about character, loyalty to the US, criminal convictions, or anything else. The Founders expected the electorate to choose someone of good character, which to them meant no criminals or grifters. I expect they are rolling over in their graves at what we've done.
Dem4life1234
(2,040 posts)They are rolling over their graves right now. What a mess!
melm00se
(5,075 posts)was that our Founding Fathers never considered that Americans would be so stupid to have someone like Trump elected president so they didn't really place limits on who could be president. They figured that the Electoral College, which is made up who are not "Senator(s) or Representative(s), or Person(s) holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States", would intervene if the state's did something really stupid. Unfortunately, being an elector is now just as political as any traditional role that is filled via a partisan election.
They thought that including the impeachment process as a last ditch effort to prevent a "crisis of a national revolution" was sufficient.
I doesn't appear that they consulted with the man who would be the 1st president because if they had he would have said what was in his farewell address:
His warning was and has been ignored for more than 200 years and we are reaping what we have sown.
(Most people's understanding of Washington begins and ends with "he was a general in War for Independence and the 1st president". He was an incredibly wise and perceptive individual, far more than we expose in traditional education).
DENVERPOPS
(10,330 posts)"If the President does it, it is not a crime"...............
RhapsodyFav
(12 posts)when the previous Republican administrations commit crimes the next Democratic administration "looks forward" instead of holding them accountable and they get worse and worse. Paris Peace accords, Iran-Contra, Middle East lies for war and torture etc. and then all the crime and treason in the Trump administration.
Dem4life1234
(2,040 posts)I am so sick of the coddling! It only makes them worse and they push to see how far they can go.
33taw
(2,952 posts)C0RI0LANUS
(2,310 posts)"Under Canadas immigration law, if you have committed or been convicted of a crime, you may not be allowed into Canada. In other words, you may be criminally inadmissible."
This includes both minor and serious crimes, such as:
Theft, assault, manslaughter, dangerous driving, driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and possession of or trafficking in drugs or controlled substances.
Source:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/inadmissibility/overcome-criminal-convictions.html
orleans
(35,410 posts)No, Canada generally does not allow convicted felons to visit:
Immigration law: Individuals convicted of indictable offenses are considered "inadmissible" under Canadian immigration law.
Border security: Border officers can deny entry to anyone with a criminal record, even if they have a valid passport.
However, there are some ways to overcome criminal inadmissibility, including:
Temporary Resident Permit (TRP): A TRP allows a visitor with a criminal record to enter Canada for a limited time. However, the odds of getting a TRP are lower for people convicted of serious offenses, especially if they are still serving a sentence.
Criminal rehabilitation: You can apply for individual rehabilitation and get approved.
Pardon or record suspension: You can become admissible again if you receive a pardon or record suspension.
To apply for a TRP, you'll need to:
Complete an online application form
Submit required documents, including a valid passport, proof of funds, and a criminal record check
Explain the reason for your criminal inadmissibility and why your entry into Canada may be justified
You can submit your TRP application at a Canadian consulate or any port of entry.
C0RI0LANUS
(2,310 posts)A friend of mine is not allowed into Canada because of a post-juvenile conviction. He went on to become a highly successful attorney having convinced the ABA to overlook the conviction (he's been on TV at least twice).
At a Canadian POE, like you wrote, he was stunned to be denied entry over that decades old non-violent conviction and given the official monologue of why he was inadmissible.
Then the CBSA officer gave him the unofficial line: "Look man, just fill out some forms and you'll be allowed in." The border guard must have been referring to the TRP you noted.
IzzaNuDay
(734 posts)Way to go if this is true!
Deuxcents
(20,375 posts)LisaM
(28,825 posts)Even though they had three DUIs between them.
Polybius
(18,680 posts)I could be wrong, but I don't think it is.
LisaM
(28,825 posts)I live in a border state, so it's the kind of thing that makes the news in these parts. I don't know if it's a felony but it's grounds to deny admittance to Canada!
Polybius
(18,680 posts)Bush got his DUI in like 1979. A Canadian ban for a few years seems reasonable, but for life seems excessive.
Hotler
(12,453 posts)Waiting 23-months to start the coup investigation. That's also called professional courtesy.
For a year I've told DU detractors this, and I'll say it here again: It wasn't waiting.
What you call "waiting" is easy criticism when you during all that time you couldn't possibly perceive what had been happening. Until it was reported by Garland and the DOJ much later.
Which makes any claims of fact about Garland way off, thus your knowledge of the Garland DOJ even more way off.
Before ANY DOJ indictment can be made, a thorough investigation and collection of evidence must take place -- none of which DU'ers saw while it was happening.
Because the FBI is DOJ, Garland's FBI began arrests ON Jan 6 2021 -- two months before his confirmation -- and Garland DOJ convictions continued until the week after the 2024 election.
During the months of FBI arrest actions, Garland was prosecuting new AND outstanding cases,
all while rebuilding the DOJ personnel of his assistant AGs, deputies, and 8 Division heads.
But before and during that work...
Garland himself wasn't confirmed with Republican votes until TWO months after Biden's 2021 inauguration;
Republicans STILL made Garland wait months for his division heads' confirmations;
Republicans did not confirm Kenneth Polite to head the DOJ's Criminal Division until July 2021 -- SIX MONTHS after Biden's inauguration;
Because they knew the Criminal Division would handle both federal cases under Garland.
Here's the Garland DOJ evidence gathering timeline -- BEFORE Jack Smith made any indictments.
By January 6 2022 (10 months after his confirmation): Garland states:
So far, we have
-- issued over 5,000 subpoenas and search warrants,
-- seized approximately 2,000 devices,
-- pored through over 20,000 hours of video footage, and
-- searched through an estimated 15 terabytes of data...
-- received over 300,000 tips from ordinary citizens, who have been our indispensable partners in this effort.
Garland actions above contributed to Special Counsel investigations.
In other words, Garland handed off all the documents case evidence to Jack Smith.
Jan 2022
15 boxes found in the storage area
the FBI found more than 11,000 government records at Maralago of those
184 unique documents bearing classification markings, of those:
67 docs marked Confidential
92 docs marked Secret
25 docs marked Top Secret
markings reflected that docs were subject to sensitive compartments and dissemination controls
used to restrict access to material in the interest of national security, including
HCS(Humint Control system),
FISA(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act),
ORCON (originator controlled),
NORORN (could be NOFORN, no foreign national), AND
SI(Special Intelligence)
May 2022
The first 100 documents marked as classified totaled over 700 pages [National Archives letter to Trump attorney, May 10, 2022]
May 11 2022: Garland convenes four DOJ Grand juries, one for Jan 6 convened until March 2024 -- 6 months before Jack Smith walked in the door
Grand Jury subpoenas Trump for documents
June 3 2022
Trump lawyer hands over 40 boxes from Maralago storage room
38 docs marked Classified
June 3 2022:
Garland's DOJ Grand jury subpoenas Trump for remaining docs in Maralago;
lawyers for Trump "certify" that there were no more;
Trump stole 11,000 government docs, 300 classified docs the Garland DOJ's FBI found more than Trump's lawyers certified as recovered.
July 22 2022: G
arland's Grand jury testimony by Marc Short, Mike Pences Chief of Staff, & Short's counsel Greg Jacob
August 8 2022
FBI warrant search of Maralago
103 marked Classified
18 marked Top Secret
The law violated: - 18 U.S.C. 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
Penalty: Fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
More on the indictability of these stolen defense-classified documents:
https://www.justsecurity.org/83034/tracker-evidence-of-trumps-knowledge-and-involvement-in-retaining-mar-a-lago-documents/
Sept 2 2022:
Garland's Grand jury subpoenaed testimony by Pat Cipollone,
a) one of the participants in WH meeting Dec 18 2020, that included Giuliani, Powell, Flynn, Patrick Byrne of Overstock,
b) Cipollone sat in on Jan 3 2021 DOJ official meeting with Trump, and
c) Cipollone was in direct contact with trump on Jan 6 during capitol insurrection, and did nothing when Meadows told him Trump didnt want to interfere with rioters calling for hanging Mike Pence)
AND with Patrick Philbin
Sept 15 2022:
Garland's Grand Jury subpoenas Mark Meadows for testimony and documents
the month of Sept 2022: Garland's DOJ issued over 40 subpoenas to people close to Trump, some of whom are
Bill Stepien, DTs campaign mgr; part of team to prevent certification
Sean Dollman, DTs campaign CFO
Ben Williamson, Deputy of Mark Meadows,
Boris Epshteyn, Trump's lawyer -- phone demanded; part of team to prevent certification
Mike Lindell -- phone seized
William Russell, WH special asst to Trump, THEN special aide to Trump in Mar-a-lago
Oct 6 2022: Garland's Grand jury calls back Greg Jacob
Oct 13 2022: Garland's Grand Jury calls back Marc Short, Pence's chief of staff
Nov 4 2022:
classified docs found in Bidens
-- Wilmington home (garage, library), (no docs in Rehoboth beach home) and
-- Penn Biden Center in DC (Richard Sauber is spec counsel to Pres Biden)
Nov 14 2022: Garland asks John Lausch (Trump appointed US Atty, Chicago) to review found Biden documents
Nov 18 2022 Garland appoints Jack Smith (3 days after Trump announces his candidacy for 2024), who inherits the records of the Garland DOJ's work.
By that very day, Nov 18 2022, Garland's DOJ had convicted more than 323 Jan 6 insurrectionists.
All of the above documents case evidence AND DC grand jury evidence gathered is what AG Merrick Garland and his DOJ did before Jack Smith.
Garland himself could not possibly know how long it would take SC Jack Smith's team to file indictments.
But the first documents case indictment was filed June 8 2023, based mostly on work previously done by Garland's Criminal Division/FBI investigators and grand juries.
For DU'ers triggered by the mention of Garland, these will forever remain the facts of Garland's Jan 6 investigations and evidence collections during his first 20 months in office.
Along with the willfully ignored fact of Garland's wisdom in choosing Jack Smith from the Hague as Special Counsel
Unwind Your Mind
(2,186 posts)For putting that together and sharing it here
Marking to save
ancianita
(39,041 posts)EarnestPutz
(2,716 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,903 posts)ancianita
(39,041 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,903 posts)that's why the question mark.
ancianita
(39,041 posts)I like their site, but 100% of this info comes from other sources.
msfiddlestix
(7,903 posts)And all the law makers since the last century for not fixing the qualification requirements for POTUS.
among other remarkably glaring moribund quirks founders had no possible way to completely foresee the myriad of ways a criminal tyrant and traitor could take power 200+ years in the future.
Of course they could easily imagine it to a degree, and let's not forget how the Constittuion was close to never being ratified , because of obstructionists who were actually loyalists to the crown . some who were southern slave an d plantation owners, others who were wealthy merchants. etc.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda, A big huge mistake, a series of colossal misdeeds and or missed opportunities to take legislative actions with the Constitution especially wrt to Nixon.
Oh hell, we couldn't even manage to ratify the ERA for effs sakes.
All this (and so much more) tells me is we have been suffering a most monumental state of delusion for years, decades, more than a century. There is no fixing anything now. We aren't losing a democracy, we;re being reminded that we never had one in the first place.
The fascists right wingers have been saying forever we live in a Republic not a democracy.
Well, the former is just as meaningless as the latter, now.
ancianita
(39,041 posts)The Garland DOJ never could speed up the grand jury work. Garland DOJ could never speed up the courts' schedules or delays on pre-trial rulings. And then the Jack Smith team, no matter how constantly he invoked the the "speedy trial" law, it was always ignored. Why? Because there were the endless due process motions filed beyond "sufficient" level that can delay court cases before trials.
And then major defense motions got appealed, and went up the appeal ladder all the way to the Maga SCOTUS, that delayed even hearing every single appeal for months from the DOJ. Months. Those delays added up, and are in no way the Garland DOJ's fault.
Lisa Rubin on MSNBC flatly stated that even were there trials and convictions this year, appeals would have been held up by Maga SCOTUS until after the election. So no matter how fast you think Garland could have investigated, no matter how many months sooner Smith filed his indictment, all the above would have still played out, and we'd still be without convictions this year.
The Garland DOJ -- biggest law firm in human history -- has done a massive and great job enforcing both domestic and international justice.
Polybius
(18,680 posts)Couldn't that have been done earlier? Even a few months earlier may have helped (or not, we'll never know).
BDavinciNY
(104 posts)Let's not forget that Mitch McConnell helped out Trump in a huge way by not, voting to convict him in both his impeachment trials. Had the Republicans voted to convict him, he would have been politically disqualified from running for President. And thanks for reminding me that Garland shouldn't receive as much criticism as he's getting because the time of getting the investigation. The then the grand jury, it takes its time. Also, let's not forget Trump delayed it as long as possible, so the fix was already in when McConnell and the Republicans. Decided to let him off the hook for January 6th.
uponit7771
(92,119 posts)...reps, Garland decided not to.
America needed and asshole to go after MAGA J6 insurrectionist but we got the administrator and he failed minimum the time and tenor of the situation.
God help us
Emile
(31,323 posts)C Moon
(12,626 posts)Hoping Trudeau and Pres. Sheinbaum straighten tmp out (tho I have little hope for him.)
LudwigPastorius
(11,259 posts)LiberalArkie
(16,745 posts)was saying to Trump.
Response to Swede (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Maru Kitteh
(29,306 posts)Joinfortmill
(16,784 posts)onenote
(44,862 posts)And there is zero chance that Trudeau's government would prevent Trump from visiting if that's what he wanted.
Trump didn't go to Canada and had Trudeau meet him in Florida not because Trump couldn't have travelled to Canada, but because he didn't want to -- he wanted Trudeau to come to him.
It's as simple as that.
orleans
(35,410 posts)i would much prefer to think the visit in florida is b/c trump can't gain access to canada because he is a CRIMINAL
(but, in all practicality, i agree w/what you wrote.) (i'd just prefer to be amused with how it appears on the surface)