Prosecution to use Caroline Ellison notes as evidence against SBF

[2stout]

That's good the FTX payout process is faster.  With trump's approval rating already in the toilet, I doubt he would proceed with the pardon of SBF now, but later is always an option esp if the opportunity to grift is better then.  Who knows, he could also use the pardon now or later as a diversionary tactic to pull attention away from something else, such as the war.

I sometimes read American public opinion polls, and they say that Americans don't care who Trump is bombing, as long as it's far away. Americans are more concerned about gas prices at the pump, which have been rising lately. Americans care about social policy and affordable healthcare, and the fate of the SBF is of least interest to them, and many probably don't even know who it is.

I'm sure the Senate resolution has made many more aware of who SBF is if they didn't know already as it was all over the news.  This can provide an opportunity for manufactured distraction.

There may be a lot of Americans that don't care who Trump is bombing, but there are more Americans that do care.  As long as it's far away may be ok for some until the chickens come home to roost, meaning ok until it hits home- either happening on American soil or if a loved one in the service is far away and is either maimed or brought back in a body bag, then all of a sudden there is care by those who didn't previously care.

Also, there is a lot of performative outrage over gas prices at the pump, social policy, and affordable care depending on who is in office and esp during election cycles.  The midterms should give a better picture on what Americans really care about.

What surprises me most about this SBF situation is that the Senate's official policy "emphasizes the unity of government in the fight against cryptocrime and that such crimes do not go unpunished" (I compiled these excerpts from official resolutions).

But of all the crypto criminals, SBF is the only one serving such a long sentence, while all the others have long since left prison.

At the least, Faruk Faith Ozer and Remy Ra St Felix received longer sentence @ 11,196 years and 47 years respectively.  Do Kwon got 15 years, while not at long as SBF's 25 years, 15 years is still long.  I'm not saying SBF didn't deserve time, but it is a real head scratcher the amount of time he got when you consider some of these criminals either made folks partially or never whole- some won't even see a dime, while SBF is on track to make folks "fully whole".

Faruk Fatih Özer was convicted in Istanbul, Remy Ra St. Felix was convicted in the US, but he was a bandit who robbed people.
The only story that's close and similar to the SBF is Do Kwon's.
SBF and Do Kwon are two scapegoats who received long sentences in the US. Why didn't the Senate resolution cover Do Kwon? 

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

[zasad@]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

[2stout]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

If we're being honest, he has pardoned way more than enough criminals.  It would seem he has no time for pardoning more criminals at this moment; however, when it comes to grifting or needing a diversion or distraction from the Epstein files or policy failures, he would indeed make the time for pardons as he did a few weeks ago.

[zasad@]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

If we're being honest, he has pardoned way more than enough criminals.  It would seem he has no time for pardoning more criminals at this moment; however, when it comes to grifting or needing a diversion or distraction from the Epstein files or policy failures, he would indeed make the time for pardons as he did a few weeks ago.

According to public opinion polls in the US, the majority of Americans oppose war with Iran. The distance between the US and Iran is approximately 10,000 kilometers, and military action would incur enormous logistical costs for the US.
And Iran has Russia and China nearby, which will provide unofficial support.

If Trump doesn't resolve the Iran issue before the Senate elections, his party will lose the election, and his party will also face challenges in the presidential election.

[2stout]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

If we're being honest, he has pardoned way more than enough criminals.  It would seem he has no time for pardoning more criminals at this moment; however, when it comes to grifting or needing a diversion or distraction from the Epstein files or policy failures, he would indeed make the time for pardons as he did a few weeks ago.

According to public opinion polls in the US, the majority of Americans oppose war with Iran. The distance between the US and Iran is approximately 10,000 kilometers, and military action would incur enormous logistical costs for the US.
And Iran has Russia and China nearby, which will provide unofficial support.

If Trump doesn't resolve the Iran issue before the Senate elections, his party will lose the election, and his party will also face challenges in the presidential election.

It appears most likely his party will lose the election regardless.  However, if you look closer, the framework is already and continually being laid to "fix" the election or not acknowledge the result if they are not in favor of the incumbent party.

[zasad@]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

If we're being honest, he has pardoned way more than enough criminals.  It would seem he has no time for pardoning more criminals at this moment; however, when it comes to grifting or needing a diversion or distraction from the Epstein files or policy failures, he would indeed make the time for pardons as he did a few weeks ago.

According to public opinion polls in the US, the majority of Americans oppose war with Iran. The distance between the US and Iran is approximately 10,000 kilometers, and military action would incur enormous logistical costs for the US.
And Iran has Russia and China nearby, which will provide unofficial support.

If Trump doesn't resolve the Iran issue before the Senate elections, his party will lose the election, and his party will also face challenges in the presidential election.

It appears most likely his party will lose the election regardless.  However, if you look closer, the framework is already and continually being laid to "fix" the election or not acknowledge the result if they are not in favor of the incumbent party.

In the US, voting takes place in every state, and for the past eight years, every two years I've heard news about voter fraud in some states. Sometimes, election results are overturned in some states, but this isn't a widespread phenomenon.
This happens in any politics and in any country.

[2stout]

My guess is that the Senate resolution did not cover Do Kwon because there hasn't been a mention of him potentially being pardoned or seeking pardon.  However, SBF is actively seek a pardon, which is the main, key difference.

Trump has no time for pardoning criminals right now, because his approval ratings are falling and his party needs to make a big effort to avoid losing the Senate elections.

Trump is bombing Iran, but he doesn't understand that the US will soon experience the same thing as Russia, with terrorist attacks and factories burning.

If we're being honest, he has pardoned way more than enough criminals.  It would seem he has no time for pardoning more criminals at this moment; however, when it comes to grifting or needing a diversion or distraction from the Epstein files or policy failures, he would indeed make the time for pardons as he did a few weeks ago.

According to public opinion polls in the US, the majority of Americans oppose war with Iran. The distance between the US and Iran is approximately 10,000 kilometers, and military action would incur enormous logistical costs for the US.
And Iran has Russia and China nearby, which will provide unofficial support.

If Trump doesn't resolve the Iran issue before the Senate elections, his party will lose the election, and his party will also face challenges in the presidential election.

It appears most likely his party will lose the election regardless.  However, if you look closer, the framework is already and continually being laid to "fix" the election or not acknowledge the result if they are not in favor of the incumbent party.

In the US, voting takes place in every state, and for the past eight years, every two years I've heard news about voter fraud in some states. Sometimes, election results are overturned in some states, but this isn't a widespread phenomenon.
This happens in any politics and in any country.

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

[zasad@]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

[2stout]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

[zasad@]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

[2stout]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

True, but even though the bill is moving fast, it's still pending a final vote, which could be slow or fast.

I understand that the president has been granted broad powers past and present, but this time is different as power has been consolidated and Congress has aided and abetted this by abdicating their duties and in turn their powers.  The Supreme Court has also been complicit too by expediting many of the president's cases via use of a shadow docket and overwhelmingly finding in his favor.

[zasad@]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

True, but even though the bill is moving fast, it's still pending a final vote, which could be slow or fast.

I understand that the president has been granted broad powers past and present, but this time is different as power has been consolidated and Congress has aided and abetted this by abdicating their duties and in turn their powers.  The Supreme Court has also been complicit too by expediting many of the president's cases via use of a shadow docket and overwhelmingly finding in his favor.

"As a result of the 2024 general elections, Republicans won a 53-45 majority in the Senate, while two independents caucused with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats 47 votes for organizational purposes. Before those elections, Democrats held a 47-49 majority, with four independents."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2026

A bill needs 60 votes out of 100 to pass, and 67 votes to override a presidential veto, so no party has the opportunity to pass bills without a coalition with opponents.

[2stout]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

True, but even though the bill is moving fast, it's still pending a final vote, which could be slow or fast.

I understand that the president has been granted broad powers past and present, but this time is different as power has been consolidated and Congress has aided and abetted this by abdicating their duties and in turn their powers.  The Supreme Court has also been complicit too by expediting many of the president's cases via use of a shadow docket and overwhelmingly finding in his favor.

"As a result of the 2024 general elections, Republicans won a 53-45 majority in the Senate, while two independents caucused with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats 47 votes for organizational purposes. Before those elections, Democrats held a 47-49 majority, with four independents."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2026

A bill needs 60 votes out of 100 to pass, and 67 votes to override a presidential veto, so no party has the opportunity to pass bills without a coalition with opponents.

True, but the only caveat to a bill needing 60 votes is if the filibuster is removed.  So far the filibuster seems to still be holding, but it's not for a lack of trying or pressure from the president.  And still got to keep an eye on the end around- Reconciliation Bill 3.0.

[zasad@]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

True, but even though the bill is moving fast, it's still pending a final vote, which could be slow or fast.

I understand that the president has been granted broad powers past and present, but this time is different as power has been consolidated and Congress has aided and abetted this by abdicating their duties and in turn their powers.  The Supreme Court has also been complicit too by expediting many of the president's cases via use of a shadow docket and overwhelmingly finding in his favor.

"As a result of the 2024 general elections, Republicans won a 53-45 majority in the Senate, while two independents caucused with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats 47 votes for organizational purposes. Before those elections, Democrats held a 47-49 majority, with four independents."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2026

A bill needs 60 votes out of 100 to pass, and 67 votes to override a presidential veto, so no party has the opportunity to pass bills without a coalition with opponents.

True, but the only caveat to a bill needing 60 votes is if the filibuster is removed.  So far the filibuster seems to still be holding, but it's not for a lack of trying or pressure from the president.  And still got to keep an eye on the end around- Reconciliation Bill 3.0.

I don't know what's going on in the Senate, but I'm sure Trump has ways to cut a deal and secure 60% of the Senate vote. My theory is that if Trump hasn't done it, he doesn't need to now. All the newspapers are reporting on the Clarity Act's slim chances, but they're not mentioning that the current Senate will still have a chance to pass the bill in December.

[2stout]

Yeah, but elections here are basically free of fraud- 99.999xxxx% and of those resulting in fraud, most are overwhelmingly committed by registered republicans.  What's strange is that there is this crying about election fraud when there is basically none.  It's ostensible and disingenuous.

I agree with you on this point. Officially, there's very little proven voter fraud in the US. Since the country with the world's largest economy has only two parties, it's their political tradition to accuse each other of election fraud.
It is difficult to win elections through fraud if the party does not have serious support.

For fraud to occur and potentially make a difference, it would have to occur in razor thin extremely close contests.  Even then, it would still have to pass audit.  So far, audit results have shown the fraud identified would not have even swayed those contests.  I believe more dangerous is when the people don't get to choose.  This has happened twice in US Presidential Elections- Rutherford Hayes vs Samuel Tilden, in which the Legislature decided and George W. Bush vs, in which the Supreme Court decided.

The Senate passes some bills very quickly, while others pass slowly.

What I'm trying to say is that the core policies of many parties remain unchanged, and no matter who holds the majority in the U.S. Senate, important laws will still be passed quickly and grant the president broad powers. As for what's happening with the Clarity Act, it's more like a circus.

True, but even though the bill is moving fast, it's still pending a final vote, which could be slow or fast.

I understand that the president has been granted broad powers past and present, but this time is different as power has been consolidated and Congress has aided and abetted this by abdicating their duties and in turn their powers.  The Supreme Court has also been complicit too by expediting many of the president's cases via use of a shadow docket and overwhelmingly finding in his favor.

"As a result of the 2024 general elections, Republicans won a 53-45 majority in the Senate, while two independents caucused with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats 47 votes for organizational purposes. Before those elections, Democrats held a 47-49 majority, with four independents."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2026

A bill needs 60 votes out of 100 to pass, and 67 votes to override a presidential veto, so no party has the opportunity to pass bills without a coalition with opponents.

True, but the only caveat to a bill needing 60 votes is if the filibuster is removed.  So far the filibuster seems to still be holding, but it's not for a lack of trying or pressure from the president.  And still got to keep an eye on the end around- Reconciliation Bill 3.0.

I don't know what's going on in the Senate, but I'm sure Trump has ways to cut a deal and secure 60% of the Senate vote. My theory is that if Trump hasn't done it, he doesn't need to now. All the newspapers are reporting on the Clarity Act's slim chances, but they're not mentioning that the current Senate will still have a chance to pass the bill in December.

I guess it depends on what bill is up whether trump is able to cut a deal and secure 60% of a Senate vote.  Based on the number of executive orders he has signed, it appears even he knows legislative support isn't there.  This end around has resulted in a lot of his executive orders found to be unconstitutional by the courts.  As far as the Clarity Act, seems the president's self-enrichment may be one of the major hang ups:  https://www.ms.now/news/bipartisan-crypto-bill-trump-sized-problem-clarity-act; https://www.barrons.com/articles/crypto-bill-coinbase-stock-clarity-act-8a6746d4

Yes, there will be a chance to pass it later this year, but it seems the odds are significantly decreasing.

[Z-tight]

I don't know what's going on in the Senate, but I'm sure Trump has ways to cut a deal and secure 60% of the Senate vote. My theory is that if Trump hasn't done it, he doesn't need to now.

I don't agree in this case, i don't think Trump can do anything to push a vote on this bill, except he is ready to reach a complete compromise on everything the Democrats are proposing. Now that we are certain a vote on this bill would be after the August recess, then we must also hope that the vote happens in September, before the Midterm elections in Nov.

The chances of the bill becoming law would drop significantly if the vote is to happen after the midterm elections, if it does not go in the way of the Republicans.

[zasad@]

I don't know what's going on in the Senate, but I'm sure Trump has ways to cut a deal and secure 60% of the Senate vote. My theory is that if Trump hasn't done it, he doesn't need to now.

I don't agree in this case, i don't think Trump can do anything to push a vote on this bill, except he is ready to reach a complete compromise on everything the Democrats are proposing. Now that we are certain a vote on this bill would be after the August recess, then we must also hope that the vote happens in September, before the Midterm elections in Nov.

The chances of the bill becoming law would drop significantly if the vote is to happen after the midterm elections, if it does not go in the way of the Republicans.

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

[Z-tight]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

[2stout]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

[zasad@]

The midterm elections do not immediately affect the composition of the Senate. The elections will be held in November 2026, and the Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027 based on the election results.
So November and December could be a good time to vote on the bill.

Okay, thanks for that correction. So, on that note, the Republicans have enough time on their hands to lobby for the required votes before the senate votes on the Clarity Act. The senate majority leader, John Thune is reportedly pushing for the vote to happen in September, just after legislators return from recess.

However, it is not just about taking the vote, it is about the possibility of passing the senate. I don't think Republicans should push for a vote, unless they are sure they have the bipartisan support that is necessary.

I believe there is no hope for passage unless the republicans make some concessions.  The biggest concession they will have to make is strict conflicts of interests limits on the president; there is absolutely no way around this one if this bill is to pass.

I don't see any point in bringing the bill to a Senate vote unless Trump's party has struck a deal with the Democrats.
We've already heard about a possible vote in July and then in August, and now they're publishing news about September.
I haven't seen anything new yet and don't think anything will change in September.