this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
287 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4801 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pressed in court, Trump’s lawyers made an argument that would destroy nearly all limitations on presidential power.

...

In a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court, the former president’s lawyers argued that he should be immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election. This argument has an obvious flaw: It implies that the president is above the law. Such a blunt rejection of the Constitution and the basic concept of American democracy is too much even for Trump to assert—publicly, at least—so his lawyers have proposed a theory. They say that he can’t be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by Congress.

This argument is no less dangerous, as a hypothetical asked in court demonstrated in chilling terms. Judge Florence Pan asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, if “a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” could be criminally prosecuted. Sauer tried to hem and haw his way through an answer but ultimately stated that such a president couldn’t be prosecuted unless he was first impeached, convicted, and removed by Congress.

“But if he weren’t, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?” Pan pressed. Sauer had no choice but to agree, because acknowledging any exceptions would have blown a hole in his argument.

...

What lawyers say in court is not the same as what politicians say or will do in office, but no normal politician would allow such an argument to be made on his behalf, especially while sitting in the courtroom. Trump did because his mentality is victory at all costs—winning the present legal case, but also anything else. Trump has already made clear that he wishes to punish his political opponents, and once he discovers the possibility of some power, he is seldom able to resist trying it. Today’s legal argument could very well be next year’s exercise of presidential power.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Very fucking interesting.

Should be pretty fucking loud and clear to every Drumf supporter out there who he is and what he wants to do to your god damn country.

Anyone who doesn’t get this at this point is willingly doing so and is an active threat to democracy and the American dream.

Smart people never crashed a country before, but selfish, hateful people and policies do.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Should be pretty fucking loud and clear to every Drumf supporter out there who he is and what he wants to do to your god damn country.

Thing is, the already know, and not only do they not care, it’s what they like about him. They WANT him to do it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because they assume he'll only hurt "the right people" (meaning people on the left). The second it hurts them, they'll act shocked that the leopard that campaigned on eating everyone's faces would actually eat THEIR face!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

always worth dropping this where it’s relevant

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They don't care and/or they're cheering this on. Most of his supporters are either on a holy crusade and see Trump as God's anointed or they see politics and this country as a game they must win at all costs. As long as he continues to hurt the right people, neither group will give a shit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I have to have hope that there are some out there, and maybe even many, feel this way solely because they’ve been isolated with that group and are stockholmed.

I refuse to give up hope that anyone can at any point turn back. You can always turn back.