What would be wild is if the “legal” justification they landed on was that the president specifically is immune but not the people under him. So you’d just have to hand Biden or Trump a handgun and watch them march up to someone and kill them because no police or military has the authority to stop the president
Obviously I don’t want to live in that world but at least then we’re living in a crazy movie dystopia which might at least be more fun to watch
And wouldn’t anyone in the line of succession to the presidency just be able to kill all those in front of them to take the throne seat of president, thus becoming immune from the act of killing their predessesors?
Biden/Trump/Whoever is president could simply officially order one of his top officers to push a button that drops a hellfire missile on their political opponent and then pardon them. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and also has the executive privilege of pardon available to them at their discretion for any reason or no reason at all. I’m 100% sure the president will find somebody in the chain of command with morals flexible enough to obey such an order.
And since you can’t go after the man himself because a corrupt SCOTUS is apparently poised to rule that they have immunity for “official acts” which is a nebulously defined term that can apply to literally any heinous act that they want, the country has essentially created a king by proxy.
“Congress members should be allowed to single handedly overrule a court of law while the trial is in process, based on their personal opinion. I am very smart.”
I stated what I thought she could do. She can speak with her colleagues. She can speak with the media. She can hold town halls. There is something seriously wrong with what’s going on and you have congress who will just let the judicial branch over extend their power.
When a leader, or effectively hundreds of leaders, cannot lead they are no longer leaders. They are place holders.
Its not an art teacher, it’s his dad who hated him and loved Fred until Fred fucked up in business (being compassionate) at which point his dad basically disowned his brother and took Donald as his heir. His brother later drank himself to death because of the way his dad treated him and is the reason Donald doesn’t drink.
Does Trump realize that if he “wins” that particular argument, that would empower Biden to have Trump killed without consequence? Or the supreme court justices he rammed into the court? Or his voters?
Oh wait… republicans are utterly incapable of forseeing potential consequences of what they want nm.
That is why they are trying to push the decision until after the election. If Trump wins, the president has full immunity to do whatever he wants. If Biden wins they’ll likely say the president can be held accountable for their actions as president.
I don’t know why you are characterizing this as a republican blunder. It makes perfect sense.
The Republicans know the Democrats’ obsession with civility means a dem would never invoke this prospective right to assassinate a political rival.
“But the Republicans are being illogical! This is a double standard! There is no intellectual honesty in such an argument!”
Stop trying to appeal to logic and honesty when it comes to Republicans. This liberal thinking is what got Trump elected the first time.
Accept that morals, ethics, and logic mean nothing to fascists before it is too late.
I swear, the patriot front could be doing door-to-door curb stomps once trump gets elected, and liberals would still be smugly pointing out that “violence is no way to solve political issues, chud. Check and mate ;)”, right before they get curb stomped.
But when you tell “leftists” to get armed and get trained they call you an NRA shill. I guess all the armed MAGAts foaming at the mouth to get rid of trans kids and drag queens isn’t much to worry about when mommy’s basement is so warm and cozy.
Does Trump realize that if he “wins” that particular argument, that would empower Biden to have Trump killed without consequence?
As of today, Trump has been held in contempt of court 10 times, with the judge explicitly stating “The last thing I want to do is put you in jail”.
This is a guy who has been so utterly swaddled from consequences that I genuinely do not believe he feels threatened by the prospect of extra-judicial assassination by a political rival. Liberals are Woke and Soy. They don’t have the cajones to pull the trigger. And I’ve seen little to suggest he’s wrong in this belief. The police are far more willing to crack the heads of Columbia liberal arts students than MAGA Chuds. And the courts have been incredibly lenient towards J6ers, particularly those with the money and influence to plead favorable terms in court.
Meanwhile, Epic MAGA Dudes run rampant through JSOC, the FBI, and the Secret Service. If anything, this is a threat against Biden. Combined with the claim that he’s the legitimate president and was robbed of his second term, this line of reasoning is intended to carve a legal path for a coup from friends in the military and police.
Part of the reason that courts are so lenient with him is to avoid that, once he is judged, that there is any space for anyone to claim a mistrial or that he was mis treated. It’s unfortunate z but that’s the way the justice system works, and trump abuses that to the max.
That is why the judge explicitly says “I don’t want to jail you” just so that it’s said that he can, but won’t. Yet. Now that trump has been ordered to pay, it’s only a few thousand dollars, but again, that’s the law. Judges can’t just change that on their own whims.
So next up, if Trump blabs again, which he will, he will go to jail. I read something about the secret service already trying to figure out how to protect trump in jail, because that’s their responsibility, wherever the idiot is, so let’s just say that the next step may blvery we’ll be quite funny.
Having said that: I am happy they are taking their time and are being very careful, last thing you want is an exonorated trump because of some procedural error or because trump indeed was not tried fairly.
Part of the reason that courts are so lenient with him is to avoid that, once he is judged, that there is any space for anyone to claim a mistrial or that he was mis treated.
And why are these bureaucrats obsessed with a perception of fairness for Donald Trump when they were so cavalier with the treatment of a guy like Steven Donziger or Aaron Swartz or Brandon Mayfield or Leonard Peltier?
The argument advanced by liberals is that Donald Trump presents an extraordinary threat to democracy and civil liberties in the US if elected. So… surely he’s got himself booked on a one-way trip to Guantanamo Bay, right? Or, at the very least, he’ll be receiving the same treatment as Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner, right?
So next up, if Trump blabs again, which he will, he will go to jail.
I will put up $1000 to your $100 that Trump will not spend a single full day in jail if he is once again dinged for being in contempt of court.
Having said that: I am happy they are taking their time and are being very careful
They’re running out the clock until election day, so they can throw out the case.
Because they only care about the radicals who can actually hurt them by seizing power from within their system. Unfortunately that’s basically all fascism is actually good at.
And why are these bureaucrats obsessed with a perception of fairness for Donald Trump when they were so cavalier with the treatment of a guy like Steven Donziger or Aaron Swartz or Brandon Mayfield or Leonard Peltier?
Because those other people don’t have the MAGA cult behind them. We dot every I and cross every T with Trump, give him the beenfit of every doubt and be as transparent as possible so to avoid the appearance of it being a political attack via the courts as much as possible. To limit the protests (which will of course likely fall into the “fiery but mostly peaceful” category in terms of damage done and lives lost, but will definitely be reported on in a less forgiving way except on FOX, OAN and RT).
They’re running out the clock until election day, so they can throw out the case.
Of course they are - the best and likely only good defense Trump has is getting elected.
We dot every I and cross every T with Trump, give him the beenfit of every doubt and be as transparent as possible so to avoid the appearance of it being a political attack
And it still hasn’t worked. No more than the Ken Star “Independent Investigation” washed Republicans’ hands clean of the Clinton Impeachment.
Of course they are - the best and likely only good defense Trump has is getting elected.
So then why is the court facilitating his defense in this matter?
And it still hasn’t worked. No more than the Ken Star “Independent Investigation” washed Republicans’ hands clean of the Clinton Impeachment.
The point isn’t to wash their hands of it, but to limit the scope of the inevitable protests. If the case is fucking airtight, and Trump has been fully allowed to engage in every possible defensive argument he and his lawyers can think of, and a jury that definitely isn’t just a bunch of Democrats who already hate Trump unanimously agree that the evidence proves he did it and all of this is thoroughly transparent and public then the resulting pool protests will draw from will just be the really fervent members of his cult. The more it has the appearances of just being a political attack, the larger the scale of the protests will be, and the bigger the protests are the more destructive and larger scale any violence from them is likely to be.
And why are these bureaucrats obsessed with a perception of fairness for Donald Trump
Because they want to make sure that their judgements stick. Trump has a lot of political power, and enough money to get a legal team that can find every single undotted i and uncrossed t, and use that to appeal anything. (Or, he would, if he would actually pay his attorneys, instead of stiffing them on legal bills. So what he actually has is incompetent hacks.) So a smart judge makes sure that they’re not doing anything that could be a reversible error.
The thing is, if they hit Trump with a contempt of court order, and then jail him, that can be used to claim that the judge was biased against him, unless that kind of punishment is typical for violating gag orders repeatedly. So you want to avoid that, since that makes it easier to claim that the judges instructions and handling of the case was also biased.
That was entirely my point I made a couple weeks ago. If they move ahead on that decision, then Biden would be within his rights to have the consenting judges hung and replace them, hanging any members of congress or senators that tried to block the appointments. Then he could ask that court to reconsider the decision, and he would have been immune for these actions that occurred during the hiatus of accountability.
There is no stopping the justices from putting big caveats around their ruling.
It could be “in this very specific case with this very specific person at this very specific time we agree that the president is immune from prosecution. Any other acts by this or any other president are not included in this ruling.”
I’d hold my nose and vote for biden if he took the initiative and drone-struck trump. Do it at a rally so I can laugh about it on YouTube later. That’ll be worth another 4 years of nothing getting done.
I have. Numerous times. Is this the “US citizens must be taken for a trial even when waging war against the US” or “Collateral damage is assassination” argument?
The USA should stopp mass murdering village elders, farmers and so on, because they had been at the same location as someone else. The USA killed ten thousands without a single proof of them being guilty of anything. The USA also killed the families (including small children) of many of these innocent people.
A single point of oversight, divorced from the operation is not better than multiple, who have the incentive to use this tool, despite the constant civilian casualties, because the alternative is the risk of casualties from the boots on the ground they command directly…?
Not an improvement? Do you have any criteria for good/bad here?
Those are some crazy leaps of reasoning. The president isn’t inherently “divorced” from anything and boots on the ground are not always the sole alternative as there’s also the option of doing neither.
I guess I’m just curious if you think the executives of other countries should also have the power to kill indiscriminately with no consequences or oversight. Would you be applying the same line of reasoning if we were talking about, say, Putin?
He’s not getting shot at lol of course he’s more Impartial.
US politicians would commit career suicide if they suggested no drone use, because it would mean soldiers get shot.
If the option you want picked is neither drones or boots, how do you suggest the USA divest themselves from wars in foreign countries? If the first black president came out as a pacifist they would have to level every single grassy knoll in the country.
Putin already kills indiscriminately, that’s not really relevant.
US politicians would commit career suicide if they suggested no drone use, because it would mean soldiers get shot.
If the option you want picked is neither drones or boots, how do you suggest the USA divest themselves from wars in foreign countries? If the first black president came out as a pacifist they would have to level every single grassy knoll in the country.
Well, if we agree that the US government is inherently militaristic and that elected officials are powerless against the intelligence community who would murder them if they stepped out of line, then maybe we’re more on the same page than I thought. Though it sounds like you’re saying Obama was just a figurehead so I still wouldn’t say he “took personal responsibility.”
It should be noted, however, that there are other options between, “Giving the executive unlimited unconstrained authority to kill anyone they want” and “Not doing any drone strikes ever.” I believe it is possible for war criminals to be held accountable for murdering civilians. I believe it is possible to have a system in which one person doesn’t have supreme authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Yes, but they work at the same base as the guys that would be.
We’re on the same page, but I don’t think the way the US is and how the military is structured, that either the president or any local commanders would ever be persecuted for civilian deaths. We disagree on what accountability means probably.
Okay, but - hypothetically - lets assume we have a large base of supporters who take indescribable glee in watching police crack the skulls of college students and pink-hatted feminists. Lets assume we have governors and mayors who surround themselves with paramilitary groups, while threatening to lock up anyone who voices dissent. And all these politicians win in landslide elections in their home states, because the shrinking pool of eligible voters is comprised more and more of these fanatics.
Add comment