449
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
449 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19144 readers
4672 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What the hell is the argument for immunity? Even if presidents can't be charged for doing their job, stealing an election and walking away with nuclear secrets is not part of the job.
It's the well-established "throw shit at wall, hope it sticks" principle of legal argumentation.
I started typing a joke comment about how the "term of art" was "kitchen sink defense," but then I remembered that it actually is a bit of a term of art.
I trolled myself and am not sure how to feel about this.
The argument is that it's hurting Trump's feelings and that's why he should be able to do whatever he wants without question.
Fixed the stakes for you.
The dumbass interpretation of "Separation of powers" means that the judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction over any executive branch official, for anything, ever. Corollaries being that congress can't pass laws that apply to judges, and the Department of Justice can't investigate Congresspeople. Instead of checks-and-balances, they want independent kingdoms.
I need you to be conscious of the fact that the people floating this argument know that it's bullshit. They'd never accept the idea that Joe Biden can't be bound by laws passed by Congress or rulings made by the judiciary, even though that's exactly what they're arguing. It's just that the DoJ is saying "Trump broke the law and needs to be punished like anyone else would" and even the GOP doesn't think they can convince us that the things we all watched happen on TV didn't happen. They tried floating the idea that Jan 6 wasn't actually an attempt to stop Joe Biden taking power and it didn't stick. They tried saying that Trump didn't incite it, but he clearly and obviously did right in front of us. Now they're trying "okay, it happened and Trump incited it but it's not illegal" but realistically they just need to be able to say something, even if they're bullshitting, we know they're bullshitting, and they know we know they're bullshitting, because we can prove it to be false but there's no way to prove that they don't believe it. The card says "moops", and that gives them enough cover to delay, obstruct, exhaust every avenue of appeal and generally keep the ball in the air as long as they can and hope for a miracle. The most likely miracle being that Trump wins the election, gets to be president and pardon himself of everything, thus rendering this all moot until his attempts to pardon himself get to the Supreme Court that he paid for. They will then rule that the Constitution doesn't say he can't declare himself above the law and the US will have a permanent one-party government.
They're also likely even just OK with keeping the ball up until after the primaries, when they can make a NEW argument about prosecuting a presidential candidate, about how it's tantamount to creating a one-party state or something.
reality of the month club. whatever they need to be true, that will be the truth for as long as it serves their ends. when it's no longer useful to them, it will be discarded and the complete opposite will become the truth.
the argument is the fucking moron's understanding of the president (that the president can do whatever whenever and no one can do anything about it). I had that same understanding of the president up until maybe the 2nd grade.
and that's the point of how batshit bonkers this theory was. 77 year old trump was forcing his lawyers (because I cannot in good conscience believe that lawyers who have not committed sanctionable offenses actually believe this) to advance a theory about the office of the presidency that your average 10 year old could easily dismiss (just noting I wasn't 10 in the 2nd grade but I was in the smart kid classes, so I'm giving average kids another 2 years).
the really over the top stupid side point of this argument is that the republican party is trying to impeach the current president for actions they say he made during(? after? do they even know?) the time he was vice president and none of them, the elected ones at least, are saying anything about trump which shows how ethereal at best that argument is.
It was a somewhat successful delay tactic.
The argument is that Trump gave all these judges some really cushy lifetime jobs, and he thought they would deliver some payback.
The tactic is to delay the inevitable in hopes that he can lead another, better coup attempt later, install himself as president for life and then pardon himself for all crimes, past and future