Think for a moment about the Trump world of "business." If there is something that a business is not expressly prohibited from doing, which will serve the desires of that business, they will do it, no matter what it is.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
197 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19224 readers
3086 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Whatever is not prohibited is required."
“Pleeeeease give him this power. He promises he’ll never use it.”
It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!
lol, I tried to get one of them ai art things to make a trump as palpatine... was not impressed but I don't use them enuf to know how to prompt properly
And this came up because...?
Because his lawyer said that he was allowed to do it lol.
And I’m still trying to figure out why that lawyer was arguing that Biden should be allowed to assassinate Trump.
Because his client is claiming absolute immunity. So he has to hold that position even to the utmost absurd hypotheticals. If there is anything at all that isn't covered then the immunity is not absolute, and he's forced to argue degrees about which acts or crimes are covered. At that point the entire argument collapses as the result is quite obviously "at least some acts" and "at least many if not most crimes" are not covered by any sort of immunity. There's nowhere else to run with the argument.
Got himself stuck between a rock and a hard place.
“Should the president be allowed to perform abortions” hah gottem
Once the so-called "Supreme" court rules Biden can issue orders.
They know Biden won't do that.
This would be giving Biden absolute power. It's difficult to predict what any specific person would do in those circumstances.
There's a lot of evidence that Biden hasn't abused power when he's received it in the past, but imagine he's given absolute power, and then Trump wins the election. And then Trump threatens Biden and his entire family.
I don't know what Biden would do in that situation, but I know what I'd do.
I know what I hope Biden would do and what I would do. But I doubt he would do it.
Repubs have been wallowing in the mud for decades now. Dems are still trying to compromise and fantasize that they can work together. Biden would be urging the House to pass a "President is not immune" bill up until the Afternoon of the Long Knives on Jan. 20th, 2025.
I thought they were stalling the cases with the hope that he would get elected. THEN the absolute power will start.
Since Trump's criminal trials are already ongoing, politically, he needs to use this appeal to avoid convictions now, though. Many polls have said that a lot of people wouldn't vote for him if he's convicted. I suspect some percentage of those people were telling the truth.
He's stalling the cases to use a much more conventional political vehicle for getting himself off the hook - presidential pardons. The immunity claim is a hail-mary stall tactic and Trump's team knows that it's bogus, but they also know he doesn't need absolute immunity if he can just survive until November.
Probably be cause that's a defacto power the executive branch has claimed and used since at least the Bush era.
claimed and used
Used? Really?
Yes. The US has on several occasions extra judicially killed American citizens without due process.
Ok but in context has it ever been used? Specifically to have a political opponent killed by a sitting US president?
Police (the government) kill people extra-judicially every day, which is different from the POTUS sending Seal Team 6 or whatever to kill their leading opponent for reelection
Yes & No we killed an American and his American son in Yemen. That made the news. Technically a terrorist is a political opponent; but it not necessarily a correlation here. The "more legitimate" examples are all with varying levels of conspiracy and they tend to be old because of the way information is disseminated. But things like JFK, RFK, MLK Jr., Malcom X, MOVE bombing etc... are all examples of the Hoover Era FBI exercising that power.
And we have rendition as a well known example of extrajudicial torture and murder of US citizens that we know has been used against Innocents in the past.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Assassin on day one only…
Isn't that besides the point?
The question is if ~~he~~ a president should be legally not-allowed to order the hit, but be immune from prosecution if he did order it anyway.
Perhaps I misunderstanding something. I thought the question that the court was trying to decide is if the president could be prosecuted for crimes he committed while in office, after his term ends.
Yeah they are making it extra muddy by trying to conflate the 2. But the conflation between in-office / out-of-office as well as part of his duties/ nothing to do with his duties.
Riiiight……
But does he pinky swear?
He claims he'd never do it, while simultaneously arguing that as president it would be within his legal authority to do so.
He's fighting pretty hard to retain the option that he says he's not interested in exercising. That should tell you all you need to know.
And I'm reminded of a certain buttery male vice president from the prior administration - and what almost happened to him thanks to President Drink Bleach.