574
Trump is single-handedly defining the legal limits of presidential assholery.
Which would be fantastic, if it weren't for the fact that he has a very real shot at returning to the white house and making this all a moot point.
I still can't believe so many people don't see him for the criminal, con-man, grifter, anti-christ, etc that he is.
I still cannot believe that people are so shocked to find out so much of the country have been brainwashed to be hateful bigots, ready to yell at their neighbor for wearing a rainbow shirt before they'll yell at Raytheon et. al. for profiting from the few literal genocides the US has weapons going to right now.
There ARE terrible people in the world, and laws don't magically put them behind bars.
I can believe it. Easily. No problem at all.
You must have worked with customers/the public.
Yes. But not for a long time.
He's basically our "generations" Nixon at this point it seems.
From what I know about Nixon, Trump is way worse.
Nixon had the decency to get in a helicopter and fly the fuck away when it came to light what a piece of shit he was.
I still can’t believe so many people don’t see him for the criminal, con-man, grifter, anti-christ, etc that he is.
you don't have to make sense of it. they're all lying. they know what he is and don't care, because he'll let them hurt who they want to hurt.
They do. They don't care. Half the population loves this Jerry Springer bullshit.
How so?
There haven't been any real consequences for anything he's done, unless you count a mugshot.
And, thanks to Biden just ignoring the poor and middle class, he stands a very real chance of reelection.
Crazy that all of your comments are far right talking points
If you don't want to hear valid critiques of Democratic governance, then do better.
They literally had the thinnest majority in the Senate including the poison pills that are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They cant carry out any of their platform with Republicans stabding in staunch opposition of anything that helps people more than shareholders.
Now see.
That is where Democrats truly excel: making excuses.
I'm not sure how you sat through four years of Trump and still believe that Biden is somehow magically powerless.
"Don't blame us Republicans! We've only been sabotaging all attempts to govern for decades!"
If kids could eat excuses there would be no such thing as student lunch debt, but since Democrats don't do their job, there is.
you misspelled Republicans
Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority
Republicans Plan to Cut Free School Lunches
House Republican committee proposes cutting Community Eligibility Provision school lunch program
Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.
ahem...
Actually, no.
I'm giving Democrats proper credit for doing jack shit about it when we gave them power.
I don't differentiate between perpetrator and collaborator when the net result is the same.
Lmao, right, you’ll “give Dems credit” but clearly have no idea how our government works (hint: it’s not an empire and dems can’t magically decree laws)— for which you should blame the Republicans who keep slashing school budgets.
But keep lying to yourself after I’ve proved you wrong. I’m bored and need a good laugh.
All you've done is make the same excuses Democrats do, and yet, you still expect me to vote for them after doing so.
No wonder people think voting doesn't change anything.
I’ve proven you wrong with multiple sources while you’ve proven too dumb to know how our government works, lol
Thanks for the entertainment!
problem is, he might end up defining them as "entirely unchecked, retroactively"
"You see, your honor, when I raped this woman it was an official function of the president of the United States! Obviously, presidential immunity must apply!"
Yeah sure drumpf raped a bunch of women, but let’s impeach biden because his son is related to him.
raped a bunch of women
....and a few minors (children), along the way
There is no such thing as “presidential immunity”.
"I'M SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL!!" - Some guy named Nixon
I'm no lawyer so I could be way off base, but does this set the groundwork for some kind of precedent?
"In May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Bill Clinton's claim that the Constitution immunized him from civil lawsuits"
Isn't that already a precedent?
Roe vs Wade was a precedent.
With the current supreme Court? Who the hell knows.
Silly rabbit, precedents aren't a thing anymore.
Also no lawyer, but my understanding is that it doesn't. The appeals court hasn't ruled that presidential immunity wouldn't be a valid defence, but rather that Trump should have brought it up earlier if he wanted to use it.
Courts often take the most narrow view possible to answer the question. This is an example of that. The only question answered is "Can a president raise the issue of immunity at this stage in the trial", with the answer being "no". They didn't comment on if presidential immunity is valid in this situation. The only precedent set is that presidential immunity must be brought up at te start of litigation.
Tee hee.
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
574 points (100.0% liked)
News
23268 readers
2556 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS