this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
576 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2984 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
 

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution.

The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a “qualified yes” that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 198 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Sauer later argued the threat of prosecution could have a chilling effect on future presidents’ decisions, saying they would need to look over their shoulder and ask, “Am I going to jail for this?” when making controversial decisions.

That's exactly the fucking point, you chode! The president should be weighing that consequence.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 84 points 10 months ago

Reminds me of this:

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number [to launch a nuclear weapon] in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home.

When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."

— Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They literally don't know the difference between presidents and kings

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 23 points 10 months ago

To be fair, the supreme court has made the same argument when granting themselves absolute immunity. But it was just as stupid then (and still theoretically only applies when executing their job).

"We could never do anything if we had to worry about lawsuits all the time" yes, that's how life works for everyone who makes decisions.

[–] bazus1@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I saw that line, buried at the end of the article, and shouted at the screen, "Yeah, you fuckin' should!" I want to live in the world where the president is terrified of the consequences of his or her actions.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

I want to live in a world where every cop, lawyer and CEO also lives with that same fear.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I like this. It shows how dumb Republicans are.

They think criminals are logical people who weigh the consequences carefully and then decide to crime or not to crime.

I agree this is the point of a lot of our crime and punishment policy, but science has known for about fifty years that it isn't true.

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't know, that's a pretty subtle point, man. You think the average person can understand that? I mean, obviously even the former president can't, and some call him the greatest president almost as much as he calls it himself.