• cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Its more like, the president can assassinate you if it is in the interest of the USA and not for the personal interest of the president.

    So if ellected, Trump can assassinate all political competition, Putin-style, legally, but not Stormy Daniels

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Not really. Exercise of a Presidential power, no matter the reason, is immune from prosecution. If it’s legal to drop a bomb on ISIS it’s legal to drop a bomb on a pornstar.

      • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        So letting district courts decide if an action is or is not an official act, is just a joke if anything a president does is official act

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          A lot of people are reading this wrong. What is likely going to happen is that the district court will say that a grand Jury can decide if something is an official act. That might be challenged again but I’d wager that’s the next stop in this saga.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            But don’t forget that official government records and any inquiries as to the motives of the president will not be admissible as evidence in any such case.

    • tinyVoltron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Who’s to say that maintaining the dignity of the office of President is not in the interest of the US? She is impugning his reputation therefore making him look weak which could embolden our enemies. She must disappear for the good of all Americans. It’s not hard to justify just about anything as an official act in the interest of the US.

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        If “maintaining the dignity of the office of President” is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    This election will be the final free and fair one. God help us all

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        To do a “well, actually” I guess we didn’t really have an empire until well past the country’s founding. We were a mostly irrelevant backwater for some period of time.

        ETA: And as someone who freaking loves this country, I realize that saying a comment like the above is one that could probably get you into a fight two days from now, most especially, when all kinds of fetishistic performative military nonsense and uncritical screeds about this country are at peak ridiculousness (and I love July 4th in spite of these flaws). I consider myself a real patriot, but one that is unwilling to whitewash this country.

        • RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          No, the US has been an empire from the start. Unless you don’t count conquering and colonizing the indigenous peoples because they aren’t “civilized” or something.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean, I wouldn’t mind the current President exercising this power over their political rivals, in the election, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, purely as a defensive measure to protect America. It sets a shitty precedence, but do we really want He Who Shall Not Be Named to set the precedence first?

    • Llamalitmus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      “It sets a shitty precedence…” is a gross minimalization to attach to effectively making the US be a dictatorship. And saying you’re ok with a dictatorship because you happen to agree with the dictator is the kind of sentiment that cannot be left unchallenged/unexamined

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Right?

        And it’s incredibly short sighted.

        So, in 4 years, will the next dictator be just as “good”? What about the next?

        Also the whole “To save America” is literally the exact same reasoning used, and even believed, by the other side. It’s circular at this point, one is better, but the other thinks THEY need to save America just as much.

        It’s a real fucked situation.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    The US has already extrajudicialy murdered a US citizen on purpose. The US under Obama sent a drone to murder a citizen without a trial.

    Precedent was publicly set then.

    The US 3 letter agencies have been doing this in secret for their entire time in power. But those are widely considered outside the law but necessary. Whatever that means.

    • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Agree but I feel like pointing that out is implying this somehow doesn’t make things worse which I feel like is missing the point. This removes the implicit threat of prosecution for anything the president does.

      Now no matter how much political will exists for the prosecution, the president is fully and unequivocally immune.

  • piecat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Couldn’t Biden write an executive order that describes what is “official” vs “unofficial”?

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 days ago

    Welcome back to another episode of “Where’s Humanity Going to Shit Next?”, where we tackle the depressing consequences of the actions of the human race to our beloved planet Earth. This episode we visit the US once again, where the president decides he now has the power to kill you himself if he feels like it.

    Join us next time to see where humanity is really gonna shit next.

  • Johnmannesca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    All this murder crap is lame; why has nobody been parroting how the president can do other crimes, like tax fraud or lie under oath or buying drugs or literally anything but murder?

    • JesusSon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Because the point is to scare you. “Breaking news president buys crack” is not as scary as “Breaking news president axe murders cabinet.”

      The ruling is not good, but it’s not Seal Team Six executes its political rival bad. It’s more likely to be President sells nuke secrets to Saudi Arabia under the new official “I Get to Sell Nuclear Secrets to Saudi Arabia Act” he just made up right now.

    • olutukko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      literal killing if human beings is lame? we already know to white collar criminals are doing tax fraud and use drugs. old news.

      • Johnmannesca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Lame like an overbeaten dead horse, I mean. I was just trying to put out there that there’s worse ways to try and ruin our country like Madoff did but worse. And plenty of others I didn’t even mention.

    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      The President can fire employees that refuse to have sex with him. Firing executive branch employees is well within the President’s power. If they don’t submit to him, he can fire them. Official act.

  • scripthook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    any post saying that The President can assassinate anyone or any party opponent is nonsense. They won’t do it themselves and if they order it, considering it’s illegal the military won’t carry it out. We have safeguards in place. The left needs to simmer down.

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Would this same ruling have happened if Trump wasn’t involved? No, I don’t think so.

    Stop the steal overthrow.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      So now Biden can do what trump did and not certify the next president using fake electors.

      And if he can’t break the law, can’t he illegally introduce a new law that makes all this presidential law breaking illegal?

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Correct. There’s absolutely nothing stopping Biden from doing exactly what Trump already tried and failed to do. He could put pressure on Governors to “find x number of votes”, submit a fake slate of electors to cast doubt on the results, outright threaten people if they don’t comply with his wishes. I’m sure this SCOTUS will find a way to interpret any of Biden’s would-be illegal actions as actually illegal, but tiptoe around Trump’s sedition and fraud.

        I can’t believe that the prevailing opinion of the times is that the president can literally break the law, even ones specifically meant to bind them and only them such as campaign finance laws, and be immune from consequences under almost any circumstance as long as the court says it’s official. Congress effectively can no longer act as a check against the Executive. Only the Judicial can say what is official or unofficial.

        This isn’t power anyone should have.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        How would he “illegally introduce a new law”? He could issue a decree but it would be meaningless because nothing gives a president the power to make laws.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Read more carefully:

            The president can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters which have the force of law.

            Executive orders are limited to exercising powers already granted to the President by Congress or the Constitution. The President cannot just make up new laws. This is basic stuff that should have been explained to you numerous times if you’re American.