• Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I thought the POTUS couldn’t break the law? Or does that go out the window once they’re not sitting? Does Trump really want to set THAT precedent?

        • frongt@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yup. And at that time, we never found out if it was true or not. Since then, Republicans have been tirelessly working to ensure it is. And now we see the fruits of their labor: a Republican president as king.

          • santa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Often I imagine had Carter elected to move on a Nixon conviction if we would be where we are now. I don’t think we would. Holding power to account doesn’t seem to be an American or Democratic thing to do. When it is, I believe we may have more geopolitical standing in accountability and Democracy. Until we walk the talk we seem to be a cesspool of quacking ducks.

  • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    …says the guy who doesn’t even know what half the people he’s pardoned were even in prison for.

  • Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oh? Does he really want to set a legal precedent that a sitting president can undo the pardons of prior presidents?

    Perhaps he’s on to something! 🤣

    • Ech@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Take a moment to consider why he’s not concerned about a next president.

        • Ech@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          The guy’s been screaming his intent for years now and y’all are still convinced he doesn’t mean it.

            • MBech@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Depends, will anyone actually do anything if he does?

              So far, the answer has been mostly “nope”.

              • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Then you haven’t been paying attention. Almost everything he’s been trying to do that is actually against the law, has been blocked in court.

                And if you’re one of those folks thinking that he could at some point just invoke the Insurrection Act and use the military to take over…then you should know that the majority of the generals in the military would not follow those orders, unless there was a clear and obvious threat to the nation.

                There would be no “Order 66” moment…only the beginning of a “civil war” within the military, that would most likely result in a stalemate due to officers simply refusing to order their troops to fire on their own people.

                • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  This trust the process stuff is just copium. The fact george bush wasn’t prosecuted for WMDs and Reagan wasn’t prosecuted for Iran Contra are the original sins here. Unless Bush gets prosecuted we can’t even begin to fix the problems trump created because they are all downstream.

                  You’re trying to dam a river at the delta where it meets the sea. Threaten to prosecute bush though and you pave the path for prosecuting trump and fox news and all these billionaire media owners.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      He doesn’t intend for there to be any other sitting presidents after him. At least not before he’s dead.

    • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Only if it was an official act. To determine whether an act was official is easy, just refer to this chart:

      • Trump: Yes, it was an official act.
      • Someone else: No, it wasn’t.
      • SoloCritical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah it’s pretty apparent that whoever is in charge gets to decide what’s official and what isn’t. Miller himself even confirmed might makes right.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m sure the DOJ lawyers will get right on that after they finish burning the remaining epstein files.

  • dan1101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    He is only concerned over illegal actions by Democrats, the poors, and brown people. Everyone else gets congratulations.

  • HarneyToker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    A precedent was set in 2005 that stated the president “need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill” and may direct a subordinate to use an autopen, as long as the president has approved and decided to sign it

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Horrible people can say the write thing. While this is not a law, making it illegal would be a good idea.

      Unfortunately that will never happen.