4 ms·

Dramatic testimony sheds damning light on Donald Trump’s actions on January 6

hunglee2 4y ago
it's an interesting conundrum for state apparatus during the period of transition. Technically, did the driver disobey the order a sitting President by refusing to drive to the rally? At what point does the President lose authority. In most countries transition happens asap - on the day or within days of vote results. In the US, there is this weird 2-3 month period where the sitting President can dispute the results and use the machinery of the state to try and overturn them. It's a recipe for disaster
- h2odragon 4y ago
  > At what point does the President lose authority Jan 20th when the new President is sworn in. If this testimony was true (and its already been contradicted by Secret Service); then it'd be hard to see how the agents shouldn't be fired, at the very least. If the President says "we go here", then they go there. He's allowed to choose the risks he takes. Recall the speech in front of the church? The one where the story was how they tear gassed a crowd to clear the way? Again, the circumstances were not so dramatic as the media reported initially, but the safety risk there was certainly enough to make the Secret Service worry... Trump took that walk anyway.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    yeah very interesting, I have full sympathy with the state operatives involved. They swore an oath (I think the country rather than the office of the President?) so have to make a judgement call as to whether the Presidential instructions align with this. You could not criticise the agent had he accepted Trump's command and drove him up to Capitol Hill
  - arrrg 4y ago
    Certainly they do not have to follow illegal orders or commit crimes. Presidents are not absolute monarchs. The Secret Service is not the President’s private army to stage insurrections. Your assessment is too simplistic and naive. And presidential power is limited. It’s not at all obvious that the President should have any kind of right to go wherever he or she pleases. Especially impairing one of the co-equal branches is obviously something that just cannot be legal or else that would just be a huge contradiction.
kernal 4y ago
Well, this didn't age well. What's the hoax count up to?

it's an interesting conundrum for state apparatus during the period of transition. Technically, did the driver disobey the order a sitting President by refusing to drive to the rally? At what point does the President lose authority. In most countries transition happens asap - on the day or within days of vote results. In the US, there is this weird 2-3 month period where the sitting President can dispute the results and use the machinery of the state to try and overturn them. It's a recipe for disaster

h2odragon 4y ago
> At what point does the President lose authority Jan 20th when the new President is sworn in. If this testimony was true (and its already been contradicted by Secret Service); then it'd be hard to see how the agents shouldn't be fired, at the very least. If the President says "we go here", then they go there. He's allowed to choose the risks he takes. Recall the speech in front of the church? The one where the story was how they tear gassed a crowd to clear the way? Again, the circumstances were not so dramatic as the media reported initially, but the safety risk there was certainly enough to make the Secret Service worry... Trump took that walk anyway.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yeah very interesting, I have full sympathy with the state operatives involved. They swore an oath (I think the country rather than the office of the President?) so have to make a judgement call as to whether the Presidential instructions align with this. You could not criticise the agent had he accepted Trump's command and drove him up to Capitol Hill
- arrrg 4y ago
  Certainly they do not have to follow illegal orders or commit crimes. Presidents are not absolute monarchs. The Secret Service is not the President’s private army to stage insurrections. Your assessment is too simplistic and naive. And presidential power is limited. It’s not at all obvious that the President should have any kind of right to go wherever he or she pleases. Especially impairing one of the co-equal branches is obviously something that just cannot be legal or else that would just be a huge contradiction.

kernal 4y ago

Well, this didn't age well. What's the hoax count up to?