6 ms·

Well obviously… otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what

Well obviously… otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. The question is, will everyone surrounding a president allow the president to commit mass cullings or nuke California. And the answer is clearly not, outside of delusional fantasy scenarios. Trump wasn’t even allowed to build a wall, and you think his VP would have let him commit genocide?

lenerdenator 2y ago
> You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. These aren't randos; they're federal prosecutors that are hired by the sitting President of the United States. Let's say that even if there is a decision that Trump's acts aren't related to his official duties and he somehow gets punished for those charges (I wouldn't hold my breath). How does this not give Biden and future Presidents a way to seriously abuse their power with a hope that they're not held accountable for it? Before it was just a hypothetical. Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power.
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  It’s also likely that the project 2025 people will have almost every federal employee declared a political appointee which would give any sitting president the power to fire any prosecutor prosecuting him. This was one of the OMB changes Trump made at the end of his last presidency.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    There are some already drawing up list of those employees for targeting during a potential second Trump term, using a grant from the Heritage Foundation, IIRC.
  - jkestner 2y ago
    It may be a saving grace that little will get done when all the people with institutional knowledge are fired.
    - throwaway173738 2y ago
      That’s the goal though. Eliminate everyone competent and then leave the gutted institutions for the next series of Presidents to deal with. Or in the case of the National Weather Service gut it, replace everyone with climate change deniers, then outsource all the weather and meteorology to someone like The Weather Channel.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I don't think this really matters in this specific case; the DoJ itself has a policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      And that's a problem. Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? Justice delayed until someone's out of office is justice denied until someone's out of office.
- toast0 2y ago
  I mean, this isn't outside the norm. Most government employees and officials either elected, appointed, or hired generally don't have personal liability for discretionary acts of their office under the principle of qualified immunity.
  - Gluber 2y ago
    It's really weird to watch all that from the other side of the pond. In my country for example, all politicians have immunity but our parliament can revoke it for anyone using a majority ruling... ( having more than two political parties helps )
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  > Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power. Yes, the places where he is explicitly given unlimited power.....
  - tines 2y ago
    That's a tortuous use of the word unlimited. The president has very limited power that is spelled out by the constitution and proscribed by Congress. Using that limited power in the way it is permitted is not "unlimitedly using limited power."
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    This absolutely opens the door to that. It gives a scenario where a sympathetic judge can immediately toss a case against a President for abusing power.
ffsm8 2y ago
Your looking at it from today's perspective, but these kinds of rules need to be looked at from the perspective of worst case scenario - don't limit it to the current candidates, think about what a future president in... Say 30yrs is gonna do. The weihmaher republik was a pretty good democracy back in the day. It just gave the leader certain rights, and suddenly Hitler became the dictator, creating Nazi Germany. Everyone needs a limit to their power, otherwise they'll be able to essentially flip the board and declare themselves emperor. Please don't project what I said here onto trump, Biden or Obama. None of them are on that level. It's just possible that a future president is that morally bankrupt, especially if social issues continue to accrue/inequality keeps growing unchecked.
- golergka 2y ago
  > The weihmaher republik was a pretty good democracy back in the day. No it wasn't. It had armed gangs, both right and left-wing, fighting in the streets, completely failed monetary policy and sky-high level of corruption. The republic just started to kind of getting back to normal for a few years at the end of 1920s, and then was wrecked with Great Depression.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    > It had armed gangs, both right and left-wing, fighting in the streets See: 2020 in the US. > completely failed monetary policy See printing off a lot of money to deal with an emergency because the US hasn't had a meaningful conversation about revenue since 1993 when George HW Bush went back on "read my lips" > sky-high level of corruption You have people on this court accepting vacations and gifts from people who are wishing to push a certain political viewpoint on the court. They just ruled this was okay, too, by neutering a federal anti-bribery statute. Money is considered protected political speech. There are a lot of parallels between Weimar Germany and the current state of the USA. More than anyone should feel comfortable with.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      To be fair there is still a very long way to go if you look at the actual details. > There are a lot of parallels between Weimar Germany and the current state of the USA It might be dysfunctional but largely in very different ways (unless you view it extremely superficially).
ffgjgf1 2y ago
> otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. No, apparently it’s much easier and safer to just pay off the president directly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lenerdenator 2y ago

> You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. These aren't randos; they're federal prosecutors that are hired by the sitting President of the United States. Let's say that even if there is a decision that Trump's acts aren't related to his official duties and he somehow gets punished for those charges (I wouldn't hold my breath). How does this not give Biden and future Presidents a way to seriously abuse their power with a hope that they're not held accountable for it? Before it was just a hypothetical. Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power.

throwaway173738 2y ago
It’s also likely that the project 2025 people will have almost every federal employee declared a political appointee which would give any sitting president the power to fire any prosecutor prosecuting him. This was one of the OMB changes Trump made at the end of his last presidency.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  There are some already drawing up list of those employees for targeting during a potential second Trump term, using a grant from the Heritage Foundation, IIRC.
- jkestner 2y ago
  It may be a saving grace that little will get done when all the people with institutional knowledge are fired.
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    That’s the goal though. Eliminate everyone competent and then leave the gutted institutions for the next series of Presidents to deal with. Or in the case of the National Weather Service gut it, replace everyone with climate change deniers, then outsource all the weather and meteorology to someone like The Weather Channel.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I don't think this really matters in this specific case; the DoJ itself has a policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    And that's a problem. Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? Justice delayed until someone's out of office is justice denied until someone's out of office.
toast0 2y ago
I mean, this isn't outside the norm. Most government employees and officials either elected, appointed, or hired generally don't have personal liability for discretionary acts of their office under the principle of qualified immunity.
- Gluber 2y ago
  It's really weird to watch all that from the other side of the pond. In my country for example, all politicians have immunity but our parliament can revoke it for anyone using a majority ruling... ( having more than two political parties helps )
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power. Yes, the places where he is explicitly given unlimited power.....
- tines 2y ago
  That's a tortuous use of the word unlimited. The president has very limited power that is spelled out by the constitution and proscribed by Congress. Using that limited power in the way it is permitted is not "unlimitedly using limited power."
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  This absolutely opens the door to that. It gives a scenario where a sympathetic judge can immediately toss a case against a President for abusing power.

ffsm8 2y ago

Your looking at it from today's perspective, but these kinds of rules need to be looked at from the perspective of worst case scenario - don't limit it to the current candidates, think about what a future president in... Say 30yrs is gonna do. The weihmaher republik was a pretty good democracy back in the day. It just gave the leader certain rights, and suddenly Hitler became the dictator, creating Nazi Germany. Everyone needs a limit to their power, otherwise they'll be able to essentially flip the board and declare themselves emperor. Please don't project what I said here onto trump, Biden or Obama. None of them are on that level. It's just possible that a future president is that morally bankrupt, especially if social issues continue to accrue/inequality keeps growing unchecked.

golergka 2y ago
> The weihmaher republik was a pretty good democracy back in the day. No it wasn't. It had armed gangs, both right and left-wing, fighting in the streets, completely failed monetary policy and sky-high level of corruption. The republic just started to kind of getting back to normal for a few years at the end of 1920s, and then was wrecked with Great Depression.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  > It had armed gangs, both right and left-wing, fighting in the streets See: 2020 in the US. > completely failed monetary policy See printing off a lot of money to deal with an emergency because the US hasn't had a meaningful conversation about revenue since 1993 when George HW Bush went back on "read my lips" > sky-high level of corruption You have people on this court accepting vacations and gifts from people who are wishing to push a certain political viewpoint on the court. They just ruled this was okay, too, by neutering a federal anti-bribery statute. Money is considered protected political speech. There are a lot of parallels between Weimar Germany and the current state of the USA. More than anyone should feel comfortable with.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    To be fair there is still a very long way to go if you look at the actual details. > There are a lot of parallels between Weimar Germany and the current state of the USA It might be dysfunctional but largely in very different ways (unless you view it extremely superficially).

ffgjgf1 2y ago

> otherwise a politician paid by putin could remove the ability for the president to fire the nuclear weapons. You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do. No, apparently it’s much easier and safer to just pay off the president directly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]