7 ms·

I'm not an American, but I would assume so? Or wouldn't they? If not so, is there a reason why not? "Murdering an oppositional politician in your own country"

I'm not an American, but I would assume so? Or wouldn't they? If not so, is there a reason why not? "Murdering an oppositional politician in your own country" seems quite clean-cut bad and unjustified. I know your political system is very much "they vs us", but it can't be that bad?

tjarrett 2y ago
You would think so right? The problem is, the way things have been for the last couple of decades, many of us are not absolutely certain that the Senate would ever convict a sitting president unless it was 2/3rds of the opposite party -- which is pretty rare. Probably, if a sitting president (regardless of party) assassinated a political rival, the Senate would convict. Probably. They are almost certainly hyper-partisan Senators (of both parties) who would not convict a president from their own party no matter what. The reasons for that would be multiple... greed, fear, a weird sense of loyality to the person, or even just a warped view of reality. For example, if you thought Trump was Hitler 2.0 coming to take over the government and hunt down minorities and LGBTQ people, then you might feel justified in doing anything possible to prevent that -- including assassination.
- schroeding 2y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the insight! Hard to judge what's going on in the US sometimes from the other side of the pond :)
scelerat 2y ago
Part of the ruling was that the conversations between the Department of Justice, the main law enforcement arm of the US federal government, and the President -- which are among his "official duties" -- cannot be entered into a criminal proceeding as evidence against him. Part of the criminal case brought against Trump regarding his attempted coup on January 6 relied on evidence and testimony from conversations where he requested unlawful things or showed an unlawful motive, but he did so within the framework of his official duty as President. The case now returns to a lower court and the prosecutor must prove it without that evidence. So henceforth from this Supreme Court ruling, the President can call up the Attorney General ("official duties," remember) and say, "find a reason to investigate and arrest my political opponent." That act, that conversation is now protected. And that action will be carried out, and there is no legal recourse, at least not long after much damage has been done. At many junctures, not only the January 6 capitol riot, but many others, Trump was only prevented from disastrous anti-democratic actions by principled staff and officials around him. This time around, Trump (or any other dictatorial pretender) will not make the mistake of filling their administration with anyone but sycophants. Trump installed many federal judges. Even leaving it up to the courts to decide if something is an "official" or "unofficial" act, after the fact, is now left to fiat.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > That act, that conversation is now protected. It's even worse than that. The Supreme Court says prosecutors can't even question the motive for that corrupt action, meaning that essentially all conversations between a President and his AG are de jure assumed to be above board. We must assume the President opened an investigation into his opponent because he had a good reason to do so. Otherwise we might restrict his ability to take bold and decisive action, according to the court.
rayiner 2y ago
What’s happening in the U.S. isn’t politics. It’s a quasi-religious schism that goes to fundamental beliefs about the nature of human society, how government should work, etc. It doesn’t map on in obvious ways to what you see in Europe. In Denmark, for example, immigration was a political issue. When it turned out the people wanted to restrict immigration, the left of center government supported “far right” immigration restrictions. In America, a large part of the left sees immigration as a moral issue, not a political one. When Trump was first inaugurated, the left refused to even accept Trump as legitimate because of his opposition to immigration. Hilary Clinton called his supporters “deplorables” and said he was “illegitimate.” This was long before any of the bad things he did.
- NickC25 2y ago
  >This was long before any of the bad things he did. You haven't been paying attention for long, have you? Donald Trump was known as a fraudster and a genuine piece of shit since the 1980s at a minimum. I grew up in a very wealthy suburb of NYC in the 90s and early 00s and was well aware of Donald Trump being a sideshow joke and a wannabe rich dude about 20 years before he was elected. Nobody in my hometown that had real money thought Donald Trump was anything besides a lawsuit-happy wannabe with midget hands.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    None of that changes what parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    None of that changes the parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it. Trump is lousy and shouldn't be president, true. But he's a symptom or result of the ongoing partisanship and failed politics.

tjarrett 2y ago

You would think so right? The problem is, the way things have been for the last couple of decades, many of us are not absolutely certain that the Senate would ever convict a sitting president unless it was 2/3rds of the opposite party -- which is pretty rare. Probably, if a sitting president (regardless of party) assassinated a political rival, the Senate would convict. Probably. They are almost certainly hyper-partisan Senators (of both parties) who would not convict a president from their own party no matter what. The reasons for that would be multiple... greed, fear, a weird sense of loyality to the person, or even just a warped view of reality. For example, if you thought Trump was Hitler 2.0 coming to take over the government and hunt down minorities and LGBTQ people, then you might feel justified in doing anything possible to prevent that -- including assassination.

schroeding 2y ago
Interesting, thanks for the insight! Hard to judge what's going on in the US sometimes from the other side of the pond :)

scelerat 2y ago

Part of the ruling was that the conversations between the Department of Justice, the main law enforcement arm of the US federal government, and the President -- which are among his "official duties" -- cannot be entered into a criminal proceeding as evidence against him. Part of the criminal case brought against Trump regarding his attempted coup on January 6 relied on evidence and testimony from conversations where he requested unlawful things or showed an unlawful motive, but he did so within the framework of his official duty as President. The case now returns to a lower court and the prosecutor must prove it without that evidence. So henceforth from this Supreme Court ruling, the President can call up the Attorney General ("official duties," remember) and say, "find a reason to investigate and arrest my political opponent." That act, that conversation is now protected. And that action will be carried out, and there is no legal recourse, at least not long after much damage has been done. At many junctures, not only the January 6 capitol riot, but many others, Trump was only prevented from disastrous anti-democratic actions by principled staff and officials around him. This time around, Trump (or any other dictatorial pretender) will not make the mistake of filling their administration with anyone but sycophants. Trump installed many federal judges. Even leaving it up to the courts to decide if something is an "official" or "unofficial" act, after the fact, is now left to fiat.

ModernMech 2y ago
> That act, that conversation is now protected. It's even worse than that. The Supreme Court says prosecutors can't even question the motive for that corrupt action, meaning that essentially all conversations between a President and his AG are de jure assumed to be above board. We must assume the President opened an investigation into his opponent because he had a good reason to do so. Otherwise we might restrict his ability to take bold and decisive action, according to the court.

rayiner 2y ago

What’s happening in the U.S. isn’t politics. It’s a quasi-religious schism that goes to fundamental beliefs about the nature of human society, how government should work, etc. It doesn’t map on in obvious ways to what you see in Europe. In Denmark, for example, immigration was a political issue. When it turned out the people wanted to restrict immigration, the left of center government supported “far right” immigration restrictions. In America, a large part of the left sees immigration as a moral issue, not a political one. When Trump was first inaugurated, the left refused to even accept Trump as legitimate because of his opposition to immigration. Hilary Clinton called his supporters “deplorables” and said he was “illegitimate.” This was long before any of the bad things he did.

NickC25 2y ago
>This was long before any of the bad things he did. You haven't been paying attention for long, have you? Donald Trump was known as a fraudster and a genuine piece of shit since the 1980s at a minimum. I grew up in a very wealthy suburb of NYC in the 90s and early 00s and was well aware of Donald Trump being a sideshow joke and a wannabe rich dude about 20 years before he was elected. Nobody in my hometown that had real money thought Donald Trump was anything besides a lawsuit-happy wannabe with midget hands.
- goatlover 2y ago
  None of that changes what parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it.
- goatlover 2y ago
  None of that changes the parent's points you're trying to respond to. The a partisan divide in the US is so bad now that neither side accept the results of elections being legitimate. Or court rulings for that matter. There's no nuance, and everything is a partisan conspiracy to take over the country, or wreck it. Trump is lousy and shouldn't be president, true. But he's a symptom or result of the ongoing partisanship and failed politics.