6 ms·
When a different side takes control of the justice department they may choose to go after all those who broke the law by order of this president. The president
by Joeri 1y ago
When a different side takes control of the justice department they may choose to go after all those who broke the law by order of this president. The president might be protected from consequences according to the supreme court, but those answering to the president are not.
This administration has set the standard that the justice department can be weaponized against political enemies. The ratchet only goes one way in American politics, presidents never relinquish the powers claimed by their predecessors.
- kranke155 1y agoThere are some signs that the current Administration has no intention of allowing “a diferente side” to retake power. Trump third term being one.
- throw0101c 1y ago> The president might be protected from consequences according to the supreme court, but those answering to the president are not. Unless they are granted a blanket pardon beforehand. Then all you can really do is an "audit" for who did what, from which no charges can be laid.
- zippyman55 1y agoThat does not allow escaping from international laws.
- terminalshort 1y agoInternational law makes traffic cops look like Judge Dredd
- actionfromafar 1y agoCan't escape State law either.
- jayd16 1y agoTrump seems to have been able to.
- roughly 1y agoThe US army does, though.
- kelvinjps10 1y agoActually it does if the US, bullies the other countries into not enforcing it and the US it's actually the main country enforcing international law. If a country dare to enforce international law against an us person, they will cut resources or threaten to use military
- impossiblefork 1y agoor civil lawsuits.
- nradov 1y agoIndividual federal government employees are generally immune from civil liability for all official acts, even if those acts were illegal.
- Analemma_ 1y agoEven before Trump, the US had a standing policy of threatening severe retaliation against anyone who tries to enforce international law against US citizens-- this isn't just an informal policy, it's a specific law passed by Congress. And the scope has only gotten broader since then. The whole concept of "international law" is polite fiction anyway, the reality has always been "the strong do what they can, the weak endure what they must".
- jayd16 1y agoJust lock them up anyway and pardon yourself for ignoring the pardon if that's how the game is played. The idea of a blanket pardon is absurd on its face and we're only allowing it because we're allowing political prosecution.
- avgDev 1y agoOr arrest them using ICE and make false claims. Or just make their life miserable and punish anyone who hires them. In reality stuff like this feels like the beginning of an end. I seriously don't know how anyone can look at what is happening right now and be okay with it.
- dirtyoldmick 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throw0101c 1y ago> Like Biden didn't weaponize the justice department first?! Out of genuine curiosity: what specific actions do you think were 'weaponized' investigations / prosecutions under Biden?
- elaus 1y agoAs someone not from the US and looking from the outside: it seems there is a _significant_ difference between the two administrations in this regard?
- SanjayMehta 1y agoAs another someone from the outside looking in, the difference is in the reporting in the old media. Biden had the support of the media and his lawfare and misdeeds were glossed over. One example was the Hunter Biden laptop. Nord Stream pipeline sabotage was another. Trump's shenanigans are just getting more attention. But to be fair, his shenanigans are dialled up to 11 while Biden was at a more modest 8.
- mikeyouse 1y agoWe're talking specifically about lawfare - so no idea why you're talking about the Nord Stream pipeline? These banal observations about 'both sides' are so shallow. Name Biden's lawfare. What exactly did he abuse the Justice Department to do?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThey assisted in the NY AG's prosecution.
- ryandrake 1y agoThe obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress.
- itsoktocry 1y ago>The obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress. - Signed, the side that tried to throw a candidate in prison.
- baggachipz 1y agoA convicted felon. Candidacy shouldn't be part of the equation.
- jarofghosts 1y agoPrison is typically where felons go, yes.
- ajross 1y ago> When a different side takes control of the justice department That's an argument about the degradation of the rule of law, taking as a prior that the rule of law won't degrade. It's... unpersuasive. The end goal of this kind of thinking is that the other side never does take control, ever. The current administration pretty clearly does not intend to give up power. They tried to evade democracy once already, and have fixed the mistakes this time. Whether they will be successful or not is unknowable. But that's the plan. And the determining factor is very unlikely to be the normal operation of American civil society. Winning elections is, probably, not enough anymore.
- meowface 1y agoHe will very likely just pardon everyone on his last day.