3 ms·

> I am expecting all these individuals or connected individuals to immediately be seized and jailed by an Executive Order from the next Democrat President. Dem

by dpark 11mo ago

> I am expecting all these individuals or connected individuals to immediately be seized and jailed by an Executive Order from the next Democrat President. Democrats broadly lack the spine necessary for this. But regardless, this is also illegal. Despite the actions of the current administration, an EO to snatch people off the street and jail them would violate the 4th amendment.

beefnugs 11mo ago
Nothing is illegal if the prez can just tell you to execute someone. Then pardon you.
idle_zealot 11mo ago
Eh, the EO would just have to direct the justice department to look into pursuing criminal charges against the people.
- dpark 11mo ago
  “Investigate criminal activity” is a very different EO than “immediately seize and jail”.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    Jailing while completing an investigation is perfectly precedented for all sorts of crimes. To suggest these guys, in particular, aren’t a flight and destruction of evidence risk would take work.
sys_64738 11mo ago
That would be for a court to decide later. Meanwhile, they'll languish in a hot and humid prison somewhere. Preferably Alligator Alcatraz. Even if some court decided then it would immediately be appealed and precedent from the current Executive Branch shows that court orders don't need to necessarily be obeyed anytime soon.
- dpark 11mo ago
  “I don’t care about the law as long as the lawbreakers are on my side.”
  - s5300 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    We’ve already crossed this bridge. Unilaterally disarming doesn’t make sense if the next MAGA President just chips away at the system again.
    - dpark 11mo ago
      Sorry, does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? I’m not sure what system is being protected in the scenario where everyone is openly and illegally authoritarian. I hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law, not just attempting to run the same authoritarian playbook for their own benefit.
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? Nothing discussed is black-and-white illegal. SCOTUS has made that clear. > hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law Me too. The first step in that has to be setting the precedent that if you side with an autocrat, you lose your wealth and freedom.
      - danaris 11mo ago
        Just to emphasize what the sibling comment said: You call the described actions "illegal", but under the law of the land as it stands today, nothing the President does is illegal if he can make even a vague claim to be doing it as an official act of the Office of President. To be clear, this is wrong, terrifying, and needs to be overturned, but it is the law of the land, since the SCOTUS decision that made it so. Assuming we can get to a place where Democrats hold power in our government once again, until we can get the absolute mess that the Republicans have made cleaned up in its entirety, it would be not merely irresponsible, but catastrophic for the Democrats to fail to use every tool at their disposal, including things that are only legal because the Republicans thought they would never have to give up power, in order to achieve that end. The alternative is to fall back into fascism, which should be seen as unacceptable by absolutely anyone with a conscience.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> Democrats broadly lack the spine The party elites are complacent. That’s creating a political vacuum for someone who’s more aggressive. > this is also illegal An EO is. The President asking the FBI, DoJ and state AGs to prioritise the last administration’s lawbreakers—a thing Biden was elected to do and failed at—is just norms and conventions.

by dpark 11mo ago

beefnugs 11mo ago

Nothing is illegal if the prez can just tell you to execute someone. Then pardon you.

idle_zealot 11mo ago

Eh, the EO would just have to direct the justice department to look into pursuing criminal charges against the people.

dpark 11mo ago
“Investigate criminal activity” is a very different EO than “immediately seize and jail”.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  Jailing while completing an investigation is perfectly precedented for all sorts of crimes. To suggest these guys, in particular, aren’t a flight and destruction of evidence risk would take work.

sys_64738 11mo ago

That would be for a court to decide later. Meanwhile, they'll languish in a hot and humid prison somewhere. Preferably Alligator Alcatraz. Even if some court decided then it would immediately be appealed and precedent from the current Executive Branch shows that court orders don't need to necessarily be obeyed anytime soon.

dpark 11mo ago
“I don’t care about the law as long as the lawbreakers are on my side.”
- s5300 11mo ago
  [dead]
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  We’ve already crossed this bridge. Unilaterally disarming doesn’t make sense if the next MAGA President just chips away at the system again.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    Sorry, does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? I’m not sure what system is being protected in the scenario where everyone is openly and illegally authoritarian. I hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law, not just attempting to run the same authoritarian playbook for their own benefit.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > does “disarming” here mean “not engaging in illegal authoritarian action”? Nothing discussed is black-and-white illegal. SCOTUS has made that clear. > hope that if Democrats get back into power they will invest in stabilizing democracy and the rule of law Me too. The first step in that has to be setting the precedent that if you side with an autocrat, you lose your wealth and freedom.
    - danaris 11mo ago
      Just to emphasize what the sibling comment said: You call the described actions "illegal", but under the law of the land as it stands today, nothing the President does is illegal if he can make even a vague claim to be doing it as an official act of the Office of President. To be clear, this is wrong, terrifying, and needs to be overturned, but it is the law of the land, since the SCOTUS decision that made it so. Assuming we can get to a place where Democrats hold power in our government once again, until we can get the absolute mess that the Republicans have made cleaned up in its entirety, it would be not merely irresponsible, but catastrophic for the Democrats to fail to use every tool at their disposal, including things that are only legal because the Republicans thought they would never have to give up power, in order to achieve that end. The alternative is to fall back into fascism, which should be seen as unacceptable by absolutely anyone with a conscience.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> Democrats broadly lack the spine The party elites are complacent. That’s creating a political vacuum for someone who’s more aggressive. > this is also illegal An EO is. The President asking the FBI, DoJ and state AGs to prioritise the last administration’s lawbreakers—a thing Biden was elected to do and failed at—is just norms and conventions.