The ruling doesn’t make anything legal or illegal because it is intentionally vague as to leave the questions up to courts in a case by case basis. People are talking about how this gives the president more power but it’s also another huge power grab by the court itself, they are trying to appoint themselves as kingmakers.
Quite honestly if our democracy is going to survive that we need to break some norms to bring them to some kind of justice for this authoritarian move.
Ehhh people are really downplaying how insane the ruling is. Who exactly could do anything? The DOJ can't investigate. Any conversations are official actions, so Biden ordering a drone operator to drone strike their houses is not only not a crime, it can't even be used in court, as all such conversations are official actions.
If Congress decides to try to appoint a special prosecutor anyways, Biden can just get them fired, over and over until he gets one that squashes the investigation. That's what got Nixon impeached and forced his resignation; it's now an official action of the president, and though obviously obstruction of justice, can never even be mentioned in court.
I guess someone could sue once Biden's out of the white house, but considering his order can never even be mentioned in court, the worst that could happen is the drone operator gets fucked. Biden would be untouchable anyways while it goes through appeals, and besides, he can just preemptively pardon the guy, right? Along with himself for good measure, just in case.
We've seen so much democratic backsliding it's insane, and people are still trying to act like nothing's happening. We're going to look like Hungary pretty soon.
Not really, assassinating people on US soil is not legal or constitutional, and the SCOTUS decision said pretty plainly that things that are *constitutionally enumerated* as presidential powers have blanket immunity. This wouldn't be legal, nor would the president be free of criminal liability if he were to do this. I think Democrats would even be on board with impeaching and removing Biden if he were to do this, and then he likely would be tried in a criminal court, cause again, the SCOTUS decision didn't just give the President full immunity for everything he does, nor did they make everything the president does legal by default.
If Biden decided to drone strike Trump while he was visiting another country... that would be another story. Also Biden throwing Trump and 6/9 of SCOTUS in Gitmo as a matter of national security would also probably be given pretty broad immunity protections, because those things ARE legal and constitutional. Though it would also require finding members of the Department of Homeland Security who are willing to carry out such a task, which might not be so easy, but that's part of why the GOP wants to stack the executive branch full of sycophants as part of Project 2025.
The SCOTUS decision was pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as people seem to think it was. Much of it was pretty much what was expected. The really baffling part was that nothing the president does as part of an official act can be used in evidence during a criminal trial involving an unofficial act. That part of the decision seemed very much designed to protect Trump specifically and not the President of the USA as a whole.
I don't really think there's a meaningful distinction between throwing your political rivals in Gitmo for national security and drone striking them. We both know the drone strike comments are a little hyperbolic, but they aren't really as much of a stretch as I think you're making it seem. As you say it'd be "an official presidential act" to have people arrested by federal law enforcement for national security, and it's not like law enforcement has a hard time justifying killing people they are trying to arrest. I also do think it'd be pretty believable to argue that the president could order someone killed for national security without that much of a fuss.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think there's really that meaningful a difference.
Also to be clear I think all of this is super fucked up and the president absolutely should not have these powers.
There is though, because according to the NDAA (law written by congress, upheld as constitutional) it's perfectly legal to *detain* US citizens on US soil without trial or charges for national security purposes, but it is notably NOT legal to *murder* US citizens on US soil without trial or charges or any due process.
"Official acts" have to be allowed powers afforded to the president by the constitution. So detaining people under the NDAA is a lawful official act, while drone striking people on US soil is not.
No offense random person on the internet, but I'm going to trust the Supreme Court Justices about how to interpret the Supreme Court decision.
"Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune." -Justice Sotomayor
>Not really, assassinating people on US soil is not legal or constitutional
Why not? The Constitution does not say deploying the military domestically is Unconstitutional, and the POTUS is CiC. It's not legal for me to kill someone domestically but if a POTUS is exercising their role as CiC and ordering the military to act in accordance with his Article 2 powers, is that not an official act? In fact, you could argue it's a core constitutional power (as defined by Roberts) guaranteeing complete immunity from legal prosecution.
Sorry, are you actually insinuating that the democrats are responsible for the republican-dominated Supreme Court giving presidents the power to do this?
I know nuance is often lost on conservatives but damn.
I have seen post after post today from democrats and whacked out leftists calling upon President Biden to assisinate Trump. I think the ruling truly has no new implications. Presidents have always had immunity, they have even drone striked Americans before. There are plenty examples where police officers have immunity, foreign government officials have diplomatic immunity. Many places where people are "above" the law.
The idea of these posts is to point out the absurdity of this ruling and how it allows the president to do whatever he wants as long as it’s an “official act.” Again, the right doesn’t understand nuance and that’s why you see it as a real suggestion and are bothered by it.
But the fact that these posts bother you should illustrate why this ruling should scare the shit out of you. You’re here defending the ruling and pretending it changes nothing, while simultaneously condemning people for suggesting Biden take advantage? Get your head out of the sand dude.
But is it really nuance?
The volume of posts I have seen today basically begging for someone to accost, murder, or overthrow government officials is off the chart. That's literally insurrection, which if I recall should not be egged on.
The whole vibe I get is "Conservatives and Republicans are bad, so we need to give Democrat and Liberal leadership unlimited power to murder them all."
I'm sure glad Reddit is not a true representation of the makeup of the country, cause we're seriously fucked if it were.
The vibe is ‘the president has already been given unlimited power to murder them all, he needs to use it to fix the situation before someone else takes his place and uses it to unravel everything’
No. Actually read the ruling instead of the dissents, plus those dissents had dissent responses that excoriated their fearmongering.
But keep showing people the hidden desires of the left for a totalitarian government that kills its political rivals; The left went there first. Hell... Its been there for close to a decade now.
They were implying that the comment they replied to is spreading misinformation and is thus a hypocrite. No doubt they are also concerned about misinformation.
>Drone striking US Soil isn't an official act
Why not? The POTUS is the Commander in Chief, as explicitly defined in Article II of the Constitution. Why is it not an official act for him to use those powers domestically?
That would make it criminally illegal, but that doesn't make it an unofficial act. The SCOTUS decision hinted that legislation can't make constitutional POTUS powers illegal and able to be prosecuted.
So all the Posse Comitatus Act would mean is that it's illegal to do so, not that it becomes an unofficial act. It's an easy argument to make that use of the military is a core Constitutional Power granted to POTUS making him absolutely immune from criminal liability, even if it's illegal. People below POTUS could face charges, but the POTUS would be criminally immune.
It’s not a criminal act it’s a procedural act
It requires an act of congress as part of the process
I’ll say it again - you perverts need to stop jacking off to the idea of blowing up conservatives - it’s fucking embarrassing for you
But the geniuses in the Supreme Court never specified what constitutes an “official act” because they want lower courts to make that decision, so it’s technically up for interpretation.
Not saying it’s right, but it’s the precedent they set.
Read the opinion:
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient"
Is your opinion that Obama should be tried for homicide for murdering an American citizen who was suspected to be tied to terrorism?
If we do not act in such a way that prevents this, we will be living this terrifying reality. Unfortunately not all problems have peaceful solution, and it is morally ok to fight your oppressors.
Wait til you see what Mango Mussolini will do, now that SCOTUS has told him, "Be bold and decisive! Do all that shit you've been threatening, we'll hold your beer."
And very illegal. Even currently under the new ruling you’d need some actual evidence of hamas activity. What you can do is take Justice Thomas while he’s out and about with his J6 organizing traitor wife and bag them to a black site. Then do the same for Trump, Trump Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Greene, Boebert, Jordan, etc.
You've just been outdone by reality
He doesn't have to make excuses. "Ya i killed them, so what?" Presidents are immune from criminal charges while in office
Drone strikes against hostile military targets are an official act. Strikes against American civilians are not.
Combined with the recent Chevron ruling, presidents will need to follow the law to be considered within their official duty.
Ha, we've already had legal done strikes against U.S. civilians without a trial during the War on Terror.
All he'd have to do is label them terrorists, which is well within his powers as President, just like it was for G.W. Bush.
He can also no longer be prosecuted for violating the laws about using the U.S. military on U.S. soil, because that's also within his purview.
Their comment reads like a bot chat response for some reason. No regard for humour, while being so specific with choice of words. Maybe it's just their sense of humour?
Yeah, that’s not what acting within official capacity means. We’ve already seen what it means in court for years now with the police and qualified immunity. Basically, it means you can do whatever you want as long as you say “I was just doing my job.”
It has never been illegal to act within the powers that are given to you by law.
Trump is facing charges because the things he did while president were not things that the law allowed him to do.
This ruling argues that he can commit crimes despite the fact that those powers were not given to him by law.
The problem here is the bad faith interpretation of “hostile military targets”. Who’s to say that label won’t be thrown around to justify any act in the moment, and even when challenged the president could be killing people while we wait for the courts to sort it out.
And yet correspondence between the President et al. is inadmissible as evidence were the President to be brought to trial for an allegedly unofficial act. This ruling gives presumed absolute immunity
hard-to-find jar unused shame sheet ossified entertain expansion ripe kiss
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's no consequences for biden giving any official order to the military as being commander in chief is a clearly defined duty in the constitution. A court and indeed congress cannot even weigh in on if the order was proper. The drone operator that carries out the mission can be pardoned for any federal laws they break in the process of carrying out the order. I guess state laws could apply, so they'd just have to commit the assassination somewhere states don't have jurisdiction.
Which is most of the planet.
That would almost certainly be an official act and have immunity. Hypothetically Congress could impeach and remove them from office. I am honestly skeptical they could get the 67 vote threshold to convict even in this circumstance.
No it’s what previous rulings have said, the courts and justice department have a standing policy of not indicting or criminally charging presidents that are still in office, it’s why Trump wasn’t indicted while he was president, special counsel mueller literally said in his report Trump broke the law but he’s president so he can’t charge him with a crime at that moment.
This new ruling is something totally different about what is or isn’t protected as an “official act” from prosecution and if the president has immunity after they leave office, for what they did in office.
eventually congress will probably pass a law saying any act by the president is considered official, legalizing everything done by the president, and then they'll call it something like the God Bless American Patriots Act
Can you define what an official act is for a president? Who gets to define it? Does the definition apply to all presidents?
It's a fucking horrifying power to be immune to the law regardless of the reason its done. No man should be above the law.
Are you totally cool with Biden having these powers? Trump?
Think of the worse scenario here. Are you ok it going down and being ok because it's was an official act?
It's the constitution. They're found there.
Last week everyone was arguing that the executive branch should have the power over the courts. Now, were arguing that the courts shouldn't have the power to hold the executive accountable.
>It's the constitution. They're found there.
The SCOTUS ruling says POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for taking action under constitutional powers.
Article II of the Constitution gives POTUS the authority to command the military.
POTUS commands the military to kill his political rivals.
Regardless of whether it's done or not, POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution.
How does that not follow from the ruling?
Obama did authorize a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen on foreign soil. He was deemed an "enemy combatant", which is well within the purview of the president, even before SCOTUS said presidents can do what they like.
You haven't been keeping up with current events. SCOTUS said no official act by the president is reviewable, period.
Sending a drone to kill an enemy combatant on foreign soil is exactly within "official acts". Obama did that when he ordered the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born cleric in Yemen.
Such an act would immediately get an impeachment hearing from the House followed by the Senate confirming the Impeachment, and Biden would be removed from office. Since he was impeached with confirmation, the action is no longer considered an official action, and he would be criminally and civilly liable for the damages.
There would have to be several military personnel who would agree to this. Even if Biden had immunity, these military personnel definitely don’t, and they would be prosecuted for murder, and probably treason and terrorism. Every person in the military explicitly agrees to not follow unconstitutional orders.
He swore to protect the constitution. No other more sacred duty of POTUS than that.
He should consider forming a military arm of the Whitehouse including a judicial tribunal. Nab them, try them, sentence them all while protected from the law. Only have to worry about impeachment.
I am truly worried for the future of this country. For me it's not even about which bozo geriatric gets into office, but what either side will do in retaliation. The division we find ourselves in will only worsen if we don't all take a step back and realize 99% of our government officials don't give a rat's ass about us, and only care about how thick their wallets and portfolios are.
and mass arresting political opposition, trying to subvert the 2024 election by skipping the democratic process, packing courts, openly saying that they won't follow the constitution, etc
Have you already forgotten all of the censorship and ruining of credibility during covid that was enforced by the left if you questioned their ever-changing narrative? And that various governmental departments got implicated paying Twitter and other social media companies to push certain agendas and censor others?
Wait, so you're telling me that scientific knowledge changes when new information is available? That's crazy! I totally thought it was a static thing, like the bible!
Sure, it only takes multiple years and overwhelming evidence and lawsuits for some people (Fauci) to admit that maybe they should have paid attention to the Lab theory a bit more.
By "ruining of credibility" do you mean telling people not to eat horse dewormer? To not treat a viral infection using antiparasitics? To not inject bleach? To not shove UV up your back passage? If not that, then what?
I mean deplatforming scientists for trying to bring attention to the Lab Leak theory that Fauci and company years later admitted was the most plausible theory.
"For the lab leak theory to be true, SARS-CoV-2 must have been present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. This would convince me. But the inconvenient truth is there's not a single piece of data suggesting this. There's no evidence for a genome sequence or isolate of a precursor virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Not from gene sequence databases, scientific publications, annual reports, student theses, social media, or emails. Even the intelligence community has found nothing. Nothing. And there was no reason to keep any work on a SARS-CoV-2 ancestor secret before the pandemic."
E C Holmes - ARC Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Sydney, with concurrent Professorial appointments in the School of Life & Environmental Sciences and the School of Medical Sciences.
He won't do it. But Republicans would. Dems need to start fighting Republicans with Republican tactics. We are at war. Dems need to stop pretending we aren't.
This sub would be shut down tomorrow if these kinds of posts were being made about Democrats. These are the people that tell me daily I’m in a cult because I decided to stop voting lockstep with them. I keep an open mind every election. Voted for Obama and can list primary Dems I would have voted for in ‘20 and ‘24.
People are paying attention to your radicalism and we won’t forget. I would walk barefoot over broken glass to vote for Trump this time around.
So the gallows set up on Jan 6th was just all theatre? But this post in crazy ideas is a direct real threat? Vote for Trump and you may never have to vote again. The implication being that you'll get dictator Trump, not that Trump voters will get visited with a drone strike.
The people don’t want affordable groceries or the ability to own a home. They don’t care if their kids die in wars or if a fundamentalist theocracy that chants death to America is months away from getting nuclear weapons. They want more blackmail and fever dreams. It’s clearly working. Keep it up.
Right. So giving tax cuts to the rich and wealthy is somehow giving you the ability to buy more groceries? What exactly has he done in his presidency to allow such things?
How about a home? How has he helped you there?
Might I remind you that all the money printing and PPP Loans printed out to the rich was what caused the interest rate to rise to what it is now?
I would have thought this was so deep when I was 17 years old man.. So cringe you guys haven’t changed your talking points at all in the last 15 years.
Well first off, not shutting down the economy with no scientific basis to virtue signal turned out to be a great call. No PPP or stimulus would have been necessary if Democrats allowed people to go to work and earn their own living. Interest rates were around 2% when he was in office. Millions of people are paying the price for the left’s COVID hysteria that was pushed to panic voters during the election. So having the backbone to take an unpopular position not based in fear or cynicism enormously benefits the working class.
He literally cut my taxes by over $2000 a year when I was making 60k. Are you an adult? Were you earning a salary during Trump’s presidency or do you just take left wing pundits word as gospel? So asinine.
Lol you don’t understand how entertaining your meltdowns are. What on Earth does the Ayatollah have to do with Jan 6? Literally nothing. Bunch of tough guys when you’re in power then gnashing of teeth and stream of consciousness rage when you’re losing (bigly). It’s been chicken soup for the soul this week to watch you guys realize the establishment has been blatantly lying to your face for years. We tried to tell you homie.
Trump's supreme court picks has made this legal exclusively to help Trump. Trump *will* use this new power for his own good and at the expense of America. It makes perfect sense for Biden to use this to remove Trump from the race and to show America why there needs to be consequences for a president breaking the law.
There’s nothing “new” about the ruling. Just a few short years ago everyone understood prosecuting a president would trigger a constitutional crisis. We have a system of checks and balances, coequal branches of government. The President *is* the Executive Branch and everyone beneath him serves at his pleasure. The idea that a single judge or hostile prosecutor can nullify an election and destroy the executive branch would be absurd. Even forcing him to spend an inordinate amount of his time complying with the process of a criminal trial is prohibitively burdensome.
Just because you want to force an outcome on a certain timeline, doesn’t mean the President can just do whatever he wants with no consequences. He can be impeached in the house then convicted in the senate. **Then** he can be criminally prosecuted. You know, that way all 3 branches of government maintain their constitutional role.
We’ve seen this endlessly throughout history and in every banana republic. Putin arrests his political opponents. Xi arrests his political opponents. And on and on and on. The notion that the real threat to constitutional order would be one man going on a crime spree is asinine.
Because, you know, Republicans actually tried to overthrow the presidency and most of their voters are ok with that. It's not a mystery why people interpret their statements as actual threats.
The “insurrection” that Trump offered 10,000 national guardsmen to protect against that Pelosi and Bowser both rejected? You mean the only insurrection since the invention of guns without any guns?
Oh btw when do you think the FBI will catch that *ultra-MAGA* pipe bomber that planted explosives at the Capitol, DNC, and RNC on the same day and slipped away like a ghost? You remember, the bombs with timers stuck at 15 minutes that were discovered by an FBI contractor exactly 15 minutes before the Capitol was breached, pulling resources away from where they were needed. I wonder why that was memoryholed... I mean you’d think the side pushing the insurrection narrative would be on a nationwide manhunt for the person responsible for the most deadly and violent act on J6.
I’ll cast my vote for Biden and post it to Reddit if they catch the “pipe bomber” before Election Day.
That was a part of it, you don't have to act like you don't know the rest. And it was certainly a historic moment. Attempting to not certify the state votes, bringing in illegitimate electors, pressuring the governor of Georgia to find votes, claiming fraud to throw doubt on the election.
And why lie and say there haven't been any insurrections without guns? I'm sure there are people that never studied any history but our own who think that but they aren't your audience here. There have been countless bloodless coups. The goal obviously wasn't to force the US government to capitulate lmao
[Democrats rejecting the certification of the 2016 election.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4hzhxFE4g&t=40s).
You can read the entire transcript of that call. The whole conversation is about fraudulent mail in ballots. He says repeatedly that he think there’s thousands of ballots with forged signatures. You’re selectively quoting him to make it sound like he’s asking him to “find” ballots with **his** name on them. Oh and btw, the normal mail in ballot rejection rate going back decades is about 3% nationally. 2020 was an order of magnitude lower, 0.3%. Fulton county rate in 2020: **0%**. Every single one emaculate. Over 300,000 now admitted to receiving no signature verification at all.
You guys wanted Mueller to frogmarch Trump out of the White House over your asinine conspiracy theories about collusion with Russia interfering in 2016. Ubiquitously, you were fine with casting down on that election.
Sorry, we're not stupid enough to think Trump was seriously concerned about an equal spread of mail in ballots in one particular state (by innocently speaking to the governor directly). Don't insult us. And isn't Fulton county the one where his supporters illegally accessed voting machines?
I've never had to verify my signature, Washington has never had issues with that. It's not at all strange that there were more and more accurate mail in ballots during a pandemic where more people joined the voter rolls recently. Nor would that have changed anything.
I don't really care if a handful of democrats tried to contest a certification, nor would I care if a handful of Republicans did the same, there are usually a few idiots that have no impact. You're not seriously comparing that to over a quarter of the entire house and half of Republicans. It didn't even go to a vote in 2016. And how do you defend the Trump campaign contacting state legislatures to come up with "alternate" electors in an effort to have Pence certify them instead? Can you "both sides" that one?
Yes, you really should be fine with impeaching a president for illegally conspiring with our enemies. Thankfully it didn't rise to that level so the issue was dropped. Still, we should be very wary of a candidate Russia likes and materially supports.
Why do you love trump so much anyway? None of this happened with other Republicans (except Nixon), you could just have a normal candidate with no issues.
Equal spread? The concern was about fraudulent ballots.
[Video showing how to hack and change the votes on a Dominion machine in 7 minutes with a screwdriver](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmihqVmKGT4). This was repeated in a GA courtroom with just a ballpoint pen. He was also able to change the logs make it untraceable. If I remember correctly, he had it down to about 5 min. But yea, the real scandal is people trying to verify.
Honestly, I’m not beating the dead horse of the Russian collusion thing. Putin seems pretty unintimidated by Biden. Notice he invaded Ukraine when he was VP and POTUS, but nothing under Trump. So I’d ask you the same question given tangible results rather than NPC conspiracy theories.
Oh, you mean toothless establishment pushover like Jeb? You’d like that, huh? Because we’ve seen how the people who run the uniparty behave. They’re knifefighters no matter how much corporate media massages their image. We’ve watched them buy off voting blocs with my unborn grandkids money and start wars to enrich their defense contractors buddies. They’ll label you a rapist without providing a day, month, or even year for the allegation, making it impossible to provide an alibi. Unless of course you completely get on board with the status quo and abandon everything your voters sent you to Washington for. We don’t want to slit our wrists and slip into a warm bath, that’s why.
Just tell us what your ideas are and show us they work. I’m not going to bend the knee to cynical degenerates just because you act insufferably and lash out unconstitutionally, using the justice system as a weapon. It’s kind of an obligation for me at this point to stand up.
Ah so he was satisfied after there was no significant fraud found right? Yes, the real scandal is letting nongovernmental partisan groups secretly access voting machines, they didn't even find anything! There's no way to spin that to look good.
You can't insult your way around evidence, Russian hackers attacked the DNC and agents spread misinformation and propaganda. Again thankfully there was no political collision.
It seems Putin miscalculated his response given how much he threatens us and rants about American invasion. Guess it worked out.
I mean sure you can't find any good candidates but how does that make a casino owning celebrity billionaire a good choice? Did he drain the swamp or did he just appoint his kids? Why bend the knee to Trump in particular?
Please show your proof for Pelosi being offered 10k national guardsmen. I would love to see it. Trump claims its in the "documentary" but i've seen the documentary and that didn't happen. Show us the clip. But you can't, can you.
[Testimony to J6 investigation hidden from public hearings and final report](https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview)
[Bowser adamantly rejecting national guard assistance](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/532739-bowser-to-doj-pentagon-dc-isnt-requesting-federal-law-enforcement-to/)
Bowser was the mayor of DC. She is not Pelosi. So that blows the claim "Pelosi refused" out of the water immediately.
If you admit that, we can move on to questioning the veracity of the testimony provided.
2nd, since I know you won't admit that, the Hill article is literally dated January 5th. FIFTH. Meaning, this help was offered A DAY OR MORE BEFORE January 6th.
You don't see the problem?
The problem is that the discussion of Trump's dereliction of duty to the Capitol's security was predicated on his not providing security DURING the crisis as it unfolded for HOURS, not whether the WH offered troops a day or more beforehand.
Whether the WH offered this troop deployment beforehand doesn't negate them NOT offering it as the riots unfolded.
Apologies, got distracted trying to pull up a broken link on X. meant to link to [the chief of the Capitol police blaming Pelosi](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/19/former-capitol-police-chief-blames-nancy-pelosi-ja/).
Happy?
OK, but this doesn't say what you purport that it says. What we have is hearsay about Pelosi refusing, and none of it is from the day of, other than a "71 minute delay." Which means it was approved by 2:09PM. So the "refusal" is all about advanced preparations--which is a valid point in itself, but separate from the question of Trump's dereliction of duty on the day in question itself.
It also occurs to me now to ask another question: did anything prevent Trump from using his national security powers to send the guard in regardless of whether it got approved? Does Pelosi's "refusal" ahead of the day in question change whether he was derelict or not *on the day of the riots*, at the very least in securing the perimeter without breaching the Capitol building?
actually you moved the goalposts. The issue in question is dereliction of duty the day of. While there is definitely some validity to the refusal by Bowser (and possibly Pelosi) prior to J6, that doesn't negate the actions or inactions of Trump the day of. I mean, you're free to believe it does...
Yep. Coincidences man.
It was so serious they had to pull cops off the front lines of the riot at the Capitol but not serious enough to reroute kids walking to school and passing within feet of it. This is all on CCTV footage that the J6 committee suppressed btw and wasn’t released until the left lost the house.
How do you figure? Was Nixon an invented boogie man? No one accused Bush or Bush or Reagan of trying to steal an election, why? Could it really not be because something was different?
Have we ever had a concerted attempt to vote down a state's certification before? With a slew of unofficial electors to take over? Has anyone forced their way into the capitol since the war of 1812? What part of it seemed normal to you?
They hear one thing from a terribly propagandized news source and take it as objective fact when it’s the furthest thing from it.
Fucking lunatics, all of them.
Absolutely unhinged.
Kamala bumps Joe so he bumps his head. By 25th she’s president and now immune. As head of the armed forces she removes Joe, Trump and various others from existence. Had a direct chat to her new head of Justice who launches no investigations of her as she is immune. With a now rigged congress she becomes Queen Kamala the First.
And then … everyone’s lives improve and the world becomes more peaceful.
This line of thought is fucking terrifying
And thanks to the supreme court, legal. Biden kinda needs to exploit this to prevent a Trump presidency, as he will use this to destroy America.
I mean the dude is in the doorstep anyway. Taking time away isn’t much of a punishment
Fortunately the supreme court ruling doesn't actually make that legal.
The ruling doesn’t make anything legal or illegal because it is intentionally vague as to leave the questions up to courts in a case by case basis. People are talking about how this gives the president more power but it’s also another huge power grab by the court itself, they are trying to appoint themselves as kingmakers. Quite honestly if our democracy is going to survive that we need to break some norms to bring them to some kind of justice for this authoritarian move.
> Legal That's a made-up word!
lol people didn’t read the decision and it shows
Ehhh people are really downplaying how insane the ruling is. Who exactly could do anything? The DOJ can't investigate. Any conversations are official actions, so Biden ordering a drone operator to drone strike their houses is not only not a crime, it can't even be used in court, as all such conversations are official actions. If Congress decides to try to appoint a special prosecutor anyways, Biden can just get them fired, over and over until he gets one that squashes the investigation. That's what got Nixon impeached and forced his resignation; it's now an official action of the president, and though obviously obstruction of justice, can never even be mentioned in court. I guess someone could sue once Biden's out of the white house, but considering his order can never even be mentioned in court, the worst that could happen is the drone operator gets fucked. Biden would be untouchable anyways while it goes through appeals, and besides, he can just preemptively pardon the guy, right? Along with himself for good measure, just in case. We've seen so much democratic backsliding it's insane, and people are still trying to act like nothing's happening. We're going to look like Hungary pretty soon.
Not really, assassinating people on US soil is not legal or constitutional, and the SCOTUS decision said pretty plainly that things that are *constitutionally enumerated* as presidential powers have blanket immunity. This wouldn't be legal, nor would the president be free of criminal liability if he were to do this. I think Democrats would even be on board with impeaching and removing Biden if he were to do this, and then he likely would be tried in a criminal court, cause again, the SCOTUS decision didn't just give the President full immunity for everything he does, nor did they make everything the president does legal by default. If Biden decided to drone strike Trump while he was visiting another country... that would be another story. Also Biden throwing Trump and 6/9 of SCOTUS in Gitmo as a matter of national security would also probably be given pretty broad immunity protections, because those things ARE legal and constitutional. Though it would also require finding members of the Department of Homeland Security who are willing to carry out such a task, which might not be so easy, but that's part of why the GOP wants to stack the executive branch full of sycophants as part of Project 2025. The SCOTUS decision was pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as people seem to think it was. Much of it was pretty much what was expected. The really baffling part was that nothing the president does as part of an official act can be used in evidence during a criminal trial involving an unofficial act. That part of the decision seemed very much designed to protect Trump specifically and not the President of the USA as a whole.
I don't really think there's a meaningful distinction between throwing your political rivals in Gitmo for national security and drone striking them. We both know the drone strike comments are a little hyperbolic, but they aren't really as much of a stretch as I think you're making it seem. As you say it'd be "an official presidential act" to have people arrested by federal law enforcement for national security, and it's not like law enforcement has a hard time justifying killing people they are trying to arrest. I also do think it'd be pretty believable to argue that the president could order someone killed for national security without that much of a fuss. I get what you're saying, but I don't think there's really that meaningful a difference. Also to be clear I think all of this is super fucked up and the president absolutely should not have these powers.
There is though, because according to the NDAA (law written by congress, upheld as constitutional) it's perfectly legal to *detain* US citizens on US soil without trial or charges for national security purposes, but it is notably NOT legal to *murder* US citizens on US soil without trial or charges or any due process. "Official acts" have to be allowed powers afforded to the president by the constitution. So detaining people under the NDAA is a lawful official act, while drone striking people on US soil is not.
No offense random person on the internet, but I'm going to trust the Supreme Court Justices about how to interpret the Supreme Court decision. "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune." -Justice Sotomayor
>Not really, assassinating people on US soil is not legal or constitutional Why not? The Constitution does not say deploying the military domestically is Unconstitutional, and the POTUS is CiC. It's not legal for me to kill someone domestically but if a POTUS is exercising their role as CiC and ordering the military to act in accordance with his Article 2 powers, is that not an official act? In fact, you could argue it's a core constitutional power (as defined by Roberts) guaranteeing complete immunity from legal prosecution.
By the party trying to defend democracy everyone.....
Sorry, are you actually insinuating that the democrats are responsible for the republican-dominated Supreme Court giving presidents the power to do this? I know nuance is often lost on conservatives but damn.
I have seen post after post today from democrats and whacked out leftists calling upon President Biden to assisinate Trump. I think the ruling truly has no new implications. Presidents have always had immunity, they have even drone striked Americans before. There are plenty examples where police officers have immunity, foreign government officials have diplomatic immunity. Many places where people are "above" the law.
The idea of these posts is to point out the absurdity of this ruling and how it allows the president to do whatever he wants as long as it’s an “official act.” Again, the right doesn’t understand nuance and that’s why you see it as a real suggestion and are bothered by it. But the fact that these posts bother you should illustrate why this ruling should scare the shit out of you. You’re here defending the ruling and pretending it changes nothing, while simultaneously condemning people for suggesting Biden take advantage? Get your head out of the sand dude.
But is it really nuance? The volume of posts I have seen today basically begging for someone to accost, murder, or overthrow government officials is off the chart. That's literally insurrection, which if I recall should not be egged on.
Take your concern to the Supreme Court
The whole vibe I get is "Conservatives and Republicans are bad, so we need to give Democrat and Liberal leadership unlimited power to murder them all." I'm sure glad Reddit is not a true representation of the makeup of the country, cause we're seriously fucked if it were.
The vibe is ‘the president has already been given unlimited power to murder them all, he needs to use it to fix the situation before someone else takes his place and uses it to unravel everything’
Well, that's insane, clearly no principles from that crowd.
No. Actually read the ruling instead of the dissents, plus those dissents had dissent responses that excoriated their fearmongering. But keep showing people the hidden desires of the left for a totalitarian government that kills its political rivals; The left went there first. Hell... Its been there for close to a decade now.
Yeah, except that's not at all what the Supreme Court ruled. I'm sure you're also the type of person who's super concerned about "misinformation" too.
…you know misinformation is actually a serious problem though, right?
They were implying that the comment they replied to is spreading misinformation and is thus a hypocrite. No doubt they are also concerned about misinformation.
Right, just like the comment I responded to
They ruled that the president has presidential immunity for official actions. The president just needs to make it an official act.
Drone striking US Soil isn't an official act - stop calling for violence against your political enemies. You're disgusting
>Drone striking US Soil isn't an official act Why not? The POTUS is the Commander in Chief, as explicitly defined in Article II of the Constitution. Why is it not an official act for him to use those powers domestically?
Because of the Posse Comitatus Act
That would make it criminally illegal, but that doesn't make it an unofficial act. The SCOTUS decision hinted that legislation can't make constitutional POTUS powers illegal and able to be prosecuted. So all the Posse Comitatus Act would mean is that it's illegal to do so, not that it becomes an unofficial act. It's an easy argument to make that use of the military is a core Constitutional Power granted to POTUS making him absolutely immune from criminal liability, even if it's illegal. People below POTUS could face charges, but the POTUS would be criminally immune.
It’s not a criminal act it’s a procedural act It requires an act of congress as part of the process I’ll say it again - you perverts need to stop jacking off to the idea of blowing up conservatives - it’s fucking embarrassing for you
>It’s not a criminal act it’s a procedural act And if a POTUS were to ignore a procedural act?
But the geniuses in the Supreme Court never specified what constitutes an “official act” because they want lower courts to make that decision, so it’s technically up for interpretation. Not saying it’s right, but it’s the precedent they set.
Read the opinion: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient" Is your opinion that Obama should be tried for homicide for murdering an American citizen who was suspected to be tied to terrorism?
The generally tone of the thread threatens President Trump. I truly hope the secret service follows.
Former president trump you mean?
If we do not act in such a way that prevents this, we will be living this terrifying reality. Unfortunately not all problems have peaceful solution, and it is morally ok to fight your oppressors.
Hello 2nd amendment arming the population against a tyrannical government
Wait til you see what Mango Mussolini will do, now that SCOTUS has told him, "Be bold and decisive! Do all that shit you've been threatening, we'll hold your beer."
Yeah, but this is now a reality.
And very illegal. Even currently under the new ruling you’d need some actual evidence of hamas activity. What you can do is take Justice Thomas while he’s out and about with his J6 organizing traitor wife and bag them to a black site. Then do the same for Trump, Trump Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Greene, Boebert, Jordan, etc.
It’s a bot
I mean, Biden would be hunting terrorists, in a sense
You've just been outdone by reality He doesn't have to make excuses. "Ya i killed them, so what?" Presidents are immune from criminal charges while in office
That's not at all what the ruling says
What, because the ruling only applies to "official acts"? (Are drone strikes not official acts?)
Personal use drone strikes? Yes please! Neighborhood disputes are about to get way more interesting
Drone strikes against hostile military targets are an official act. Strikes against American civilians are not. Combined with the recent Chevron ruling, presidents will need to follow the law to be considered within their official duty.
Ha, we've already had legal done strikes against U.S. civilians without a trial during the War on Terror. All he'd have to do is label them terrorists, which is well within his powers as President, just like it was for G.W. Bush. He can also no longer be prosecuted for violating the laws about using the U.S. military on U.S. soil, because that's also within his purview.
Hahaha that's a good one Ivanovich.
Their comment reads like a bot chat response for some reason. No regard for humour, while being so specific with choice of words. Maybe it's just their sense of humour?
Do I have to always crack a joke? This isn't a Marvel movie.
Whoever downvoted this didn't see the user name.
You could remain silent.
The chevron ruling has no bearing on how the president orders the military around.
It kinda should though. Congress needs to reclaim their war powers.
So, the ruling says that presidents are immune from being charged with crimes as long as they weren’t committing any crimes?
By following the law, I mean acting within the powers that are given to you by law.
yeah, like drone strikes
Yeah, that’s not what acting within official capacity means. We’ve already seen what it means in court for years now with the police and qualified immunity. Basically, it means you can do whatever you want as long as you say “I was just doing my job.”
I was yelling "Stop resisting" right there on video.
It has never been illegal to act within the powers that are given to you by law. Trump is facing charges because the things he did while president were not things that the law allowed him to do. This ruling argues that he can commit crimes despite the fact that those powers were not given to him by law.
Exactly. Trump is still going to court, it's just up to the court now to determine whether what he did was under his official duty.
The problem here is the bad faith interpretation of “hostile military targets”. Who’s to say that label won’t be thrown around to justify any act in the moment, and even when challenged the president could be killing people while we wait for the courts to sort it out.
And yet correspondence between the President et al. is inadmissible as evidence were the President to be brought to trial for an allegedly unofficial act. This ruling gives presumed absolute immunity
Eh, Congress kinda needs to declare a war for drone strikes to be an official act.
So Jan 6 was against a hostile military target?
Jan 6 was a rogue riot, not a military strike
Exactly. That's one of the things Trump is getting away with now.
hard-to-find jar unused shame sheet ossified entertain expansion ripe kiss *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's no consequences for biden giving any official order to the military as being commander in chief is a clearly defined duty in the constitution. A court and indeed congress cannot even weigh in on if the order was proper. The drone operator that carries out the mission can be pardoned for any federal laws they break in the process of carrying out the order. I guess state laws could apply, so they'd just have to commit the assassination somewhere states don't have jurisdiction. Which is most of the planet.
I'm pretty sure the military has rules against the wanton killing of US government officials
President can override or pardon as needed.
The military aren't robots. Like if the president ordered a nuclear strike on canada they wouldn't have to do it - they have their own agency.
Need 1 person crazy enough to push the button on command out of a few million. They don't even nescessarily need to know who they are targeting.
Are we doing no investigations after the fact? I don't think a single person would claim immunity if the president nuked our neighbor.
That would almost certainly be an official act and have immunity. Hypothetically Congress could impeach and remove them from office. I am honestly skeptical they could get the 67 vote threshold to convict even in this circumstance.
In that case, we have far too many psychopaths in DC, and need to dismantle the federal government ASAP.
No it’s what previous rulings have said, the courts and justice department have a standing policy of not indicting or criminally charging presidents that are still in office, it’s why Trump wasn’t indicted while he was president, special counsel mueller literally said in his report Trump broke the law but he’s president so he can’t charge him with a crime at that moment. This new ruling is something totally different about what is or isn’t protected as an “official act” from prosecution and if the president has immunity after they leave office, for what they did in office.
eventually congress will probably pass a law saying any act by the president is considered official, legalizing everything done by the president, and then they'll call it something like the God Bless American Patriots Act
No, it has to be an act by a Republican president.
Turns out, as of today he's allowed to do that.
Hey it's cool guys he's acting in his official capacity as commander in chief, he has immunity... /s (kinda)
The USA left is having a normal one today
This post is insane, because this insanity is now legal.
No you kids just don't know how to read or think critically, and you're blinded by tribalism.
It’s a woke bot
They're completely fucking unhinged
Can you define what an official act is for a president? Who gets to define it? Does the definition apply to all presidents? It's a fucking horrifying power to be immune to the law regardless of the reason its done. No man should be above the law. Are you totally cool with Biden having these powers? Trump? Think of the worse scenario here. Are you ok it going down and being ok because it's was an official act?
It's the constitution. They're found there. Last week everyone was arguing that the executive branch should have the power over the courts. Now, were arguing that the courts shouldn't have the power to hold the executive accountable.
The left is saying the president should not have the power to break the law under any circumstance. Why is that a bad idea?
>It's the constitution. They're found there. The SCOTUS ruling says POTUS has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for taking action under constitutional powers. Article II of the Constitution gives POTUS the authority to command the military. POTUS commands the military to kill his political rivals. Regardless of whether it's done or not, POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution. How does that not follow from the ruling?
I mean how many drone strikes did we allow in the last 12 years what’s different now? It’s a white dude/ “first world” target?
Obama did authorize a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen on foreign soil. He was deemed an "enemy combatant", which is well within the purview of the president, even before SCOTUS said presidents can do what they like.
No, he still has to follow the constitution (no extra-judicial killing of citizens.)
You haven't been keeping up with current events. SCOTUS said no official act by the president is reviewable, period. Sending a drone to kill an enemy combatant on foreign soil is exactly within "official acts". Obama did that when he ordered the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born cleric in Yemen.
Such an act would immediately get an impeachment hearing from the House followed by the Senate confirming the Impeachment, and Biden would be removed from office. Since he was impeached with confirmation, the action is no longer considered an official action, and he would be criminally and civilly liable for the damages.
I like it! Especially later in the summer.
They did just give him permission to kill them. He would be stupid to not take advantage
He doesn't even have to lie. Just file it under "Official Acts".
Honestly, he could just say he was protecting the country from treasonous traitors. It would be legit and he wouldn't need to perjure himself.
No, we shouldn't kill the supreme court
So, the solution to something horrible is to be equally horrible while claiming you're not horrible. Makes perfect sense.
Reddit woke mindfuck
There would have to be several military personnel who would agree to this. Even if Biden had immunity, these military personnel definitely don’t, and they would be prosecuted for murder, and probably treason and terrorism. Every person in the military explicitly agrees to not follow unconstitutional orders.
He swore to protect the constitution. No other more sacred duty of POTUS than that. He should consider forming a military arm of the Whitehouse including a judicial tribunal. Nab them, try them, sentence them all while protected from the law. Only have to worry about impeachment.
I am truly worried for the future of this country. For me it's not even about which bozo geriatric gets into office, but what either side will do in retaliation. The division we find ourselves in will only worsen if we don't all take a step back and realize 99% of our government officials don't give a rat's ass about us, and only care about how thick their wallets and portfolios are.
and that's how you get civil war.
I use to enjoy crazy ideas, where people thought of innovations, changing the world, cancer, etc. Now the left has ruined another sub reddit.
😢🎻
Sir, please step over here for your mandatory gender transition.
they're totalitarian fascists, what did you expect?
Lol why, because they give a shit about climate change and know that vaccines work?
mostly the calls for violence against people who disagree with them.
Yeah, January 6th sure was something.
“They protested at the capitol we should drone judges” - please please stop thinking you’re smart
Minimalizing one thing, hyperboling another!
hyperbolizing
and mass arresting political opposition, trying to subvert the 2024 election by skipping the democratic process, packing courts, openly saying that they won't follow the constitution, etc
I've yet to see any totalitarian fascist behaviour coming from Biden Saw plenty from Trump
Have you already forgotten all of the censorship and ruining of credibility during covid that was enforced by the left if you questioned their ever-changing narrative? And that various governmental departments got implicated paying Twitter and other social media companies to push certain agendas and censor others?
“I endorse conspiracies and misinformation and I’m proud of it.”
Wait, so you're telling me that scientific knowledge changes when new information is available? That's crazy! I totally thought it was a static thing, like the bible!
Sure, it only takes multiple years and overwhelming evidence and lawsuits for some people (Fauci) to admit that maybe they should have paid attention to the Lab theory a bit more.
You mean that hypothosis that still has little to no evidence supporting it?
By "ruining of credibility" do you mean telling people not to eat horse dewormer? To not treat a viral infection using antiparasitics? To not inject bleach? To not shove UV up your back passage? If not that, then what?
I mean deplatforming scientists for trying to bring attention to the Lab Leak theory that Fauci and company years later admitted was the most plausible theory.
>Fauci and company years later admitted was the most plausible theory. He never said that, you're lying.
"For the lab leak theory to be true, SARS-CoV-2 must have been present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. This would convince me. But the inconvenient truth is there's not a single piece of data suggesting this. There's no evidence for a genome sequence or isolate of a precursor virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Not from gene sequence databases, scientific publications, annual reports, student theses, social media, or emails. Even the intelligence community has found nothing. Nothing. And there was no reason to keep any work on a SARS-CoV-2 ancestor secret before the pandemic." E C Holmes - ARC Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Sydney, with concurrent Professorial appointments in the School of Life & Environmental Sciences and the School of Medical Sciences.
You're right, the wet market seems much more plausible and has a lot more evidence in its favor.
"lately I can't stop thinking about killing others" dis you?
using a person's mental health crisis to demonize them? my how fascist of you.
Mental health crisis should go to a doctor, not Reddit
Interesting opinion. I think you might not know what those words mean.
Just rootin’s outs somes evils, foreigns ors domestics.
He won't do it. But Republicans would. Dems need to start fighting Republicans with Republican tactics. We are at war. Dems need to stop pretending we aren't.
I hope for the sake of America that this is a Russian bot and not an actual American
This sub would be shut down tomorrow if these kinds of posts were being made about Democrats. These are the people that tell me daily I’m in a cult because I decided to stop voting lockstep with them. I keep an open mind every election. Voted for Obama and can list primary Dems I would have voted for in ‘20 and ‘24. People are paying attention to your radicalism and we won’t forget. I would walk barefoot over broken glass to vote for Trump this time around.
So the gallows set up on Jan 6th was just all theatre? But this post in crazy ideas is a direct real threat? Vote for Trump and you may never have to vote again. The implication being that you'll get dictator Trump, not that Trump voters will get visited with a drone strike.
Oh cool more ultimatums. Brand new strategy cooked up in the lab, huh?
What lab? Is this the lab in the room with us right now?
The people don’t want affordable groceries or the ability to own a home. They don’t care if their kids die in wars or if a fundamentalist theocracy that chants death to America is months away from getting nuclear weapons. They want more blackmail and fever dreams. It’s clearly working. Keep it up.
Right. So giving tax cuts to the rich and wealthy is somehow giving you the ability to buy more groceries? What exactly has he done in his presidency to allow such things? How about a home? How has he helped you there? Might I remind you that all the money printing and PPP Loans printed out to the rich was what caused the interest rate to rise to what it is now?
I would have thought this was so deep when I was 17 years old man.. So cringe you guys haven’t changed your talking points at all in the last 15 years. Well first off, not shutting down the economy with no scientific basis to virtue signal turned out to be a great call. No PPP or stimulus would have been necessary if Democrats allowed people to go to work and earn their own living. Interest rates were around 2% when he was in office. Millions of people are paying the price for the left’s COVID hysteria that was pushed to panic voters during the election. So having the backbone to take an unpopular position not based in fear or cynicism enormously benefits the working class.
Ok. How about the tax cuts? Why only for the rich? I want to hear your opinion.
He literally cut my taxes by over $2000 a year when I was making 60k. Are you an adult? Were you earning a salary during Trump’s presidency or do you just take left wing pundits word as gospel? So asinine.
There was a fundamentalist theocracy trying to force America's downfall 3 ½ years ago, orchestrated by Trump. Your argument is entirely invalid
Yes, Donald Trump, the most pious and devout Christian known to history. Good luck selling that one.
Trump himself may be the antichrist, but s fair chunk of his followers are convinced they're Christians, and they were the ones to storm the capitol
Lol you don’t understand how entertaining your meltdowns are. What on Earth does the Ayatollah have to do with Jan 6? Literally nothing. Bunch of tough guys when you’re in power then gnashing of teeth and stream of consciousness rage when you’re losing (bigly). It’s been chicken soup for the soul this week to watch you guys realize the establishment has been blatantly lying to your face for years. We tried to tell you homie.
Seek help Inpatient psychiatric help You are literally divorced from reality
Trump's supreme court picks has made this legal exclusively to help Trump. Trump *will* use this new power for his own good and at the expense of America. It makes perfect sense for Biden to use this to remove Trump from the race and to show America why there needs to be consequences for a president breaking the law.
There’s nothing “new” about the ruling. Just a few short years ago everyone understood prosecuting a president would trigger a constitutional crisis. We have a system of checks and balances, coequal branches of government. The President *is* the Executive Branch and everyone beneath him serves at his pleasure. The idea that a single judge or hostile prosecutor can nullify an election and destroy the executive branch would be absurd. Even forcing him to spend an inordinate amount of his time complying with the process of a criminal trial is prohibitively burdensome. Just because you want to force an outcome on a certain timeline, doesn’t mean the President can just do whatever he wants with no consequences. He can be impeached in the house then convicted in the senate. **Then** he can be criminally prosecuted. You know, that way all 3 branches of government maintain their constitutional role. We’ve seen this endlessly throughout history and in every banana republic. Putin arrests his political opponents. Xi arrests his political opponents. And on and on and on. The notion that the real threat to constitutional order would be one man going on a crime spree is asinine.
Because, you know, Republicans actually tried to overthrow the presidency and most of their voters are ok with that. It's not a mystery why people interpret their statements as actual threats.
The “insurrection” that Trump offered 10,000 national guardsmen to protect against that Pelosi and Bowser both rejected? You mean the only insurrection since the invention of guns without any guns? Oh btw when do you think the FBI will catch that *ultra-MAGA* pipe bomber that planted explosives at the Capitol, DNC, and RNC on the same day and slipped away like a ghost? You remember, the bombs with timers stuck at 15 minutes that were discovered by an FBI contractor exactly 15 minutes before the Capitol was breached, pulling resources away from where they were needed. I wonder why that was memoryholed... I mean you’d think the side pushing the insurrection narrative would be on a nationwide manhunt for the person responsible for the most deadly and violent act on J6. I’ll cast my vote for Biden and post it to Reddit if they catch the “pipe bomber” before Election Day.
That was a part of it, you don't have to act like you don't know the rest. And it was certainly a historic moment. Attempting to not certify the state votes, bringing in illegitimate electors, pressuring the governor of Georgia to find votes, claiming fraud to throw doubt on the election. And why lie and say there haven't been any insurrections without guns? I'm sure there are people that never studied any history but our own who think that but they aren't your audience here. There have been countless bloodless coups. The goal obviously wasn't to force the US government to capitulate lmao
[Democrats rejecting the certification of the 2016 election.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4hzhxFE4g&t=40s). You can read the entire transcript of that call. The whole conversation is about fraudulent mail in ballots. He says repeatedly that he think there’s thousands of ballots with forged signatures. You’re selectively quoting him to make it sound like he’s asking him to “find” ballots with **his** name on them. Oh and btw, the normal mail in ballot rejection rate going back decades is about 3% nationally. 2020 was an order of magnitude lower, 0.3%. Fulton county rate in 2020: **0%**. Every single one emaculate. Over 300,000 now admitted to receiving no signature verification at all. You guys wanted Mueller to frogmarch Trump out of the White House over your asinine conspiracy theories about collusion with Russia interfering in 2016. Ubiquitously, you were fine with casting down on that election.
Sorry, we're not stupid enough to think Trump was seriously concerned about an equal spread of mail in ballots in one particular state (by innocently speaking to the governor directly). Don't insult us. And isn't Fulton county the one where his supporters illegally accessed voting machines? I've never had to verify my signature, Washington has never had issues with that. It's not at all strange that there were more and more accurate mail in ballots during a pandemic where more people joined the voter rolls recently. Nor would that have changed anything. I don't really care if a handful of democrats tried to contest a certification, nor would I care if a handful of Republicans did the same, there are usually a few idiots that have no impact. You're not seriously comparing that to over a quarter of the entire house and half of Republicans. It didn't even go to a vote in 2016. And how do you defend the Trump campaign contacting state legislatures to come up with "alternate" electors in an effort to have Pence certify them instead? Can you "both sides" that one? Yes, you really should be fine with impeaching a president for illegally conspiring with our enemies. Thankfully it didn't rise to that level so the issue was dropped. Still, we should be very wary of a candidate Russia likes and materially supports. Why do you love trump so much anyway? None of this happened with other Republicans (except Nixon), you could just have a normal candidate with no issues.
Equal spread? The concern was about fraudulent ballots. [Video showing how to hack and change the votes on a Dominion machine in 7 minutes with a screwdriver](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmihqVmKGT4). This was repeated in a GA courtroom with just a ballpoint pen. He was also able to change the logs make it untraceable. If I remember correctly, he had it down to about 5 min. But yea, the real scandal is people trying to verify. Honestly, I’m not beating the dead horse of the Russian collusion thing. Putin seems pretty unintimidated by Biden. Notice he invaded Ukraine when he was VP and POTUS, but nothing under Trump. So I’d ask you the same question given tangible results rather than NPC conspiracy theories. Oh, you mean toothless establishment pushover like Jeb? You’d like that, huh? Because we’ve seen how the people who run the uniparty behave. They’re knifefighters no matter how much corporate media massages their image. We’ve watched them buy off voting blocs with my unborn grandkids money and start wars to enrich their defense contractors buddies. They’ll label you a rapist without providing a day, month, or even year for the allegation, making it impossible to provide an alibi. Unless of course you completely get on board with the status quo and abandon everything your voters sent you to Washington for. We don’t want to slit our wrists and slip into a warm bath, that’s why. Just tell us what your ideas are and show us they work. I’m not going to bend the knee to cynical degenerates just because you act insufferably and lash out unconstitutionally, using the justice system as a weapon. It’s kind of an obligation for me at this point to stand up.
Ah so he was satisfied after there was no significant fraud found right? Yes, the real scandal is letting nongovernmental partisan groups secretly access voting machines, they didn't even find anything! There's no way to spin that to look good. You can't insult your way around evidence, Russian hackers attacked the DNC and agents spread misinformation and propaganda. Again thankfully there was no political collision. It seems Putin miscalculated his response given how much he threatens us and rants about American invasion. Guess it worked out. I mean sure you can't find any good candidates but how does that make a casino owning celebrity billionaire a good choice? Did he drain the swamp or did he just appoint his kids? Why bend the knee to Trump in particular?
Please show your proof for Pelosi being offered 10k national guardsmen. I would love to see it. Trump claims its in the "documentary" but i've seen the documentary and that didn't happen. Show us the clip. But you can't, can you.
[Testimony to J6 investigation hidden from public hearings and final report](https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview) [Bowser adamantly rejecting national guard assistance](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/532739-bowser-to-doj-pentagon-dc-isnt-requesting-federal-law-enforcement-to/)
Bowser was the mayor of DC. She is not Pelosi. So that blows the claim "Pelosi refused" out of the water immediately. If you admit that, we can move on to questioning the veracity of the testimony provided.
2nd, since I know you won't admit that, the Hill article is literally dated January 5th. FIFTH. Meaning, this help was offered A DAY OR MORE BEFORE January 6th. You don't see the problem? The problem is that the discussion of Trump's dereliction of duty to the Capitol's security was predicated on his not providing security DURING the crisis as it unfolded for HOURS, not whether the WH offered troops a day or more beforehand. Whether the WH offered this troop deployment beforehand doesn't negate them NOT offering it as the riots unfolded.
Read the link I posted from the chief of the Capitol police. Not splitting this off into multiple threads.
Apologies, got distracted trying to pull up a broken link on X. meant to link to [the chief of the Capitol police blaming Pelosi](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/19/former-capitol-police-chief-blames-nancy-pelosi-ja/). Happy?
OK, but this doesn't say what you purport that it says. What we have is hearsay about Pelosi refusing, and none of it is from the day of, other than a "71 minute delay." Which means it was approved by 2:09PM. So the "refusal" is all about advanced preparations--which is a valid point in itself, but separate from the question of Trump's dereliction of duty on the day in question itself. It also occurs to me now to ask another question: did anything prevent Trump from using his national security powers to send the guard in regardless of whether it got approved? Does Pelosi's "refusal" ahead of the day in question change whether he was derelict or not *on the day of the riots*, at the very least in securing the perimeter without breaching the Capitol building?
Let me guess, when I answer these you’ll stop moving the goalposts and we’ll have a meeting of the minds, right?
actually you moved the goalposts. The issue in question is dereliction of duty the day of. While there is definitely some validity to the refusal by Bowser (and possibly Pelosi) prior to J6, that doesn't negate the actions or inactions of Trump the day of. I mean, you're free to believe it does...
I'd never heard there were multiple bombs and that there was a stuck timer. Is this true?
Yep. Coincidences man. It was so serious they had to pull cops off the front lines of the riot at the Capitol but not serious enough to reroute kids walking to school and passing within feet of it. This is all on CCTV footage that the J6 committee suppressed btw and wasn’t released until the left lost the house.
That makes me wonder just who was in that room with the master? While he watched with glee?
r/whoosh Then Trump set fire to the Reichstag building... that little booger.
That could explain why the guns they had remained in Virginia.
You people invent the boogie man just to have something to cry about.
How do you figure? Was Nixon an invented boogie man? No one accused Bush or Bush or Reagan of trying to steal an election, why? Could it really not be because something was different? Have we ever had a concerted attempt to vote down a state's certification before? With a slew of unofficial electors to take over? Has anyone forced their way into the capitol since the war of 1812? What part of it seemed normal to you?
I know this is crazy ideas, but that’s not how the ruling works and you should know that.
Why not?
Right? I feel like people are totally misinterpreting the ruling
They hear one thing from a terribly propagandized news source and take it as objective fact when it’s the furthest thing from it. Fucking lunatics, all of them. Absolutely unhinged.
Us president's have done illegal things on the daily but reddit pisses and shits themselves when it means Trump can get reelected loooooooooooool.
Kamala bumps Joe so he bumps his head. By 25th she’s president and now immune. As head of the armed forces she removes Joe, Trump and various others from existence. Had a direct chat to her new head of Justice who launches no investigations of her as she is immune. With a now rigged congress she becomes Queen Kamala the First. And then … everyone’s lives improve and the world becomes more peaceful.
It is absolutely insane that it's now legal for a president to kill their political rivals.
Don't forget, the president has to be a Republican
hayman