News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Quick! Someone call Alvin Bragg! Only a human who has ever actually press charges against this asshole can protect us.
Can private citizens who feel they can prove they've been directly harmed by presidential acts, sue the president?
Maybe a class-action per unconstitutional deed?
Can we get a GoFundMe for this or something?
No. Pretty explicitly no.
It's an interesting argument to debate, and has been since the beginning. What's really telling is how much Trump is mentioned in that wiki vs. the past Presidents. Almost as if he's seeing how far he can push the envelope.
There's a theory that he's playing 11-D chess and strategically testing the system through clever probs and prods.
There's another theory that he's always just done whatever he felt like, damn the consequences. And since there isn't any material opposition to a billionaire in a plutocracy like the US, nobody stops him now any more than anyone has ever stopped him before now.
I'd say Nixon was the real historical test case, at least from the perspective of the article. The Trump Election Obstruction case is more interesting because it's an edge case, even within very expansive immunity provisions. It was specifically with respect to Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which had ostensibly defined the boundaries of Presidential immunity... until it didn't.