352
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
352 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4543 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately the legal system from the Attorney General to the fbi to judge are scared of him.
This is a person who a judge found to have committed insurrection but decided he should not face the loss of eligibility clearly specified in the constitution because "the president is not an officer of the United States".
If they're willing to just make shit up like that, he's already won.
As if THE PRESIDENT is NOT the HIGHEST officer the United States has.
You'd think that the "Oath of Office" being specified in the constitution would provide a hint.
Commander in Chief.
I've read that was actually a good strategy. She ruled that he absolutely did so an insurrection. Then she said the law doesn't apply because a weird easily reversible interpretation. So it's going to get appealed and easily reversed in a higher court based on a review of the law's inclusion of POTUS as an officer, not relitigating the insurrection part. She gets to skip the death threat phase for herself and alli oops this one for the higher court to slam dunk. I hope that's the case.
Frankly, that's turd-polishing.
This judge made a crazy decision in order to dodge her responsibility.
Trump's team are already appealing the ruling that he engaged in insurrection. The hearing is set for Dec 6th, so they will be re litigating that part.
I think the fear is that the higher courts also don't want death threats, so everyone and their mother is gonna keep trying to pass this around. Which is what Trump wants to happen until he can try to get re-elected in 2024 and then pardon himself.
The judge argues that commander in chief is not a military office under 14a3. Power loves cowards
It lists a shitload of non-military officers as being made ineligible by the same clause. I don't see how that's relevant.