![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Shooting political rivals probably isn’t an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?
Shooting political rivals probably isn’t an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?
Good to know.
I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an “official act” though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.
Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.
If being in contact with the DOJ and VP is “official duties” and thus immune to prosecution regardless of the content of the contact, then being in contact with the CIA and asking them to “retire” some justices should be as well under more or less exactly the same line of reasoning.
You don’t get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…
We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.
I’d be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to “retire” SCOTUS justices not be an official act that’s immune to prosecution?
This seems like it would be pretty possible - you’d just need an instance that basically just takes in all the data and just marks moderation/deletion as such rather than actually altering the posts. The hard part would be not getting it defederated by half the instances out there specifically for providing unddit/reveddit functionality.
Which when you try to say it as written sounds like some degenerate version of “lick nuts” which is possibly not intended?
Personally I think it says everything that the Abrahamic version of the Theft of Fire leads to the idea that we should hate and denounce the thief rather than see him as responsible for us being raised above essentially being animals. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is analogous to Prometheus, Mātariśvan, Amirani, Pkharmat, Grandmother Spider, etc.
I also find it interesting that the Theft of Fire is a nearly universal myth (as close as anything gets) - a divine or semi-divine being (often but not always a trickster-type) taking a symbol (often a fire, in the Torah a fruit) representing knowledge against the will of those in power and giving it to man, thus leading to the ability of man to be free to create civilization.
Yahweh/Jehovah
I still love that both of these are renderings of the same four letter word, יהוה, or yodh-he-vav-he. Because written Hebrew has a 22 letter alphabet but doesn’t have vowels (but does include a silent letter for when you stick two distinctly separate vowel sounds together - think the two Os in cooperate).
…and admitting that you know it exists is grounds for you not being allowed on a jury.
But yeah, judges judge the law, juries judge the facts. so the judge can corral how the trial proceeds and explain to the jury what criteria they are supposed to be following and what evidence they are supposed to consider but the jury can decide what it wants and their decision cannot be challenged - which means if they decide that someone is guilty/not guilty for reasons wholly unrelated to what the law actually says then that’s what it is.
It’s why I was surprised that Trump was found guilty on all counts in the NY trial - I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence making it impossible to have a unanimous agreement.
The solution seems simple. Don’t marry and don’t have kids.
Am I allowed to be amused that a bunch of guys looking at the state of family courts deciding the same thing were mocked as a bunch of evil misogynistic incels, and have been for years? Apparently “don’t participate in the system you are worried is going to fuck you over” is not an acceptable choice.
Wouldn’t those be frosted nips since it’s a boob job?
Lemmy does slightly better, but essentially proves that when you have shitty administrators and moderators, the only thing that’s going to be transparent is the quickest and easiest excuse, and when it’s a lie it remains it remains incontestable. You only need to look at threads titled “Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem” and read the comments to get a sense of the scale of the problem.
Forums are only as good as their moderators. Always have been, always will be. I’d love something akin to Reveddit for Lemmy though.
Contempt of Congress, the same.thing Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon did. Except executive privilege from Biden is being used to shield him.
Eh, some of them. You weren’t generally banned for “merely” being right wing. But pre-Elon you generally had to toe the line a lot more to avoid being suspended or banned if you were overtly right wing than if you were liberal or left and now it’s the other way around.
Just like how the blue check started as an “I am a public figure and this account is definitely who I appear to be” mark and that’s it, then it became a mark of who you knew/could bribe at Twitter to move the process along and could be revoked for saying the wrong things on Twitter (for example everyone’s least favorite gay right wing provocateur Milo Yianwhatever had his blue check stripped for saying something too offensive well before he was banned), then post-Elon it became just a subscription service.
There was also a tendency to quietly artificially reduce visibility for a lot of right wing voices or hashtags. For example, female MRA and member of Honey Badger Radio Hannah Wallen literally got a bunch of her fans to do some pretty elaborate testing of her account at one point after her engagement numbers suddenly and mysteriously dropped and it turned out many of her posts were invisible except to people that followed her that she also followed, even to people specifically looking at her feed.
Certain right wing hashtags would have numbers that should definitely have them trending but mysteriously weren’t (or would be for just a few minutes and then suddenly vanish despite gaining popularity in the meantime), certain liberal/left hashtags would be trending despite seemingly not having the numbers for it to be organic, that sort of thing. Because Twitter moderation was curating what was and was not “trending”, literally blacklisting certain topics and bumping up others because of the visibility that being trending would afford.
It was all really, overtly obvious if you watched for it, like how certain accounts would be shadowbanned on Reddit for reasons that were both obvious and not spam-related despite shadowbanning supposedly only being employed as an anti-spam tool, or how certain subs would be allowed to openly ignore certain sitewide rules.
I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.