politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's important to remember two things: SCOTUS ruled that POTUS had immunity for any OFFICIAL acts as president, AND this has not been tested in any court.
Official Acts as president would be those outlined in the Constitution, not literally everything he does, like MAGA likes to tell you (hint: they lie, all the time). MAGA was making noise about charging Obama with murder for his drone strikes of terrorist targets (even though they'd have no problem doing worse), but this ruling would give him immunity for that, since that falls under his Constitutional responsibilities. On the other hand, if Trump were to make good on his threat to shoot someone in the head on Fifth Avenue, he could still be charged with murder, since the murder of an innocent American citizen would NOT fall under his Constitutional responsibilities. Gee, where did the order for ICE to start shooting people in the street originate?
Likewise, there is no possible way that any activity as seditious as leading an Insurrection could ever be interpreted as within a president's Constitutional responsibilities, nor would stealing hundreds of classified documents, some of which were likely sold.
He will still get away with countless crimes, hidden by his presidency as well as the sheer flood of corruption that flows from him on an industrial scale. But there are plenty that he can still answer for. For instance, his corruption has directly violated the emoluments clause in mind-boggling ways, and all of it is expressly forbidden in the Constitution, and therefore could NEVER be construed as "OFFICIAL" acts.
The Supreme Court has never put guidelines on the presidency before that ruling, and now there are actual boundaries, as defined by "OFFICIAL Acts." Obviously, MAGA is going to interpret that as broadly as possible, and it's up to the rest of America to interpret it tightly, and test it in court, over and over and over.