Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What do you mean? He's a real lawyer and law professor. I haven't heard of any of these criticisms. edit: I can't reply, so... Specific criticisms, please? The link is to a video with a Canadian lawyer and someone who might actually have a relevant opinion on US law who, several minutes in, can only seem to broadly and mockingly dismiss him without saying anything specific other than accuse him of being biased and mo…
Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#22As the saying goes: "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich". Still big news...I'll just wait and see if the charges stick.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
> Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him.
Because if he doesn't relinquish it the other branches will remove him anyway, as was imminent with Nixon. Trump wasn't convicted by the Senate, but his butt was still kicked out of the White House on Inauguration Day. American democracy isn't fantastic but it's still a long way from the President having absolute control.
"They will double down if we try to punish them." is a hollow argument that could be used to justify not punishing any crime. A pickpocket might try to run or fight back if he knows he will be punished, but that's not a reason to let him do it, it's a reason to have teams of fit people equipped with tazers and handcuffs that can subdue him anyway.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
>Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him.
Presidents aren't kings, they can't just "use the power of government" to keep themselves in power indefinitely, and they aren't above the law, in or out of office, despite what some of them might say.
It doesn't matter if they want to relinquish power or not, their power ends when the Constitution says it does and if a president refuses to leave when the clock runs out, the Marines will put a gun to their head and show them the door. Which is as it should be.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#25Political theater. If anything, this will help Trump and possibly give him a boast in his own party.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
“The law” would seem to be a reasonably succinct and correct answer to this question.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? He's a real lawyer and law professor. I haven't heard of any of these criticisms. edit: I can't reply, so... Specific criticisms, please? The link is to a video with a Canadian lawyer and someone who might actually have a relevant opinion on US law who, several minutes in, can only seem to broadly and mockingly dismiss him without saying anything specific other than accuse him of being biased and mo…
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5_hVrfBjRs&t=3456s
You’ll always be able to find a lawyer that will disagree with another lawyer.
Edit-You can even pay them to disagree with each other. And! People do this all the time!
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#28[flagged]
HN is probably not capable of having a conversation about this with any amount of signal. Sometimes more polarizing political news gets a nudge up to the front from the mods if it's historically significant like elections. Those threads demonstrate why political stuff usually gets pushed out.
[deleted]
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#29[flagged]
HN is probably not capable of having a conversation about this with any amount of signal. Sometimes more polarizing political news gets a nudge up to the front from the mods if it's historically significant like elections. Those threads demonstrate why political stuff usually gets pushed out.
Sure but this is historic.
Locally, when they called the election for Biden there were spontaneous celebrations in the streets of my local city. People seem to forget just how extreme those years were and how they felt.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
> Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him.
Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power.
It’s scary that we have to set this precedent, but it’d be scarier if we don’t.