• IHeartBadCode
    link
    fedilink
    361 year ago

    There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters.

    Because if Trump is elected President there stands a chance that a President Trump would attempt to pardon himself from any former crimes related to his attempt to overthrow the US Government.

    There are zero ways someone can convince me of any of the following:

    • That Jan. 6th was anything but an attempt by the current President to thwart the process by which Congress counts the Electoral Votes
    • That such a move was not in line with an attempt to install the then-President’s will over the mandate of the prescribed means by which we elect a President (which I’m no fan of the Electoral College, but until we get rid of it that’s how we do it).
    • That such an attempt somehow doesn’t arise to a coup.
    • That the Founder’s of our Nation and the people that drafted the 14th Amendment, meant for this kind of abuse to go unpunished.
    • That anyone who has one ounce of understanding of the law believes that a person seeking Presidency should have the power to go unpunished or even worse, the power to remove any and all punishment related to an attempt to undo the order established in the Constitution of the United States.

    There’s just zero logical sense to a notion that a President can do anything with impunity, sky’s the limit. There is no historical basis on even the loosest interpretation of the intent of the Founding fathers of this nation that supports this notion. And even knowing that, man I have very little hope that SCOTUS is actually going to pull though on this. I honestly think they’re going to find some very niche technical weasel words to grant Trump literal absolution on his crimes.

    And then that’s just it. There’s no meaning to law, if there exists a single person who can be above it all. Law makes no sense if there’s a single person who can ignore it. That’s was one of the major sticking points for us leaving the Kingdom way back and starting our own country. The President was never meant to be a King and if SCOTUS grants that immunity, I mean we’ve got a King in all but name. That’s just how it is.

    It’s surreal that we’re here now. That the question laid before the highest Court of this Country is this one. And literally any other composition of the Court I wouldn’t think twice about it because that answer would be a “hell no” without a nanosecond of delay. But I couldn’t honestly tell anyone how SCOTUS will weigh in on this, but if they say “yes”, it’s over, there’s no way anyone can ever prosecute Trump for literally any crime even to the end of time. And I just cannot imagine that any Founding father thought, “Yeap, this is exactly how I intended things to go.”

    I mean fuck, I don’t think people honestly appreciate how massive this question before the Court is. It’s literally asking “Do we have a President or do we have a King?” And fuck, I couldn’t tell you how they’re going to rule. A coin flip would be as likely a correct answer as the current Court could possibly muster. And even worse, I have a feeling they’re going to try an apply a very specific ruling here even though Jack Smith’s request is much broader in scope. And then that’s just going to indicate that “it’s a King if SCOTUS says so” which would be an even worse outcome.

    • rustydomino
      link
      English
      22
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If SCOTUS rules like you worry they will, Dark Brandon better start taking the nuclear option with some shit. After all, he would be above the law.

      • @cmbabul
        link
        61 year ago

        If it come to that and he still won’t take the gloves off we’re more fucked than we already are, and I worry that he’ll want to take the high road

    • @Drivebyhaiku
      link
      71 year ago

      A lot of it can be largely predicted by the Conservative bias. Vaguely speaking what really defines the left and right politically is it’s veiw on the distribution of power. The left is for spreading power horizontally, strengthening democratic processes. The right is more about consolidation and reinforcing the hierarchy of power. What that heirachy is can change depending on time and place - monarchy, nobility, land ownership the intelligencia, the rich or “us” whatever “us” is that distinguishes from “them” (religious background, race, sexuallity etc. etc.). But to them the hierarchy is natural and one aspires to it, not attempt to dissolve it.

      Once you separate the grift designed to get people to buy in from the actual objectives of conservatism it becomes a lot easier to see that this was always the aim. They want a king because power flows from the king to his most faithful servants and his devout petitioners first and is weilded against those who oppose. The redistribution of the resources and power back into a heirachy has certain predictable beneficiaries where democracy scatters power over a wide and unpredictable plain.

      Once the system is lousy with people who fundamentally do not believe in democracy and do not have to pretend to the masses to support and nurture democratic society it is basically game over.