733
Biden Condemns Trump as Dire Threat to Democracy in a Blistering Speech
(www.nytimes.com)
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 06 Jan 2024
733 points (95.9% liked)
News
23406 readers
2558 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He will likely be allowed to run because so much of the country supports him, there is some legal gray area (he has not been convicted), and the courts are "conservative." I personally think he will win because Biden is getting even worse at speeches, much of the population doesn't think their personal lives improved under Biden, and a lot of people are upset for how Biden has/is handling the Israel war.
A lot of things could happen before the election that would hurt Biden as well. A recession, expansion of Israel war, and losses in Ukraine are possibilities that could hurt Biden. I don't think anything could hurt Trump. I think he could win the election from prison. Trump voters will eagerly buy any conspiracy theory to keep supporting Trump, and they don't care about democracy or human rights. Democrat and Biden voters are much more critical and fickle.
"He hasn't been convicted of insurrection" isn't a legal gray area, that's just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn't dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was "involved in insurrection" - the law here doesn't depend on him being previously convicted of "insurrection", a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.
There's overwhelming evidence that he was "involved" in this insurrection so he'll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that "public office" does or doesn't include the presidency since it isn't named explicitly in the clause?
No they won't. That has already been found to be fact in the Colorado Supreme Court. They have to decide on it despite that finding. They have to find a way to support their boy despite having to admit he engaged in insurrection.
According to another random lemmy user, the clause actually did originally include the president explicitly, but it was then removed saying the language already covered it so it wasn't needed.
Not sure if that's true at all, but apparently it's recorded history, so if it's true it's hard to refute it and say they didn't mean it?
But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4