13
submitted 3 months ago by TheJims@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Among the bill’s cosponsors is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who recently told Politico, “I think it’s common sense that you can’t have the president sitting in the Oval Office worried about whether some lawyer or some local DA somewhere is going to go after him.”

How is this common sense? Politicians are in urgent need of more fear of the law and voters.

[-] Kayday@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Can you imagine if this was normalized for the president, and then over time became acceptable for other people?

"You can't have congress people worried about whether some lawyer will go after them."

"You can't have CEO's worried about whether the DA will go after them."

"You can't expect your boss to worry about whether you will go after them."

"You can't expect your pastor to worry about whether the faithless will go after them."

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It's just common sense that there are two classes of people in the world. Those the law protects but does not bind, and those the law binds but does not protect.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

In other words, “Let’s strip out one of the checks and balances built in to the country in order to ensure we get the very dictator king the founders sought to prevent.”

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

They're so out of touch with the rest of the world, they think they should be immune from prosecution.

And yet they don't seem to realize that most people think prison is the best place for all of them. Nobody gives a fuck about their well-being or their "worries."

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The President is worried about the world getting nuked, spies, destabilization, economy, and more. A lawyer is the LEAST of their worries and, honestly, shouldn’t be worried unless they breach the duties of their position.

In the end, they are a representative of US. They are still a person, albeit with a ton of power, but a person who represents a country. They are human and should be subject to all of the same laws. So should all forms of government (Legislative and Judicial). Just because we provide you with our voice doesn’t mean you get to not be held accountable when you misrepresent or flat out do illegal shit.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

I guarantee you Trump never worried about any of those things.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Counter offer: Pass a law barring people facing felony charges from running for President.

If it would keep you from owning a gun:

ATF form 4473, line 21c and d:

"c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?

d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

Why should you be allowed the button? 🤔

[-] ignirtoq@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

Super easy for those in power to keep their rivals from being able to run for office. Currently the president and afraid you'll be unseated by the opposing party's candidate? Just start an investigation on them! Boom, no more rivals.

[-] credo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I upvoted both of you. This requires deeper debate.

[-] ignirtoq@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago

Totally agree. These systems are critically important for our society. They need to be considered with care, and we need to be mindful of the complexities that come with any changes to them.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The real solution is you need a populace that is civically engaged and capable of enough critical thought to not fall for the right-wing fearmongering propaganda Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Murdoch, et al. spew out.

[-] localme@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Bingo. A properly funded and functional public education system, that teaches real critical thinking and let’s include media literacy while we’re at it.

[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't it take more than an investigation? A grand jury would need to sign off on the indictments.

[-] suction@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Ok but Biden still isn’t in Gaza to act as human shield which means I’m gonna vote for Trump, twice!

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

He wants a "too big to fail" law for politicians. Its so stupid and short sighted, but its an obvious result of a narcissist under pressure.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

"I'd like to be able to commit unlimited acts that violate state laws, please."

What the literal fuck.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Republicans: "We see no problems with this whatsoever."

Remember: they aren't arguing Trump didn't break the law, they're arguing that the Democrats are wrong to prosecute him for it.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

they're arguing that the Democrats are wrong to prosecute him for it.

Also worth saying that Democrats aren't prosecuting him. This has been a recurring piece of disinformation spread by Republicans since the first official charge against Trump.

He broke the law. The justice system is prosecuting him. Not Biden, not Democrats, but the judicial branch of the government.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Candyass pussy should be stripped of everything and exiled to putinland to shut him up

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

He's scared lol.

[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

So it sounds like they're wording this that it would cover 'former presidents' so in theory Biden would also be protected. The GOP wouldn't be able to go after him for their made up charges. Are they willing to protect Trump and not go after Biden? Probably, if it ensures Trump will be president again.

They would have an exception carved out, don't you worry.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Can they also pass a law forcing both Stormy Daniels and Hilary to suck him dry?

Ofcourse once that written in the books, all we gotta do is go find a vampire and get him to bite Hilary and Stormy. Then my master evil plan would probably work.

But whatever, sure, another trial? Yeah I'm sure we'll get him this time! What did he do now? Run a red light? That's 20 shots to the head if you're a poor Mexican or black. But not previous Trump. He gets yet another trial. That's what rich assholes get.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

fascists gonna fash. while you're right about racial double standards, they go beyond that for the god emperor.

they were just crying about an fbi raid supposedly being an assassination attempt, after his lawyers literally arguing that a president should be able to assassinate their opposition without repercussions.

as long as the president is orange, i guess.

as long as the president is orange, i guess.

Could we use this? Start a fake meme trend of 'orange is the new black' as if trump is trying to equate himself to minorities, and piss off both the WASP republicans and mock the idea of him even considering the similarities?

this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)

News

22851 readers
3518 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.


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