Post Amil3lLBNXPaZodMEy by nicholas@noauthority.social
(DIR) More posts by nicholas@noauthority.social
(DIR) Post #AmiiAMPWAOmtQE7GEq by nicholas@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T05:45:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
what exactly is Jack Smith saying? Because filing papers at a court can hardly be illegal. The contents might be fraud, but that seems a seperate matter. I don't claim to understand it all, but it seems like he's saying that Trump wasn't allowed to file papers at a courthouse. Asking someone to find votes isn't the same as asking someone to commit fraud, either. I just don't get it. I don't want to read all the documents.
(DIR) Post #AmiidYSyQH1RD5eZuq by thisisthebreath@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T05:51:05Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas cliffs notes: he refiled a bunch of the same shit despite half of what he filed being even more easily struck down by recent SC rulings. its a transparent attempt to get his failing case back into the news cycle
(DIR) Post #AmiixZJeyNx7dZqAC0 by nicholas@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T05:54:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thisisthebreath but there must be some sort of thesis to it, right? I mean, let's not strawman this. Let's "steelman" this. What's the argument? I just read https://newrepublic.com/article/186714/jack-smith-supreme-court-immunity-ruling-insanityand am none the wiser. If you don't like the POTUS calling up some dude about voting machines...impeach his ass. I'm just left wondering that the complaint is really that the Constitution doesn't do what Smith wants it to. But there must be more to it.
(DIR) Post #AmikMjJr1D4Pr5Ucl6 by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T06:10:27Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath I thought the new angle is that he wasn’t in the White House and was acting on his own personal behalf, not as president, so therefore he’s not immune. And if he is immune, then it challenges the SC’s decision, saying that a president doing criminal acts that don’t involve presidential duty should be prosecutable. Like if the president commits rape he shouldn’t just be impeached, but imprisoned. But I don’t t know. I can’t suffer through that New Republic article.
(DIR) Post #Amil3lLBNXPaZodMEy by nicholas@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T06:18:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinerickson @thisisthebreath I dunno. The hypothetical I have in mind is war. Let's say that the POTUS pushes the button for no reason. Which would be a war crime, and so...not an official act?Here's the thing: part of the political process involves oversight of elections. It's an imperfect system. Someone has to provide oversight and look into allegations of ballot stuffing. If not the POTUS, then whom? It seems a silly argument to make that the POTUS cannot.
(DIR) Post #AmilgPhLmKnykPQtRQ by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T06:25:13Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath oh I’m in total agreement. I think the natural order of things should be impeachment and then criminal prosecution. They can believe all they want that courts should be able to prove that a president should be impeached by prosecuting and convicting him criminally first, but that’s just not the way it works because it shouldn’t work that way. If it did, political opponents would do it every single election cycle like we are witnessing.
(DIR) Post #Amkgozy6hQmS6FSsSG by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T06:30:25Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath The little I read from that New Republic article, I got the idea that they believe the judge points out a fallacy of the SC’s decision. But that’s just their wishful thinking. There was no fallacy in their decision. I can see a concern though. Congress and the Senate do the impeaching and it requires more than a majority to impeach. Normally it is the press coverage that keeps party members at least somewhat objective and willing to impeach a fellow party member…
(DIR) Post #Amkgp0V4ir9TkUtCqG by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-06T06:35:43Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath The left knows the right has no respect for the press anymore. And the right knows that’s for a very valid reason. The press has no integrity and credibility that is needed to keep the integrity of congressmen and senators during impeachment hearings. We have witnessed that twice. Those hearings were not anything close to a pursuit of humble and objective justice.
(DIR) Post #AmkgsxY3di71khAY0O by nicholas@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T04:40:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinerickson @thisisthebreath what's the supposed fallacy?
(DIR) Post #AmkkOWAjG7NZyWzssy by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T05:20:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath The fallacy they believe is there is that the president is given immunity only so he can perform his presidential duties but the Supreme Court gave him immunity for all things, even what he does personally.
(DIR) Post #AmlXctBBPVzx8hgxA8 by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T05:24:56Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath But this is dumb. Clinton got impeached by congress (not by the senate) for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that certainly wasn’t part of his presidential duties. The impeachment process has jurisdiction for all things the President does. The President does something severely criminal on his own time (the President never really has his “own” time), then congress and the senate have a duty to impeach him if he doesn’t resign like Nixon did.
(DIR) Post #AmlXcutB3QmeRRHbNI by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T05:32:32Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath And by the way Nixon was busted for lying about stuff going on with his campaign. Again, nothing to do with “Presidential duties”. And it wasn’t going to go to court if he didn’t resign. It was going to go to impeachment proceedings. But I’ve gone on now for awhile with the presumption I understand what they are saying. I am really not positive. I am just going on what that article started with. The New Republic is so blindly arrogant that it is obnoxious.
(DIR) Post #AmlXcwC0CvR6U769M8 by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T05:38:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath It has this stupid trope:“In this way, the brief is an inadvertent road map for how to lead a legally bulletproof insurrection. All Trump or a similarly minded future president would have to do is to execute his coup via government officials only, and in the guise of supposedly “official” acts—say, via the military—and it could not be prosecuted. As long as he hired his co-conspirators, as official government employees, he would be all set.”
(DIR) Post #AmlXcxncEZ7LT3hhce by justinerickson@noauthority.social
2024-10-07T05:47:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nicholas @thisisthebreath I’m sure they have heard someone explain that a coup like that wouldn’t work. A President that would do such a thing would be impeached and after the impeachment he would be charged and convicted of treason… And I’m sure they have heard that if courts can prosecute a president, then the opposing party would always just have to find any willing partisan judge to do their deeds. They don’t care. They just keep repeating it like they are dumb like a sly fox.