this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
176 points (96.3% liked)

News

23310 readers
3675 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
176
If Elected, Donald Trump Would Face Few Hurdles to Prosecuting Rivals- The New York Times (Free Article) (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by Wahots@pawb.social to c/news@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In effect, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is becoming a referendum on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants to have in the future

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 64 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not American either, but the situation looking from the outside is pretty horrendous. The solution is not to vote for him, or to turn out in such numbers that it would be impossible for him to get in.

Here's the rub, about fifty percent of your voters either want him, or don't care enough either way.

So many millions of your people are toying with the idea of soaking yourselves in fuel and flicking a match.

You actually have the solution - get out and vote and get your families and friends out too, or suffer the consequences.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It’s less than 50%. The problem is there’s no stopping Trump supporters from voting in November.

Democrats historically only show up to vote in favor of a candidate, not in resistance to their opponent. It’s unbelievable how many people see voting as showing full support of a candidate’s policy, when it’s simply the most effective way for a citizen to strategically influence the nation.

“I can’t support anyone who supports genocide” is justification to stand aside and allow far more genocide of Ukrainians and Palestinians. The Palestinians’ options at the polls are currently bad or worse. Abstaining is allowing others to choose worse without your resistance.

Republicans are counting on the indifference of the left.

Inaction is action. Vote in November.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And since the Trump fans are talking about election fraud they will probably try to vote early and vote often.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

That's voter fraud, and not something anyone in the know legitimately worries about.

Voter suppression is a way easier method to change elections and harder to prove.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

That is the problem - his real vote is less than a winning vote, but he still may win. Not enough people care to stop him, including the voters (and non-voters) who don't want him.

It is a problem easily fixed and most Americans act like helpless spectators.

That's ok, join the rest of the world as we jointly watch it all unfold.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We'll get as many as possible to vote. It almost seems unfair that others in the world don't get a say in such an important election, since Biden winning could save the world from another world war. The stakes are once again, very high.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

That is an interesting suggestion, and has been made many times before. Australia (for instance) is pretty much handcuffed to the US. Ever since WW2 we have been in lockstep with you guys. Every damn war and conflict. It would be nice to have a small say in who drags is into war that we never ask for.

But still, we do it to ourselves. Other countries don't.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 53 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If Joe doesn't get that he and his family may be in prison in 12 months... Trump has telegraphed that he will lock up or execute anyone who stands in his way. I hope voters get what's at stake here.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 31 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the maga people get it and want it I guess. Hopefully opposed people got it too and will vote

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do they really understand what they are asking for, and the scope of it? I have a hard time accepting that this many people fully understand who and what Trump is and entails, and voting for that.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 30 points 5 months ago

No D next to his name, and they are pretty sure he'll hurt only the right people, so they are cool with it.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If elected, our problems are much bigger than one orange fascist traitor cunt.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

How is it that it’s so hard to prosecute this sleazebag but somehow it’s easy for him to prosecute rivals?

E: after thinking about it it’s because his cronies will pile on making hearing after hearing and the judiciary is completely fucked with blatant political prejudice by conservative judges.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 7 points 5 months ago

Because he wouldn't care about breaking the law, nor would his appointed prosecutors and judges

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Branding. Democrats, for all their ills, do care about playing by the rules and optics of potential unfair conduct. Republicans generally know their base will believe anything they feed them but Democrats know people at home who make up their support are following along with the rule book. If they ditch their brand as the moral high ground between the two choices their goose is cooked.

[–] mrfriki@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Sorry, not American. Can an indicted person that have been plead guilty run for office there? It makes no sense to me.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yes. Otherwise, a bad guy like Trump could push to have his political enemies convicted of random stuff just to put them in prison and keep them from running against him. Like Putin and Navalny, for example.

[–] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Of course the author of the law assumed that Americans would never be stupid enough to put an obvious, convicted felon and fraud into the presidency, but here we are.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

This is why prisoners and felons need to be able to vote also. It wouldn't be all that difficult for Republicans to slap enough people in swing states with Felonies to change the election. We are talking about only thousands of votes in some instances.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Our politics have always had a built-in distrust of authority, ever since we cosplayed as natives to protest taxes by throwing tea into Boston Harbor. We tell ourselves that power comes from the people, and have instituted all sorts of checks on political power, with different branches and levels of government monitoring each other, to ensure that no one is deproved of their voice unjustly. This is why we consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, and we say that even a guilty conviction shouldn't prevent someone from running for office, because power ultimately comes from the people, not what the courts say.

The problem comes when:

  • The people are morons who think whatever their screens tell them to think
  • Those screens get crap pushed to them by algorithms that value engagement over truth
  • Politicians coordinate across branches and levels of government to evade accountability, rather than hold each other accountable

So now we still think power comes from the people, but the people are outsourcing their beliefs to their devices, which are being filled with crap by algorithms who are convincing us to trust the wrong people.

(And it's not just a Smartphone thing: this goes back to Rush Limbaugh on AM Radio, and ultimately back to Roger Ailes, who thought that Nixon's real problem was that he didn't have his own news network who could attack his opposition and tell people what to think

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK the reason it is allowed is to keep a corrupt government from charging and convicting all of their political rivals, leaving only their allies as eligible candidates. The idea was to let the people choose their leaders even when under a corrupt federal government.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That made sense before rich people and foreign interests figured out how to use the same tools to get people to part with their money, to also vote against their self interest.

Democracy cannot prevail when people are so easily dupped by ads, fake news, unregulated influencers, and social media algorithms. Democracy assumes people are critical thinkers with the time, energy, and knowledge to filter information.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of falsifying business records.

The only law in the Constitution preventing the holding of office for being a criminal is tied to insurrection and rebellion, of which he is not charged with inciting or assisting.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[–] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which he also did, btw.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Yes, but he isn’t charged with incitement, assistance, or participation in a rebellion or insurrection. I honestly don’t know why.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For the record, he doesn’t have to be charged.

It’s enforced by a vote in congress as to if he’s eligible or not. Being that the one time this happened outside of participation in the civil war, it was a guy in congress, his chamber voted- but I assume it would take both houses to oust a president

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Technically, yes, but without conviction it’s very easy for SCOTUS to overturn.

Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=Since%20Article%20VI%20of%20the,the%20Constitution%20could%20not%20stand.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure how it would be contrary to the 14.3 and 14.5 amendments, but sure.

And oh, by the way, that would be gross partisanship and qualify scrotus for impeachment, as 14.5 assigned sole enforcement to congress.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It could be, but SCOTUS impeachment is exceedingly rare. The last attempt was Samuel Chase in 1805. He continued to serve until his death.

It also wouldn’t happen before November.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

If the process that happened with whats-his-name-from-Wisconsin is followed, then they'd have to wait until after he's elected but before he's seated anyhow.

Further, Congress has the constitutional power to override SCOTUS decisions. It's happened five times. I don't know if SCOTUS has ever overturned a congressional action that was taken under the direct authority of the constitution.

if you're going to use 'this is incredibly unprecedented'... yes. it fucking is. It's incredibly unprecedented that a sitting US president used riots and insurrection to attempt to overturn the will of the people. such a blatant and unprecedented violation of democracy requires unprecedented responses. (like locking up an ex pres for insurrection.)

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

It makes no sense to us either, but yes, nothing stops a felon from becoming president

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Oh good! Says the right-wing

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Clinton and others will probably be ready, and probably do better in court.

[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And if their judge was appointed Trump, such as Aileen Cannon?

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Aileen Cannon?

According to WP she's "Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida" so it's unlikely she'd be hearing their cases; and I don't think she'll be hearing his appeals. Trump's convictions might be dismissed by SCOTUS, but 5 November 2024 is 151 days away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon

[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I said "such as", because Trump appointed a lot more judges than just her. She's presiding over one of his current cases and is doing everything she can to help Trump. It's more than possible that could happen on future cases against Trump's rivals.