Eric SheesleyApr 29, 2024
javi
Look, USians, I don't want to step into your internal politics, but you see, 45 years ago, we spaniards had the occurrence to write in our constitution that the head of state (the king) has immunity from prosecution for anything they do while they are in the job, and now we have an ex-king with a Wikipedia page that includes a "alleged corruption" section 55 paragraphs long.

And it's only "alleged" because he can't be taken to court even with the piles of evidence that exist.

Just saying.
Apr 28, 2024 at 6:50pmWeb
Show threadWaitman GobbleApr 29, 2024
Is that the guy who 'fled" to Dominican Republic? I remember seeing something in the news.
Show threadjaviApr 29, 2024
oh no, that's the ex-head of the national football federation. The former king fled to Dubai, he's friends with the king over there, so they gave him assylum.

(though he only spent a few years over there, once it was clear he wasn't going to be prosecuted for anything he came back to Spain, discreetly)
Show threadelmussolApr 29, 2024
That's the scumbag. DR  was one of the rumours, it actually turned out to be the United Arab Emirates. I could rant for hours on this lowlife, starting with being a billionnaire who has paid no maintenance for his three illegitimate children. What is it with billionaires' penises?
Show threadListerine Lavender MintApr 29, 2024
@javi I think we’re mostly right there with you—but the Supreme Court can and does just make up stuff, and we have zero control over these fucking clowns.
Show threadmasukomi (🎲)Apr 29, 2024
@thedansimonson @javi the thing I don't get is that IF the Supreme Court said "that the president couldn't be prosecuted for things including assassination" then why do they believe that they wouldn't themselves be assassinated the moment someone took power that didn't like their beliefs / agenda?
Show thread2xfoApr 29, 2024

@masukomi @thedansimonson @javi

The people making those decisions usually think they are never going to be subject to the obvious outcomes, probably due to how helpful they were in implementing them. How many times have we heard the story of the person who voted for lions to eat everyone's faces only to be surprised when a lion came to eat their face?

Show threadSophie SchmiegApr 29, 2024
@RnDanger @masukomi @thedansimonson @javi in all likelihood they won't even decide that the president has full immunity. They will just mysteriously take long enough to come to that decision to delay the prosecution until after the election.
Show thread2xfoApr 29, 2024

@sophieschmieg @masukomi @thedansimonson @javi

I think you're correct here. Everyone wants to be blameless as they let fascism take hold. They won't make a decision, they will want to let him end it after they watch him steal the election again.

And i didn't know why but I feel like not enough people mention how many Justices were doing background paperwork for the 2000 Bush election that was stolen in Florida

Show thread2xfoApr 29, 2024

@sophieschmieg @masukomi @thedansimonson @javi

I saw someone posit the idea that the president could order a strike on the Capitol if they were going to vote to impeach and that would be an official act beyond reproach.

SCOTUS is deliberately pushing us towards lawlessness because Republicans have thugs on their side

Show threadListerine Lavender MintApr 29, 2024
@masukomi @javi I had a glimmer of hope that the SCOTUS would see that the decision to entertain Trump’s claims greatly limits their own power—and that they actually have the wherewithal and will to power to see through that, but I guess they’re fucking bootlickers like the rest of them.
Show threadKevin LydaApr 29, 2024
@thedansimonson @javi Well, you know, we kinda did. There was this election in 2016 and we were a pack of eejits...
Show threadListerine Lavender MintApr 29, 2024
@lyda @javi Appointment by proxy is not control, nor is a lifetime appointment, nor did a majority of Americans ever vote for Trump.
Show threadJonApr 29, 2024
@javi At least he's an EX-king? If we get Trump back we won't ever get rid of him without civil war. If we're lucky.
Show threadjaviApr 29, 2024
Oh well yeah, when about ten years ago, when the press started to uncover a tiny fraction of his crap, there was a massive uproar against him and he abdicated on his son. Which still is our unelected head of state, you know
Show threadSteve BellovinApr 29, 2024
@javi @cstross One of the arguments made against Trump at the Supreme Court last week was that the US constitution has some (but not absolute) protection against members of Congress being prosecuted, but not the president. In other words, this was an issue that was considered back then.
Show threadmacoApr 29, 2024
@SteveBellovin @javi @cstross our constitution was written barely a century after the English Civil Wars and Interregnum. Of course they knew heads of state can be crap.
Show threadSteve BellovinApr 29, 2024
@maco @javi @cstross An amazing number of the provisions of the US constitution were written as a direct response to what the framers saw as abuses by the British government.
Show threadSaanichGuy 🇨🇦🇨🇦Apr 29, 2024
@javi love ‘USians’. Being from North America, I think anyone living here is an American (Canada, US, Mexico). Then add in Central and South America and there is a ton more people
Being Canadian I will now apologize for this PSA / rant.
Show threadLynn KellerApr 29, 2024
@javi There are many ways criminals do that
Show threadMatěj Cepl 🇪🇺 🇨🇿 🇺🇦Apr 29, 2024

@javi

Agree, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo%C5%A1_Zeman#Lawsuits

#Immunity #Czechia #Zlodědek

Miloš Zeman - Wikipedia

Show threadJohn Carlsen 🇺🇸🇳🇱🇪🇺Apr 29, 2024

@javi

As Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be the king."

Show threadQ.H. StoneApr 29, 2024

@javi We decidedly did not give former leaders immunity from prosecution. Our Supreme Court knows this very well. The problem is that we have too many justices who make decisions based on right-wing politics and our system makes it impossible to remove them.

Life-time appointments are a terrible idea.

Show threadKevin LydaApr 29, 2024
@javi So... you're saying it worked out really well? From a certain perspective at least...
Show threadjaviApr 29, 2024
I mean, yeah, for a very small amount of Spaniards it worked as a charm
Show threadTraffic Cone CarlieApr 29, 2024
@javi
Ok, but what does that have to do with what's happening in the US at the moment. Are we rewriting our constitution and I missed the news?
Show threadjaviJun 28, 2024
Well, your legal system is weird as hell and it's based on precedent, no in written laws. So it has very much to do
Show threadFerdi MagellanApr 29, 2024
@javi monarchy is bad.
Show threadAaron Brick — אהרן בריקApr 30, 2024

@javi On the plus side, in Spain you ended up getting amazing work like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySqxLQ-UsNo

Los Borbones son unos Ladrones VIDEOCLIP (feat. Frank T, Sara Hebe, Elphomega, Rapsusklei...)

#BorbonesSonLadronesDESCÀRREGA SOLIDÀRIAhttps://goo.gl/rybRg8MúsicaClara Peya | Juan Pablo Balcázar | Antonio Torres | Roger MartínezBandes/Mc’sElphomega | M...

YouTube
Show threads1m0n4May 1, 2024

@javi In Italy MPs have immunity too. Parliament must vote to prosecute them.
The President has instead full immunity and can't be prosecuted while in charge.

All these measures aim at avoiding a possible situation similar to fascism. During that period political opponents were charged with all sorts of crimes and imprisoned.

I think it's a complex issue that can't be just discarded as giving a free pass for breaking the law.

Show threaddaemionfox 🦊May 19, 2024
@javi The problem is, we know. We know he's bad, we're trying to nail him to the floor on it. The issue is there are a number of assholes for whom he serves both as a vote magnet and a lightning rod who will keep him propped up because he serves their purposes, but all that falls down if he's held accountable. And being held accountable is the one thing none of them ever want to have to face.
Show threadThe DoctorMay 19, 2024
@javi So, same as over here. Have some coffee.
Show threadWu WeiMay 19, 2024

@javi
I did take a Constitutional Law class in the US in 2007 or 2008, and I distinctly remember that it was considered an agreed-upon, obvious "fact" that the US president could be criminally prosecuted. Like, a huge percentage of lawyers and judges have been telling the public that the president can be prosecuted (when not in office) for at least a century.

It has been kind of a slow-moving revelation that so much of the judiciary is basically made up of quasi-monarchists who want to grant absolute immunity to the president. Obvious now, in retrospect, but less obvious over the past two decades when most of those judges were put in place.

Show threadKakurady (🔜 NFC, FE)May 19, 2024
@javi it is common that the monarch, and by extension the state, cannot be sued in a domestic court; though some countries limit it to official acts or criminal prosecutions only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
Sovereign immunity - Wikipedia

Show threadJürgen HubertJun 28, 2024

@javi "Look, USians, I don't want to step into your internal politics,"

Why not?

I mean, it's not as if Americans stay out of the politics of other countries, either.

Show threadjaviJun 28, 2024
Well, fair