SilverserenTrump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines
Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed... #trump #netanyahu #israel
New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New Republic:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
infinitevalenceWoohoo maybe this time there will be consequences since he is not president and it can’t be an official act …
WhatsHerBucketHow has that worked out so far?
Let’s find out in 5 years.
TrebleTo spoil his legacy like this, he must be so ashamed.
Spoil his legacy? Like, if someone treads in a huge, perfectly formed, steaming hot dog turd? That kind of spoilt legacy?
And shame? The man is a weapons-grade narcissistic arsehole. He doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
The Logan Act was passed in 1799. A grand total of two people were charged with violating it, and none were convicted.
Those fun facts are never going to change. Find something else to charge Trump with, it shouldn’t be hard.
mozzWe can always change the traditions
One reason that it’s never used is that a lot of lawyers suspect banning negotiation with anyone, even a foreign power, violates the First Amendment.
And if it’s used against the Trump then the SCOTUS will surely agree.
In that respect, I don’t disagree with them. Though they’re right for very much the wrong reason.
The trouble with prosecuting Trump under the Logan Act is that, technically, the ceasefire would not be an agreement between the US and a foreign government. It would be an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Here’s the text of the act:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Now, I would argue that brokering a ceasefire counts as “measures of the United States,” but it’s not a slam dunk legal argument. Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.
Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.
While judicial corruption is a real risk, this sort of assumed helplessness just lets them implement it without actually doing the corruption and putting their credibility on the line. And it could be applied to literally anything. Once you assume the Court will always act corruptly, it doesn’t matter whether a legal question exists, they’ll do it anyway.
He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law. They can die in the Supreme Court and be added to the list of reasons for why extreme reforms are necessary.
He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law.
I agree with you completely, but also keep in mind that every corrupt ruling from the current federal and supreme courts is a precedent that must be later replaced if/when we get reasonable judges in place. Not only do we need to win, but we need the court to hear a case where a former president is charged with a crime and the “official acts” bullshit is thrown out. That, or the legislature passes a constitutional amendment. Until either one of those happens, presidents have immunity from prosecution.
or to defeat the measures of the United States
My first thought is that the US is trying to broker a cease fire, so that should definitely count as a measure.
The founding fathers weren’t ignorant of international affairs and that countries do things that are not in relation to their own country. So that last clause seems to specifically address those other things not directly to do with the US.
I agree with you, but I doubt very much that Trump’s judges will rule against him.
You don’t say.
deegeeseI think the last Republican presidential candidate to sabotage peace talks to help his own campaign was Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War, so Trump is just continuing their tradition of killing innocents for personal gain.
Reagan sabotaged the Iran hostages deal
So it is rumored
And those are only the ones we know of; dealing in death is pretty standard fare for people high up in Washington
It’s not rumors anymore. It’s a settled fact.
It’s gonna be awesome in 20 years to hear of Reagans impeachment while the crops and natural world are collapsing. Progress!
Bruh. Reagan.
Everyone who says “They’re both equally bad. I refuse to vote for either candidate because they both support genocide” can shut the fuck up now.
kescusayI strongly suspect most of the people pushing that particular line aren’t eligible to vote… in American elections, that is.
Some of them no doubt, a lot of them are younger voters that are just sick of their country never having been sliding down into more and more blatant evil for their entire lives.
Or ones who don’t understand propaganda when they see it
I don’t, I know what it was like to be an optimistic young adult. I understand the allure of holding strong to an ethical code while others’ compromises seem to make the progress all too slow.
The truth is that this shit takes time and requires a lot of pressure - and that’s a fucking bitter pill to swallow.
forensic_potatoAren’t 70+ years enough time though? Those people are done. You can’t ask them to swallow bitter pills for that long of a time while also telling them to shut up because “you are enabling the enemy”. They have valid criticisms that some key people from the Democratic side are far too happy to ignore. Honest question…how do you compromise with an ongoing genocide in an apartheid state?
PugJesusHonest question…how do you compromise with an ongoing genocide in an apartheid state?
Same way we compromised with the UK and France in WW1, or the Soviet Union in WW2, or Turkiye during the Cold War, or Saudi Arabia in the modern day.
When there are some 200 countries in the world, all with their own squabbles that affect their region and themselves, taking no sides is still taking sides - and no side is clean. The idea that there’s some ideal option where no one gets hurt is just not the reality of things. Not every conflict is like this - not every conflict will continue to be like this. We can make a better world. But not by sitting on our hands now in an attempt to keep them ‘clean’. Short of quite literally conquering the entire world, all of our choices are necessarily limited by the need to take a side in most conflicts, in which both sides are often pretty gruesome.
That being said, fuck Israel. Revoke everything. Side with Palestine.
We didnt give it 70 years. 40 years ago we had Ronald Fucking Reagan gutting the federal government like a fish, and we go back to that party like a pendulum every 4 to 8 years.
There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.
I understand what you’re saying and I want to sympathize, but I feel like we’re so far outside the norm here that some of this falls a bit flat to me. Like we aren’t talking about being swayed by a wolf in sheep’s clothing here, Trump is a an entire pack of wolves loudly shouting “the wolves have arrived, fuck all you sheep!”
I think there was a point what you say rang true, but I can’t help but feel like we’re so off-course at this point that if you haven’t seen Trump for what he is yet it must be because you are WILLFULLY evading that reality.
I find it genuinely difficult to believe that anyone touting the “both sides are the same narrative” still, today, about Trump, can possibly truly believe that. I genuinely think you are only hearing from the mouths of charlatans, foreign agents, intentional accelerationists, and the absolute most genuinely ignorant of people. Maybe I’m jaded, but the alternative is legitimately incomprehensible to me at this point.
Or eight years ago, either/or.
They could have also shut the fuck up at any point previous, but we’ll accept “now” as well.
What are you talking about? My close friend from Texas Oblast who owns a barbecuing shop says this all the time!
RoflmasterbigpimpAh yes, Texas-Oblast-Barbecuing-Joint next to famous warm water port, right?
Da. His Name is Alexejohn Smith
THANK YOU. Jesus fucking Christ thank you. I’m so sick of this shit
One is supporting genocide, but the other is actually doing it.
Id prefer not to support the side that says “finish the job”
knightly the SneptaurI’d prefer neither, and in any case I’d still refuse to promise my vote to a party before the election. If Harris wants my guaranteed support she’ll have to start acting like it.
Now is the best time to push the party left, and genocide is the one issue I absolutely refuse to compromise on.
Any vote not for Harris is a vote for Trump because of how our system works. You would be actively pushing closer to the final annihilation of Gaza by not doing everything in your p-
Oh fuck it. You fucking morons will never understand at this rate. I just hate seeing you pretend you actually give a single fuck about those poor people when you’re just using them to virtue signal
I’m not saying not to vote, I’m saying not to make yourself ignorable. If the DNC knows they have your vote they won’t have any reason to try and earn it.
In a perfect world maybe, but not how it actually works. Please vote for your best interests. A not vote is that same a vote against your own interests.
I’m not saying not to vote, I’m saying not to make yourself ignorable. If the DNC knows they have your vote they won’t have any reason to try and earn it.
You said you can’t garauntee you’ll vote for Kamala and that she needs to earn your vote. Also that you shouldn’t be ignored.
What are you saying? Are you saying there’s a possibility you’ll vote for trump? Because that’s the only other option… unless you don’t vote.
I guess I’m just confused about how are going to get these people to see you. How are you going to not be ignored? The whole no confidence vote already happened, and the next vote is the only one left
What are you saying? Are you saying there’s a possibility you’ll vote for trump?
If Trump was able to convince me that he’d stop America’s support for genocide then I would.
And until Harris can do the same, the Democrats do not have my fealty.
that’s the only other option… unless you don’t vote.
That is precisely the risk that the Democrat party is taking. If there is no option for voting against genocide, then people like me might not feel enthusiastic about getting out of the house on voting day.
I guess I’m just confused about how are going to get these people to see you.
The same as any organization, public opinion polling:
The party is well aware that the fraction of their base that wants to stay the course on America’s national support for genocide is a minority.
That they have not already changed their stance is evidence that they do not see a need to do so. They must be confident that they can win the election without the support of uncommitted voters.
Bet.
First off, the only one asking for fealty is the republicans. Second, trump already said “finish the job” so obviously he’s not in favor of a cease fire.
Now we’re right back to voting against your own interests. A not vote for Kamala is a vote for Trump(in a tight race like this)…. who supports the genocide fully… “finish the job”
You have two options.
vote for an administration that has called for a cease fire and is working to get it. Not doing a great job at it but the alternative is…
Vote for the administration that has said “finish the job” fully supporting the genocide and not calling for a cease fire.
How are you going to not be ignored? If trump wins because people like you don’t vote you’re definitely getting ignored lol. Actually that mother fucker might thank you for helping him get elected.
“If these people won’t do exactly I want then I’m going to make I get exactly what I don’t want!” - that’s you, that’s how you sound
Even the poll you just posted shows dems are more in favor of a mutually beneficial outcome, as opposed to(not to beat a dead horse but) “finish the job.
You want to be seen and heard? get out and protest and vote for your best interests. You want to be ignored? Don’t vote. Not voting gives you literally no skin in the game to complain later
First off, the only one asking for fealty is the republicans.
Incorrect. Democrats have been the only ones demanding my vote. Republicans don’t bother trying to convince a “commie queer” like myself.
Second, trump already said “finish the job” so obviously he’s not in favor of a cease fire.
Likewise, the Democrats who pretend to support a ceasefire but keep authorizing weapons shipments anyway.
Now we’re right back to voting against your own interests. A not vote for Kamala is a vote for Trump(in a tight race like this)…. who supports the genocide fully… “finish the job”
There’s those demands for fealty again.
How are you going to not be ignored?
Like this. You’re failing to ignore me right now.
“If these people won’t do exactly I want then I’m going to make sure I get exactly what I don’t want!” - that’s you, that’s how you sound
“If these people don’t stop asking the Democrats to represent their interests then I’m going to blame them for Trump’s second term” - that’s you, that’s how you sound.
It’s as if you’ve already given up on this election and are looking for some “other” to blame so you don’t have to accept the fact that the DNC would rather lose an election than to stop arming Israel.
Even the poll you just posted shows dems are more in favor of a mutually beneficial outcome, as opposed to(not to beat a dead horse but) “finish the job.
And yet, the Democrats would rather stay the course than to do the thing that would net them more votes. By your own logic, the party is not doing everything it can to maximize its chances in the election.
You want to be seen and heard? get out and protest and vote for your best interests.
I’m doing exactly that. You’re responding to my protest now. We have an opportunity for productive dialogue and you risk squandering it with manipulative rhetoric. It is not possible to guilt a single-issue anti-genocide voter into tolerating genocide, but it might be possible to convince your political party that it needs to take a more principled stance on the topic.
You want to be ignored? Don’t vote.
Telling people I’m not going to vote has resulted in far more productive and nuanced conversations like this than a promise to vote ever has.
Not voting gives you literally no skin in the game to complain later
On the contrary, voters are the ones with no standing to complain, because they voted for it. Only the non-voting majority of Americans can claim that they are not represented by the political establishment.
Funny enough it’s seems I ignored you lol
Democrats demanding you vote… for your own best interests. The last part is the kicker. If you feel that’s Trump fine. A non vote is still using your vote, and if doesn’t get you what you want…
Genocide isn’t in my best interests.
If there is no option on the ballot to stop sponsoring genocide then I’m not getting what I want regardless of how I vote.
If the Democrats feel that Trump is a threatening-enough stick that they don’t need to offer a carrot, then that’s their problem.
Hey we talked about the Gaza atrocities before. Have you watched the latest debate and if so has your opinion changed about voting? Not trying to pressure just genuinely curious
Sorry for not replying until now, I didn’t have a response for you. You made me think.
No worries for the late reply, and I haven’t watched the debate or even followed any of the coverage. To be honest, I’ve mostly checked out of the election since it’s become a fait accompli.
I’ll do my research on the local candidates when my ballot comes in the mail but I’ll be leaving the choice for president blank. Harris will be president anyway.
If Palestine is destroyed all the blood is on your hands now. If trump helps Netanyahu it’s your fault
If you trusted the Democrats to save them, that’s your fault.
If you trusted trump not kill propel he said he would that’s your fault
When did I ever imply that?
You voted against your best interests, now a rapist felon is going to give us real the go ahead and kill an entire people… you should feel like a murderer because you are one
Sounds like someone is looking for someone to blame so that they don’t have to reckon with the Democrats’ failure to appeal to the voters.
If you want to blame me, that’s your problem. I ended up voting for Harris anyway.
Yep just like you did lol. Blood is now on your hands dumb dumb
Sorry don’t believe you.