Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged. — Wayfarer
There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse. — AmadeusD
They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection — Wayfarer
This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. — Wayfarer
But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?
I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t. — NOS4A2
Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.
During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.
One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur.”
At least their wild thought experiment runs parallel to a more realistic scenario. What if the president sent the DOJ or some AG to prosecute his political opponents in the lead up to an election? — NOS4A2
The constitution provides a mechanism to sort it out, and he was acquitted through this mechanism. — NOS4A2
Or a real scenario: what if the President tried to prevent the legitimate certification of a Presidential election that he lost?
The Constitution provides a mechanism to fire a President. He wasn't fired. It doesn't then follow that he can't later be criminally prosecuted.
They have the power to try and convict of high crimes and misdemeanors. — NOS4A2
The firing is just the punishment for that process. — NOS4A2
He was acquitted. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.