It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)
That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups.
Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?
As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.
I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts.
well this book was written in 2003 and current day events in USA clearly contradict this statement : "two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover."
With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
North Korea, China, Russia, etc. are examples of one party taking over; the USA is just a country that has one party (you don't seem to like) with most (but not all) of the political power at the moment.
>but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes.
And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.
I really can't find any other possible interpretation of their wall to wall decisions on anything election related. They are a knowing and enthusiastic participant in the coup.
Thomas is a born and bred loser, but otherwise they're afraid of being assassinated. Judges are under massive, massive amounts of threat whenever they think to hold Trump to literally any scrutiny whatsoever.
Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.
Probably more loyalists than ideologues. It’s the Project 2025 influence that has the ideologues. And the Thiel/Vance sector has the traditional influence-focused corruption, while the Trump family is more low-trust-society personal enrichment grift.
> The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office
That's a misreading of the SC decision. If he walks down the street and murders someone, unless he can make a case that it was an official act, then he wouldn't have immunity. He'd need to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority to murder people on the street, and he doesn't, so it wouldn't be an official act and he wouldn't have any immunity.
ok, so we managed to get a decision that the president wan't immune from having to pay out in a civil suit related to the molestation of a woman from before he even became a politician. but part of the problem here is the blurring of the personal and the official. should the president be liable for overtly violating the constitution 'while performing official acts'. Is interfering in the state's right to hold their own elections an official act? is instructing the military to order someone in cold blood an official act? does pursuing a series of novel legal interpretations imply that he was violating the law or not? is accepting money in exchange for a presidential pardon an official act?
whether or not you believe this is a pass from the Supreme Court, it opens up a whole new unexplored space of lack of culpability.
“Aye, scallywag, yer SCOTUS rulings reading ain’t fit for kindergarten; read the chart again: official acts may be immune, but private crimes still face prosecution.”
That may be, but the consequences for not taking these bad actors to task would have worse and longer lasting consequences. The portion of society that will fracture the most loudly has already attempted to storm the seat of government after a national election. We've seen what they're capable of and I'm much less afraid of that than permanently mafiatizing basically every level of the Federal government.
Yes, but expect those prison sentences will be more popular than you might expect. The current admin expends an insane amount of energy pumping the size of their supposed fanbase.
Forgiving the south after the civil war led to Jim Crow. Forgiving most of the nazis after WW2 seems to be the reason nazis are rising again so quickly. Forgiveness has been given enough chances already. I think we should try giving the full punishment a try.
Illegal? This is like the number one purpose of the US military, it's always to help the elite interests in resource extraction and forcing weaker countries into US trade policy.
"Asked about the potential for conflicts of interest to arise due to his simultaneous role as attorney for Cerberus, Feinberg, and the DOD, he said “you’ve got to be kidding me” and insisted that the interests of the three clients have been kept separate."
Oof. This guy is a top lawyer, and this is how he responds to a journalist asking about conflict of interests?
Obviously a very smart man and very trustworthy. /s
Immediately and coarsely calling into question the intelligence of any-one who questions the corruption, seems to be par-for-the-course for these anti-socialites.
There are a couple of ways of seeing this. One is that there is a conflict of interest. The other is that there has been a conflict of interest in the military for years, and this guy has proven himself to be useful in fighting it such that he has been given an unusual amount of power. Obviously, number 1 would be bad. Number 2, though, would be laudable. I'd be careful about jumping to a conclusion until more evidence comes to light in either direction.
Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes.
And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.
then a new constitution it is!
It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here.
It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.
Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.
Quite a perfect storm.
> The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office
That's a misreading of the SC decision. If he walks down the street and murders someone, unless he can make a case that it was an official act, then he wouldn't have immunity. He'd need to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority to murder people on the street, and he doesn't, so it wouldn't be an official act and he wouldn't have any immunity.
whether or not you believe this is a pass from the Supreme Court, it opens up a whole new unexplored space of lack of culpability.
Oubliette [1^]: The dungeon you throw people in that you want to forget.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/Fi...
Oof. This guy is a top lawyer, and this is how he responds to a journalist asking about conflict of interests?
Obviously a very smart man and very trustworthy. /s
We are truly living in a kleptocracy.
Edited: Two seconds of google: https://www.cerberus.com/media/cerberus-acquires-controlling... Yep, no possibility of conflicts of interest here.
I don't know what bothers me more, the corruption, or the fact that they're both so stupid and open about it.