domain:alakasa.substack.com
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
A few advisor-types, including a former DNC head, and a handful of newspapers, but leadership ended up circling the wagons.
However, apparently there is still some vocal non-public movement among House Democrats, who are (rightly) worried that this is going to doom down-ballot efforts. A few of them have had "let's have a conversation" type quotes. At this point the biggest question is probably whether or not some House Dems decide to explicitly run on a "limit Trump's power" platform as opposed to a traditional "help me help Biden" platform or prefer it even over the more mild ignore-Biden, local-focus approach.
zeke5123a
11mo ago
Yes they’ve done worse (as the things described above). But here are some more:
-
Incarcerate a whole group of Americans based on their race.
-
Illegally engage in war (eg Libya).
-
Set up the whole fake Russia gate scandal.
-
Lie about WMDs to start a war.
-
Arguably Iran Contra.
-
Warrantless spying on all Americans.
ser
11mo ago
Depends on what you consider being 'famous'. Are we talking about Brad Pitt/Kanye West levels of fame? Or is it 300k followers on instagram-type of fame? Former seems to be way too stressful. Latter wouldn't need many lifestyle adjustments, while still bringing in plenty of fame benefits.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
11mo ago
In any event, would you praise the Sackler family for at least trying to flood the market with pharmaceutical drugs (whether they succeeded in this endeavor or not, would you praise the endeavor)?
Absolutely not - I come at this from the "smelly hippy" angle rather than the libertarian one, and I think that what they did was actually monstrous. I'm a proponent of drug legalisation, but I think that legalisation should be accompanied with responsible education and policies with regards to addiction and the like. The Sacklers were ultimately responsible for and made substantial profits from a legal and corporate structure that heavily encouraged and even induced addiction in cases where it wasn't necessary. I absolutely think that drugs should be legal, but I think that part of that liberalisation should include responsible management of them. Encouraging addiction because those ruined lives are extremely profitable is the part of what the Sacklers did that I object to, not so much the distribution of the drugs themselves.
UwU
11mo ago
Why stop there? Just order the guy after Trump whacked, then the next guy after that… Does it even matter if a large number of people refrain from voting Biden afterwards if he’s the only option left?
zeke5123a
11mo ago
Let me respond to your edit.
-
I don’t think the structure of the sentence suggest a separate unrelated offense. The first part of the clause tells us that impeachment and conviction goes no further than removal from offense (ie there is no jail sentence). We then told however that if the law brings the president up on charges he now could be subject to a jail sentence. The natural read to me is they are talking about the same offense (ie what would be the relevance of a future crime). No I think this is to head of discussions that the first crime was already adjudicated.
-
The constitution requires if memory serves 2/3 of the senate (ie super majority). It would be pretty much impossible to have a conviction absent bipartisan support whereas with the right venue the ex president could be subject to criminal liability purely by his partisan opponents.
Sunshine
11mo ago
I think that after the first few murders Biden's own House and Senate Democrats would join with the Republicans and vote to impeach him. Whatever you think about the Democrats, most of them would be extremely uncomfortable living in a dictatorship ruled by fear and tyranny.
UwU
11mo ago
Does it even matter if he broadcasts his crime on prime-time TV? He could be there in his official capacity and thus the broadcast can’t be used as evidence for any wrongdoing.
Why the question mark? Is the order lawful, or isn't it?
The core of presidential authority over the military is not giving any sort of orders to the military. This is a conflation of the authority to command with the authority for a commander to act. The authority to command (to give orders) is distinct from the authority of a command to actually do X/Y/Z. The privileges of one do not imply the privileges of the other.
The Article II authority of the President to command the military is in the context of what Congress establishes the scope of via Article I. If it's not within the scope of what Congress establishes, it's not within the scope of Article II authorities either, because the scope of what the rules for the Government and the regulations of the military are get decided by Congress, not the President.
If the President's order is unlawful by the rules and regulations governing the military, it's outside his Article II authority to command the military and thus there is no immunity.
If the President's order is lawful, then it's immune from prosecution as a coup... but it's also not a coup by definition as a coup is an unlawful seizure of power, and for it to be a lawful order it has to be in compliance with the law.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11mo ago
If we're talking generic party preference polls, which I think is the UK analog for the listed poll, the US is still much more stable. If we take the Presidential popular vote margin as an indicator (though a bit faulty vs generic party preference, since personality matters, but presumably an overestimate of the real generic gap), we can see a maximum swing of 25% over four years, and that was after Nixon was impeached for Watergate (!), and a few other swings north of 20% also in the 60s, which was a major time in US history with civil rights, the Vietnam war and draft, and a ton of social unrest and violence. Since (and including) Reagan in 1984, we've seen mostly 5-10% swings. I was able to find a few links to actual generic party polling that goes back to 2012, and the largest generic ballot delta was 8% there, and it seems to roughly match within a few percent.
In contrast, we just saw a generic swing of +12 (if we're doing the actual 2019 election) to -21 in three years, for a delta of 33. Is the takeaway then that Brexit was actually earth-shattering politically? Is Brexit the UK's Vietnam?
Or (the more boring answer, but maybe just more true) is party affiliation in the UK simply unstable? I guess one explanation is simply that Reform "stole" all of the Conservative votes, that makes the totals more in line with at least the last 10 years of expected swings.
(In US-related news, a 2020 generic ballot polling average had Democrats up 7%, but 2024 the same generic ballot average is statistically tied. This looks absurdly bad for Biden.)
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Being rich and having access is amazing. Fame, not so much.
Sometimes, being rich & and having access comes with the fame. Other times, the fame leads you to riches and access. But if you can decouple them, then the the fame by itself is a nasty thing.
You can't walk down a street without being accosted. You can't trust new relationships. You can't find quiet. You hog attention whether you want to or not. Your closest family members get jaded, as they struggle to form an identity that's separate from you. It's bad all around. There is a reason old-money tries to be anonymous.
Ideally, I'd be rich, priviledged an anonymous. But, I'd rather be all of rich, priviledged and famous than none of them.
Tenaz
11mo ago
The broadcast isn't the act though--it displays the act. If the act itself were to broadcast something, then maybe, but I'd still say that the act in that case would be the action of broadcasting, not the contents of the broadcast.
If he's being broadcast for a presidential speech and turns around and murders someone, then his act is the presidential speech, not the broadcast. People can still use the broadcast as evidence.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
If he was clever he'd do it in D.C. But this decision said nothing about state crimes (because the question was not in front of the court), so even with it, the states can still charge him.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
11mo ago
I don't think Biden's mishandling rises to Trump's level because though there certainly was some lack of care, it didn't seem to be super deliberate and there didn't seem to be the same kind of lying going on.
I'm actually not so sure on this one - I don't think it'd be possible to get a really clear view of how bad his case was without exploring the Hunter corruption issue. Biden lies all the time, and I don't think we have a real picture of exactly what went on there. We know that classified documents were being stored in an insecure manner, but we don't actually know how serious it was because it all got brushed under the rug so quickly. It might be a big deal for the big guy, but it might also just be Biden's failing mental state. All that is ultimately an academic concern, however - the partisan disparity is so great as to eclipse any other concerns.
Though with all that said I don't feel terribly bad about classified documents being leaked - I'm a big supporter of Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, Binney, Drake, etc. I like it when classified documents are mishandled and leaked, in part because those leaked documents usually reveal some kind of malicious or nefarious government behaviour. As far as I'm concerned, it was a good thing when details of PRISM got leaked, and likewise when Collateral Murder was leaked, so it feels kind of hollow for me to say I'm looking forward to prosecution for document mishandling.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
In our hypothetical model, we can basically just turn up/down the quantity of pharmaceutical opioids that make it to the street. We can't really determine whether they displace low-quality opioids or add to them. The market would decide this, right? Unless you're saying that the project of pumping more pharmaceutical opioids into the streets is only Good if it's combined with some other form of crackdown on low-quality opioids?
I expect that a drug user given the choice between, at equal price per dose, pharmaceutical opiods and shit put together in Mexican lab with random Chinese ingredients and cut with God-knows-what, would choose pharmaceutical opiods. However, I would not expect a black market to reliably give that choice. Black markets tend to have a major problem with fraud.
I think the fundamental claim underlying a lot of positions is that if we just turned the knob of increasing pharmaceutical opioids on the street, then the market will totally, definitely, automatically treat them as a substitute, and they will displace low-quality opioids.
I think that is not actually the claim of those who want legalization, and does not follow from the claims of those who want legalization.
blooblyblobl
Battery-powered!
11mo ago
But again, this does nothing. There's no declarative requirement for the President to e.g. invoke executive privilege. The President has absolute immunity for seeking opinions from his officers, it's not something he has to argue, he just says he was seeking an opinion and that's the end of the discussion; you can't subpoena parties or submit records of the conversation as evidence, and without that, you have no evidence of bribery. And as far as I can tell, impeachment (even after leaving office, which is out on a limb at best) doesn't strip absolute immunity. There is no legal battle, because the required evidence to prove a crime or any circumstances under which immunity wouldn't apply, impeachment or otherwise, cannot be considered by the court.
VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
11mo ago
There's an easier path to extend this ruling to states (it pretty much has to be extended under its own logic for vertical separation of power reasons) than to extend the Presidential pardon power to state crimes.
VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
11mo ago
I appreciate the thoroughness and earnestness of your list of stuff that presidents have done that you disapprove of, but none of those is worse than trying to overpower a presidential election after the fact with procedural trickery.
Anyway, come on. Trump is a shady guy. He always has been. Trump University was indefensible, and that's par for the course for him.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
I especially do not think it is necessary in order to have a peaceful transfer of power, given the ~200 years or so of peaceful transfers of power America has had without anything like this.
Nobody tried charging an ex-President before. An ex-vice-president, yes, but not for acts in office. The last time it looked likely, Gerald Ford took care of the problem. I am sure the Supreme Court would rather have not taken this case -- you can put that squarely on the Biden Administration.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
This is the same Court that has been consistently expanding protections for firearm ownership pursuant to the Second Amendment
The Court has done nothing except re-allow bump stocks. All its other firearm cases were dead on arrival, except Rahimi which was their burial.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
11mo ago
IMO, the impetus for the lawfare is that Democrats thought they had fully captured the institutions, and could now impose their will with no risk of retaliation.
IMO this is a bullshit story right-wingers tell themselves to rationalize power grabs. Throw in regular ominous remarks about the dangers of prosecuting (their) politicians just so people understand and it looks more like a story of incredible Democratic naivete where they thought a conservative judiciary would act in a principled manner rather than closing ranks to protecting their guy.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
The court goes to some lengths to say that impeachment and conviction are a separate process with no bearing on criminal prosecution. I think it would have been a possible reasonable thing to say that impeachment and conviction remove immunity for the acts involved, but Roberts says "no".
hydroacetylene
11mo ago
I've met former special forces guys. I'm pretty sure they'd refuse to carry out domestic political assassinations ordered by a senile democrat when in the service, and I'm pretty sure this is generally true of actually-killing-people jobs. Someone with sufficient loyalty to just have the tip of the spear eliminate his political opposition does not have to worry about whether the law allows him to do so. He simply does it.
I'm about 98% sure that Biden couldn't find a big enough force to arrest Abbott or Desantis if they threatened to resist. I'm about 90% sure Trump would be in the same boat with Newsom or Hochul.
there's no way to create a law code that can't be interpreted maliciously by one of the thousands of legal jurisdictions.
They can already do this.
Do you want to be right, or do you want to have a functioning country? The only reason that elected officials are not routinely prosecuted is because it is not done.
We already prosecute elected officials. If we concede to Trumpist threats every time it comes time to punish him for his lawlessness, we won't have a functioning country. Why not say the stubborn insistence that Trump must be impervious to prosecution and punishment is a threat to the stability of the country because the message it sends is that procedural politics are futile? If corrupt politicians will never face justice, why not deliver it yourself?
No one else has done anything comparable to January 6th
More options
Context Copy link