|
b-boy bouiebaisse@jbouie.bsky.social |
under the opinion in trump v. united states there was no need for john yoo to come up with an elaborate justification for torture. george w. bush could have ordered an interrogator to crush the testicles of a child, no questions asked.
11 replies 120 reposts 703 likes
|
@youkillmyfather.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Should be a running list of past movies/shows where Presidents/staff were trying to be sneaky about illegal things that now seem quaint.
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Kim 🌸
@eurydice-krg.bsky.social
[ View ] |
A thought that has completely occupied my mind is the idea that a military officer has the responsibility to refuse an illegal order. Since the President is now immune for official acts, no matter how monstrous, no order is illegal now. Protesters will be mown down by gunfire with impunity.
2 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Adam Kotsko
@adamkotsko.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That's what the dog is thinking in that painting where he's looking longingly at the White House from behind the fence: "My master could have ordered an interrogator to crush the testicles of a child, and now he's missed that opportunity forever."
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
David
@crookedknight.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Doesn't even matter *which* child!
0 replies 0 reposts 10 likes
|
Gavin Schmidt
@climateofgavin.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Still an unlawful order, and so the interrogator would still be liable even if the president had immunity, no?
3 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Matt Steinglass
@mattsteinglass.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yes, but both before and after Trump v US the interrogator could be prosecuted and the president would have to pardon them. Not sure how relevant this is—that avenue of lawlessness has always been open.
2 replies 1 reposts 21 likes
|
Stephen R. Fox
@f6x.bsky.social
[ View ] |
A question I still have is are there legal implications for the people carrying out a president’s orders? Sure they could get pardoned, but does the presidential immunity cascade down initially, or would they have to be convicted of a crime and then pardoned?
2 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Teresa R.
@teresarobinson.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Gina Haspell wouldn't have needed to burn the tapes from the black op sites. Iran-Contra? All clear.
0 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
❀°。der Siebenschläfer *.ﾟ✿ ⋆
@sababausa.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Trump went corrupt machinations to browbeat Marie Yovanovitch out as US ambassador to Ukraine when he always had presidential power to just remove her, bc he wanted to keep his hands off it
After Monday, he'd be able to freely engage in all manner of backdoor orders
abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...
1 replies 2 reposts 4 likes
|
Andrew Bloomberg
@andrewbloomberg.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Obviously the solution is political, not legal, but in the event of a second Trump Admin left-leaning states & lawyers still need to use the overturn of Chevron, & Dem judges, to clog as much of this as possible. If Roberts wants to be a super Parliament we can at least try to McConnell it
2 replies 0 reposts 11 likes
|
Tamara Keel
@tamslick.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Steve Bannon: "Yeah, and...?"
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes