|
Radley Balko@radleybalko.bsky.social |
You could say this about the era preceding nearly every authoritarian government. And Trump has explicitly vowed to remove people who won’t follow his orders and replace them with people who will. Heritage and Claremont are lining up candidates ready and eager to do what he asks.
4 replies 14 reposts 112 likes
|
The American Civil War Podcast
@uscivilwar.bsky.social
[ View ] |
On that note, I am unsure what "illegal" would mean in this context. SCOTUS said that within in theoretically-narrow boundaries that might not be remotely narrow in practice, it is by definition not illegal. I think carrying out the orders would still be committing crimes, but that's a thin reed.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Jim Meyer
@theotherjim.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Ya know, the "I was just following orders" thing sounds familiar for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on it...
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
@bagofbleeps.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Business Plot Two Judicial Boogaloo!
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
@doughoff.bsky.social
[ View ] |
If the President is not deterred from illegal or legal acts by the threat of eventual prosecution, then there's no need for immunity, right?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes