“Unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed,” says ex-Judge J. Michael Luttig

It’s not a hard question, or at least it hasn’t been before: Does the United States have a king – one empowered to do as they please without even the pretext of being governed by a law higher than their own word – or does it have a president? Since Donald Trump began claiming he enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two courts have issued rulings striking down this purported right, recognizing that one can have a democracy or a dictatorship, but not both.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results,” states the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, issued this past February, upholding a lower court’s take on the question. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes cast.”

You can’t well keep a republic if it’s effectively legal to overthrow it. But at  oral arguments last week, conservative justices on the Supreme Court – which took up the case rather than cosign the February ruling – appeared desperate to make the simple appear complex. Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that accountability was what would actually lead to lawlessness.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    233
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Illegitimate court, almost half were appointed by the accused and should not even be hearing this case. We are teetering on a dictatorship and this court is pulling the steering wheel even more that direction. I, for one, do not recognize any ruling from these corrupt judges.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      103
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Three were appointed, which is 1/3rd of the nine justices. However, to me the most relevant figure is that five of the nine were appointed by GOP presidents that got into office losing the popular vote (Roberts & Alito by GWB, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB by Trump).

      These justices, the majority of the court, do not and have never represented the US either by vote or ideology (even secondarily via the presidential/nominating vote), yet they are lifetime-appointed positions with unparalleled power over our lives and the continued existence of American democracy. They can choose to allow Trump to crown himself king, but they are already an effective monarchy.

      Roberts has been concerned about the Court’s legitimacy the last decade. He should be - it isn’t legitimate.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 months ago

        Roberts doesn’t give a flying fuck about his Court’s legitimacy. He cares about the appearance of his Court’s legitimacy.

        • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, sorry, that’s the better way to put it.

          To him, it’s the same thing, because if the Supreme Court loses the appearance of legitimacy, they themselves have no practical means to enforce their decisions.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Unless they have a dictator-president and ineffective congress.

            It feels a lot like they’re getting for that possible outcome—so they have a sympathetic king when the time comes.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of what you said. By association, the presidency is also illegitimate. And since the Senate is undemocratic and Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435, both of those are illegitimate.

        Thankfully, they still have the monopoly of violence.

        • 2piradians@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          Congress should have a couple thousand folks in it rather than 435

          This is exactly it. This is what hamstrings the will of the majority and lends relevance to these lunatics we’re having to endure.

          Many revere our founders, and I’m quite sure if they could comment on this mess they’d say something like “There are how many millions of citizens? And you stopped adding representatives at 435? That’s the problem. Why?”

        • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          We outnumber them, by a bunch. And they know that. Well, the smart ones allowing “democracy” to prevail knew it, I don’t know about these crazies going for the power grab right now.

          We lack organization, ability to plan as one. The conspiracy theorist in me says they know that as well, hence why they are attacking ways of obtaining information and organization.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s an absolute clown show not based on law but on bribes, influence, and political alignment.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I knew this SCOTUS was a joke, but this is unbelievable even for them. I cannot fathom that I’ve lived to see the day that a former president’s lawyer argues that the sitting president ought to be able to perform political assassination and any number of justices, let alone a near, majority say “well that makes sense to me lol”.

      • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Reforms don’t prevent end stage capitalism, they only delay it. It looks as though there isn’t enough willpower for another delay.

        Early 20th century labor movements should not have negotiated with the 1% financial terrorists. It’s as though we made peace with Russia, only a small respite in the class war while the 1% grew stronger then ever before.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If they rule in favour I guess Biden can save your democracy with an undemocratic act. SCOTUS should agree then, right?

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    2 months ago

    republicans would be happy with the appearance of democracy - just like russia. Theres multiple names on the box, but you know the votes aren’t counted. trump would conveniently win every time. Strangely just like putin does.

  • ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 months ago

    Me, a layman: GEE I WONDER IF SWEARING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION MEANS HE SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DESTROY IT.

    In all caps.

    • neclimdul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Preserve, protect, defend. Didn’t say anything about upholding or abiding by so everything’s fine, what’s the big deal? 😵‍💫

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah how are they not making a bigger point of the fact that the guy who cried about the stolen 2020 election and got pelt killed trying to stop the certification… is now on trial for illegally influencing the 2016 election and WINNING the presidency.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Cowabunga it is then. I believe this is that part about the tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots or something.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If Biden has absolute immunity after a ruling to that effect, he would be within that authority to have the justices that voted for that rounded up and shot, then appoint a Supreme Court that will reverse it.

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Reminds me of when that loser was president. Every morning there was some new horrifying thing to read about.

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Now some want to see that shit show return.

        Seriously, they should have argued that by the defense’s own argument, Biden could jail, torture, and/or kill SCOTUS judges, political rivals such as tRump, and effectively commit any crime, so long as he was president when it happened and watch how fast these fascists turn tail.

        I don’t understand this country and really wish the boomers would find another hobby besides redoing all the shit the generation before them tried to stop and making everyone’s life worse to do it.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This illegitimate “supreme” court needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with normal justices. There is no place in a modern culture for conservatism or any other hate-based, oppressive ideology.

    Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level. They seek only to control others and destroy progress. We should be speaking openly about the deadly dangers of conservatism and should exclude such toxic lifestyles from polite society.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nope, shame them.

        Legit Biden needs to challenge it directly and have Trump’s daughter and her husband arrested and jailed on charges he must fully admit are false and politically motivated. Say the Saudi money was to pay for classified information or something, they would either have to rethink their choice or the precedent is set with a Democrat in office which would allow literal and complete political control of the government.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They aren’t going to make such a ruling until after the election, if Trump wins they might grant immunity but they’ll never make that ruling with Biden still in power. Biden wouldn’t get away with it, there’s nobody around that would support it (unlike GOP’s unconditional support for Trump). They also won’t have any problem striking down Biden’s actions and then later approving Trump’s (or just ignoring them)

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Biden could do it now and it would be legal until ruled otherwise, the present court is myopic and it will bite them.

          • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            They can’t delay it that long, they have to issue a decision by the end of their current term, which ends when they go into summer recess in late June/early July. Granted, they could theoretically say “screw the rules” and not issue a decision until after the election, but that’s literally never been done, and if it did everyone would start ringing the alarm bells because it’s a crystal clear sign they’re corruptly abusing their power for Trump’s benefit. (Yes, I know they’re already doing this, but what they’re doing right now is blowing hard enough on a dog whistle to draw side-eye glances from passers by, while delaying a decision past the end of term would be like blowing a train whistle right next to your face.)

            If they do decide to help Trump, the most likely path will be waiting until the last minute to issue a decision and then punting it back to the lower court for further review.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The outcome I’ve seen suggested is that they send it back to the lower court with minimal instructions, then waiting for the case to make it back to SCOTUS later

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is truly the only possible way. But, damn it would be nice to not have conservative pieces of shit anywhere near a position of authority over the normal people.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      normal justices

      I’ll believe one when I see one. The profession is simply drowning in Federal Society freaks and Ivy League snobs.

      Conservatives should not be permitted to participate in government at any level.

      They’ve got a plurality, at least in the economic strata that control all the material wealth. I don’t know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        . I don’t know how they stop participating in government while still retaining control of all this property.

        Excellent point. Historically, an infestation of unchecked conservatism has never been cured peacefully.

      • EsheLynn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Elaborate, please? How are Democrats Republicans, and if they aren’t, what is the difference? I genuinely don’t understand.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It sounds like the poster is looking at “conservative” by it’s more objective view. Conservative is often a brand more than a strict political position since it has connotations of fiscal austerity, calm and measured or more “traditional” in value than party X.

          Conservatism outside the brand however has a political throughline that aggregates around a few specific ideas. Generally speaking what they are actually conserving (once you bust through the rhetoric that usually tries to disguise it) is the idea of heirachy and legitimizing pre-existing power structures that stack power vertically rather than scattering it horizontally.

          Not all Democrats are highly “conservative” but those who aren’t don’t tend to do well internally inside the party long term. They do however like to trot them out when allowing for starry eyed dreaming hour because it’s good for their image. The main party throughline is kind of middle of the scale. It’s not to say they can’t be forced to be less conservative by circumstance since as long as they are more “Progressive” in ways that align with that branding pattern than their opposition then they are bound to need to back that image up from time to time to get to keep that spot in the minds of their audience as being “left of center” .

          But “Progressive” just like “conservative” has shallow surface level brand connotations that have nothing to do with the political compass.

        • ebc@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          He didn’t say Dems are Republicans, he said they’re conservatives. Not the same thing. However, Republicans are conservatives too.

          • EsheLynn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            And yet, it wasn’t explained how Democrats are conservatives, whatever that means. I just hear Republicans are conservative, now this one rando is saying Dems are conservative, what does that even mean, anymore? What does democrat or republican mean if they are being accused of being the same? How are they the same?

            • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Three US democratic party is fairly “conservative” relative to European social democracies. That’s all.

            • ebc@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Just to define the term: Conservative = right of center on the political spectrum.

              That “rando” meant that Democrats, which are considered “left” in the US, are actually pretty far towards the right by most other countries’ standards. This is due to the Overton window shifting pretty far towards the right in the US in recent years.

              Republicans are just even further towards the right.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can’t tell me that anything like a Conservative Democrat exists, much less that they control the leadership positions within the party. I won’t believe it.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I sure do.

        Neoliberals are conservatives. They have just a bit more tact than Republican conservatives, but they are still conservatives by every developed international standard. The Dems have a couple progressive members, but the majority are neoliberals, unfortunately.

        We don’t have a progressive party. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

  • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You guys don’t get it yet? They all talk, they coordinated not to pass it then decided who can vote what to piss off the least amount of their constituents. That’s it, it’s all politics.

    • DandomRude@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The fact that your supreme court is even willing to deal with the question of whether a president should have absolute immunity pretty much says it all.

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        True, but not hearing it would piss off the retarded half of the country. So they hear it, everyone panders to whoever they need, and here we are. This country is completely broken, both sides are garbage, it’s all a show so they can get away with whatever they want and feed us just enough to keep us from rising up in any productive way. We are just the herd, we don’t matter, we are a byproduct and we cultivate their money and lifestyle. They just can’t tell us that openly. Even “voting”, they will keep gerrymandering to keep it close. The dems will allow them to because dispite being widely more popular in the popular vote, they need the Villan of the Republicans to keep pushing things to the right to keep their game going. If they fought it, then someone would come along further to the left and the jig is up. Look what they did to Bernie, the only genuine candidate in my lifetime.

        I don’t think very many people realize just how broken we are, and it is beyond any diplomatic way of fixing. We either ride the ship while it sinks or take the helm at this point. Capitalism+Citizens United+legal lobbiests/bribes+Insider trading allowed by congess members= you’re gonna have a bad time. And the only people that can change it is congress themselves, so they as a whole need to decide to cost themselves millions and millions of dollars. Never gonna happen peacefully. Nothing surprises me with the Supreme Court. Or any other politician. They are actually human garbage scum of the earth willing to lie, cheat, and steal. Willing to back a country that is blowing up children and hospitals so they can make some money from arms dealers. Fuck them all. They are a stain on the history of humanity.

        /rant

        • DandomRude@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m from Germany, but I see myself more as a European, because I don’t think much of national concepts, if only because of our past. Having said that, against the background of the past decades, it seems almost desirable to me that the situation in America now makes it obvious to everyone that the US system does not serve the American people. You have long been a role model for us: a successful democracy that promises its citizens prosperity and freedom. Many of my fellow citizens are only now realizing that this has never been the case, as the massive flaws in your system make it obvious that this is not a system for the people, but a system for the powerful. I sincerely hope that this realization can somewhat help humanity overcome greed and hubris to find a better way. But I have little hope, if only because even here in Germany I can see that fascism is on the rise again - although the Germans should know better; unfortunately, not even my people seem to have learned anything from our terrible past. It’s enough to make you cry. So long story short: I can understand your frustration very well.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            You have long been a role model for us

            Not gonna lie, this stings, because like most American kids I grew up believing the bullshit as well. The truth hurts.

            Be better than us.

            • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Reagan. Reagan and his trickle down economics was the start of the absurd funneling of the money to the top. It has been a snowball rolling downhill ever since.

      • Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is why they feel they’ve already won. They can say shit it court like the president has the authority to kill political opponents. It’s a hail mary for them, but it doesn’t matter at this point. The highest court in the US is now listening and thinking about that question.

  • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls. More people voting equals more democratic votes.

    How we vote is controlled at the state level, so why haven’t blue states passed electoral reform? Don’t the democrats want more votes? Why would the democratic party say no to these extra votes?

    Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Electoral reform won’t make blue states more blue. More people turning out doesn’t matter if they’re already voting for you, so you gain nothing. It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC. Obviously, the DNC doesn’t want that.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        You are correct, the objective of ranked choice voting is not to empower the two existing parties. It is to create a system that it amenable to having more than two parties so of course the powers that be who benefit from that system don’t want that - which is why it needs to be pressed because the two major block parties increasingly obstructionist and diverging will eventually cause a civil war. Smaller parties allow for more nuanced takes requiring cross party concensus and break up the stratification. If the game of democracy ends the Dems will end up with their heads on a plate so whatever kickbacks they receive from the status quo won’t be worth jack.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It would result in minor parties getting elected more often, which would weaken the power of the DNC.

        We already functionally have that fight in the primaries (both in the DNC and RNC brackets). And we do have a rump base of Tea Party Republicans who routinely sabotage the Republican majority in the House. We have an even smaller rump base of progressives in the Dem party who mostly just exist to get censured by the Ethics Committee for being too antiwar or pro-Palestinian.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Winning a primary as a member of a caucus in a major party gives you better odds of taking a seat than winning a primary in a 3rd party.

            So people tend to endorse internal party caucuses, which then function as de facto third parties.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      With a more representative electoral system like Ranked Choice, more people would have been driven to the polls.

      Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.

      But when Democrats already do all the triangulation and Republicans simply push conspiracy theory to the farthest rightward fringe, and Republicans still win by large margins in big states, there’s no material benefit to ranked choice voting.

      Is keeping 3rd parties from joining the table worth sacrificing the nation to the Republican’s nightmare?

      Any 3rd party simply becomes the whipping boy of the other two parties. Ranked choice won’t change that. Republicans will still despise Libertarians and Democrats will still despise Greens.

      And a private corporate news media that profits off fear and resentment won’t make these peripheral parties more appealing.

        • eldavi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          if it’s not done correctly; it would guarantee that our current system is locked in forever

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        But when Democrats already do all the triangulation

        They don’t. And politics isn’t so easily boiled down to a single axis - Democrats are focused on social issues that are easy to repeal. This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Democrats are focused on social issues

          What part of the Russia-Ukraine War, the Inflation Reduction Act, or the CHIPS Act strike you as “social issues”?

          This will save the lives of minority groups right now, but allow billions to die from climate change.

          Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue. We’re not trying to keep the Earth from spiking ten degrees because we’re obsessed with the Spotted Owl. This shit is threatening trillions of dollars of accrued real estate and trillions more of agricultural output.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            focused on social issues that are easy to repeal

            I mean focused in the literal sense, and didn’t mean to imply exclusively. You did provide examples of things the Republicans can simply undo, rather than improving our representation in goverment.

            Climate Change is and always has fundamentally been an economic issue.

            It’s fair to say that everything has at least some economic component. Climate change is a bit more than that because our lives have no value in their calculations. The trajectory we’re on now already maximizes the net present value of real estate.

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Republicans and Democrats are working for the same corporate bosses. Third parties might actually want to represent the people.

    • deft@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Literally yes. It is Pepsi and Coke. They act like they’re not friends but they’d rather be the only soda on the block and make it harder for others.

      On top of that Dems feel they should always be a shoe in for victory compared to these dunderheads.

  • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    Has anyone asked Trump that he believes if Biden want to execute him and his allies RIGHT NOW, it would be totally ok and Biden should get full immunity as well?

    • nul9o9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Exactly. If they vote in any way that gives Trump the power he asks for, Biden could do all sorts of shit. Including arresting members of the supreme court.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      They always carefully qualify it as long as it’s for official actions.

      That way, they can say anything Trump (or whatever future republican president) does is justified official business but they can’t share details because it’s classified, but if a dem does it, it’s not official business and not justified.

      They’re just setting up the gaslighting. Their playbook is so fucking obvious.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Moderates everywhere: “Come on, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s conspiracy talk.”

  • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    If we ever get to the point where he gets placed above the law as our president, there’s only one thing to do. I’ll say no more.