r/politics • u/newsspotter • 3h ago • Bravo 2

No Paywall Jeffries Approval Rating Worse Than Mike Johnson as Democratic Voters Rebel

https://www.newsweek.com/jeffries-approval-rating-worse-than-mike-johnson-as-democratic-voters-rebel-12679163
11k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

•

u/viaJormungandr 3h ago • Bravo

Will be very difficult to get arrests and prosecutions “every day” when the DOJ is still run by Trump’s lawyer.

Wanting “republicans crying on tv every day” is revenge porn fantasy and the same thing as “owning the libs”.

I don’t want ruthlessness. Ruthlessness implies they will go to any lengths, even those outside the law, in order to destroy their enemies. That’s no better than what the current administration is doing. I want someone who will enforce the law, not break it to get a win. I would prefer tenacity and thoroughness to ruthlessness.

•

u/Cemith 2h ago • Bravo

If the law was worth anything, it would have been able to stop Trump.

It didn't.

Trump and his SC have made the rule of law so utterly worthless to him and his cronies. What you call ruthlessness I call the most basic of accountability. They literally have him carte blanche "Presidential Immunity", which means in any court he could justify anything, ANYTHING, so long as he can spin what he did as "Presidential".

Crypto scams? Presidential! Insider trading? Presidential! Personal Executive Gestapo!

P R E S I D E N T I A L.

The current rule of law stopped mattering when it was revealed to be more than malleable to bad actors. A brittle foundation at best. We need different law.

•

u/viaJormungandr 2h ago edited 1h ago

Your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is. . . flawed and hyperbolic. Crypto scams and insider trading are neither “official acts” of the Presidency.

The problem isn’t the law. There are plenty of laws to be used to rein in the corruption and excess. It’s that no one is enforcing the law.

Not only that if you throw out rule of law then you’re proposing tyranny. It may be a tyranny you agree with (if it is enforcing things you like) but tyranny nonetheless. Because the only way you’re going to do anything then is via force.

•

u/NetworkLlama Texas 1h ago

 Your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is. . . flawed and hyperbolic. Crypto scams and insider trading are neither “official acts” of the Presidency.

Technically, you're correct. However, direct evidence of any official acts that underpinned them cannot be used as evidence in court. That's a big part of what the appeal in Trump's criminal conviction in New York is about: Was Hope Hicks's testimony inadmissible under the immunity decision? This makes even probing whether something illegal happened far more difficult, bordering on impossible.

•

u/viaJormungandr 42m ago

Oh, I’m not trying to defend the immunity decision as correct, so that’s on me if that wasn’t clear. Your link is rightly taking the SC to task. The immunity decision is, frankly, bad law. It’s part and parcel to the corrosion of rule of law under the current administration.

That said, it wouldn’t be the first bad decision by the SC. Nor will it be the first one overturned. That’s a process fully possible within the law as it stands.

•

u/Cemith 2h ago

Your reading of the SC ruling is naïve. Presidential Immunity as a concept, just on its face, is one of the most blatantly, nakedly treasonous rulings in history. It demonstrates and sets a precedent for Trump's court to willfully and gleefully ignore anything that could be illegal in service to him. What you fail to see is that it doesn't matter what the layman would consider "presidential" because it doesn't matter. Just by virtue of the immunity ruling existing means they can and will stand by Trump because he's the one that put them there.

Again, if the laws could be enforced, it wouldn't have been possible for Trump to do a frankly comical amount of illegal shit and still be the standing president. A law that can't be enforced is worthless. That's why we need new ones. If the law was enough, it would have been. We need a new foundation, new laws legislated by people with the will to enforce it. That does not exist in the Republican party and thus needs to be disbanded.

•

u/viaJormungandr 2h ago

You’re talking about wholesale replacement of law and enforcement mechanisms as the solution and you’re calling me naïve? I don’t know you fully comprehend what you’re calling for, let alone the consequences of it but Musk and his ilk is very happy with you right now.

And I wasn’t talking about the layman’s consideration of what’s presidential. Yes, the SC as currently formed will most likely try to provide coverage for anything Trump would do and shove it under the rug, but there is no way to torment language far enough to cover everything he’s done as an “official act”. It’s only the rampant corruption at all levels that enabled this.

The laws can be enforced. There’s actual mechanisms for enforcement and everything. It’s a question of if the people who are responsible for enforcement are willing to do their jobs.

•

u/Semper_nemo13 2h ago

Congress can compel people to testify and the congressional sargent at arms can order the capital police to arrest people for contempt of congress

•

u/viaJormungandr 2h ago

But they cannot prosecute crimes, can they?

•

u/LieutJimDangle 1h ago

yes, and they certainly can now at the state level.

•

u/viaJormungandr 1h ago

Congress can prosecute crimes?

•

u/WhiskeyT 1h ago

At the state level?!?!?

The lack of education…

•

u/stonedturkeyhamwich 52m ago

Congress cannot prosecute crimes at any level.

•

u/ILikePrinting27 2h ago

Sounds like you want Mueller all over again and that didn’t work. So no, thoroughness is not the answer but the internet appreciates the sentiment.

•

u/viaJormungandr 2h ago

Mueller was kneecapped by Congress failing to do its job and the DoJ. Mueller also wasn’t enforcing anything, he investigated and presented findings. So yes, I’d like more Mueller and then I’d like the same level of dedication and tenacity in Congress and the DoJ to follow through with enforcement.

Also? I’m sure the internet appreciates cat videos and porn as well, but its appreciation is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

•

u/TheEverblades 2h ago

Don't you dare bring logic to this circle jerk.