DOJ tells Trump he doesn’t have to follow law requiring him to turn over all presidential records

I don’t think they planned for the level of hypocrisy and whataboutism that the republicans employ.

Genuinely we kinda need you all to re-conquer us. Because there is no way we can make the needed changes with active participation unless we actively exile all the Republicans to like some uninhabited island somewhere because the fascist would just use the opportunity to seize more power. We need a 21st century government not an 18th century government and the only way that happens is if someone forces one on us.

Based upon this administration’s flagrant disregard for the rule of law, the constitution, and the GOP Congress just kissing ass; the rule of law only exists through fear of police reprisals now… what form of government does this? Authoritarian? It’s past time we take back our government and remind them and especially future generations that They serve Us.

The rules desperately need to be self executing so people can’t just decide to not obey. That or they need to apply to everyone around him, so the fear of being jailed for enabling him is greater than the fear of getting fired

The point of our political system is to now make money for the industrial war complex. Thats it. Because war makes hella money. We will starve ourselves before we even consider adopting any other type of ideology in our poltical system because we had propaganda forced down our throats telling us stuff like the country taking care of the people is socialism and therefore evil. Idk why. It is what it is though. Aint nothing I can do.

The phrase "don't worry", followed by a dismaying fact, does in fact make it a joke.

\> "Sorry, you crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i,' but this law or action just doesn't create a more perfect union. Can't do it. NEXT!" That's a hell of a strawman. You picked the "intent" part of the Constitution. The one part that is abstract and non-binding. The part that explains WHY the constitution was written, not the binding agreements therein. It's flowery language that exists to frame the concept of the document, not be part of the contract itself. The exact wording of the US Constitution **can and should** be used to validate/invalidate laws, otherwise what is the purpose of the constitution? If we're just going off "vibes" why even have the Bill of Rights? Why even have a Constitution in the first place? That's exactly the kind of extra-constitutional thinking that gave us the Scott v Sandford decision that "black people weren't originally supposed to be included by the framers, guess they don't have human or legal rights" If we can't require the president to faithfully execute the laws, then by King George, we've got an absolutist monarchy. "Sorry, I know the constitution says Congress writes the laws, but President-King Chuck issued an executive order telling everyone that he writes the laws now." "I know the constitution does say something about terms of service, but I, President God-King Supreme Deluxe, hereby redefine a 'Year' for the constitution to be 3,650 days, so technically I can be President for the next 40 calendar years" "The constitution guarantees you 4th amendment protections, but if I, the President, direct the US Air Force to drop a 500lb bomb on your house because you complained about me online? You can't do nothing to me, because I'm immune baby." \> Do you *really* believe that those should be cognizable complaints that go through the legal system?  Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? No. You hallucinated what you're responding to. I said it was unconstitutional. This isn't about a law, it's not even an action. It was a statement from an Executive branch official, and I'm saying the concept it describes is unconstitutional. You got a brain. You can read for yourself without having to simply let SCOTUS and the entire court system read it for you. Like saying "The Army should be able to quarter troops in your home at any time." is flatly unconstitutional. It describes a situation which the constitution forbids. "The president doesn't have to abide by the laws Congress made" is unconstitutional. The president is required to faithfully execute the law under the constitution. Just like when Trump says that people born in this country shouldn't automatically get citizenship, that's a flatly unconstitutional idea, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, but thanks to another provision of the US Constitution, you can't sue over mere words unless the words themselves had an impact, like in defamation or trade secrets disputes. And even then, it's not the actual statement that is punishable, it's the actions that statement caused. You can yell "fire" in an empty movie theater all day and night, not a crime. But if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and people get hurt rushing to escape? That's on you. So, when Trump DOES violate the Presidential Records Act, THEN his violation of that law could be litigated. And the courts can and do GET IT WRONG, Scott v Sandford was overturned, when another supreme court OBVIOUSLY ruled that people don't stop being people just based on the color of their skin. Eventually, even Justice Roberts' nonsensical "the president is immune to criminal liability for his actions" decision will be overturned.

I mean technically they dont need due process if they get sent to gitmo which is managed by the DoD You could potentially make something work that way, which makes it even more fucked "Biden was a domestic terrorist for what we believe to be interference in the 2020 election so we have contained him at guantanamo bay until he confesses"

[deleted]