Conversation

Notices

1. masukomi (masukomi@dice.camp)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:33:43 UTC masukomi

   in reply to

   • Dan Simonson
   • javi

   @thedansimonson @javi the thing I don't get is that IF the Supreme Court said "that the president couldn't be prosecuted for things including assassination" then why do they believe that they wouldn't themselves be assassinated the moment someone took power that didn't like their beliefs / agenda?

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dan Simonson (thedansimonson@lingo.lol)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:33:45 UTC Dan Simonson

     in reply to

     • javi

     @javi I think we’re mostly right there with you—but the Supreme Court can and does just make up stuff, and we have zero control over these fucking clowns.

   • javi@goblin.band's status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:33:48 UTC javi

     Look, USians, I don't want to step into your internal politics, but you see, 45 years ago, we spaniards had the occurrence to write in our constitution that the head of state (the king) has immunity from prosecution for anything they do while they are in the job, and now we have an ex-king with a Wikipedia page that includes a "alleged corruption" section 55 paragraphs long.
     
     And it's only "alleged" because he can't be taken to court even with the piles of evidence that exist.
     
     Just saying.