It can be and in some cases it is. But not for the President at the constitution is currently interpreted. It can become a legal matter, but only after impeachment.
In terms of elected officials? There have certainly been the amusing cases where an elected official HAS been prosecuted while in office, has been convicted and sentenced to prison and still held that office because the courts don’t wish to invalidate the sovereign will of the voters. That’s what happens if you have a conviction without an impeachment and removal.
He needs the pressure of this even if he cannot be removed now.
toirnop is a fascist and he needs to be defeated in more ways than court or even the ballot box. Light a candle instead of berating activists. He needs to be humiiated. And these suits by conscientious acticists however they go are necessary.
It’s political, meaning it’s about perceptions and the impulses of notional voters. So attempts to bring ternps mind to the public square are political and affect the reality as all things do which may affect public opinion. This should not even have to be said.
So all attempt to silence activists are regressive. It shuts off avenues of vulnerability for tuoirnp. Keep doing that assholes work for him.
I suppose there is a big contingent here of “Lets not scare or rile the republicans or else they will really do mean things to us in the future”
Theer are activists who have perfectly valid insights as worthy as that, or more to share and they have real effects in the world. Politics.
Yes, exactly so. DAs or other prosecutors can sit on their indictments until such time as the President CAN be prosecuted…i.e. when he’s no longer President.
No, not really. They’re feel good statements that accomplish little and waste resources. Every erg of energy, every dollar spent and so forth is one that could be spent electing more like-minded people. No half-assed article in Salon - designed, in truth, to accomplish nothing except get people who are already outraged even further into irrationality - will accomplish as much as someone who phone banks.
I work on campaigns all over the country. I organize letter writing campaigns, help write call scripts, help educate local candidates on issues. I do everything except raise money (I’m not allowed to do so) and I’ll contribute more to removing Trump and electing a lefty congress than Bandy Lee will ever do writing a motivated article to people who are already highly motivated to vote.
It is not my area of practice, but this is my understanding as well. The idea is that I can be incredibly mentally unbalanced, be like Howard Hughes keeping my urine in jars, shut everyone out, yell at the neighborhood kids, and collect dead bugs I find, name them and have funerals for them.
In a free country, I can do all of that. The only time the power of the state will prevent my eccentricities is when I become an imminent danger either to myself or others.
What is it about activism though that pisses you off? She is pretty clearly speaking in public, and reaching out in the most effective way she can. The things you are doing are not perfectly effective either. Why all the vinegar for Lee on here? So no activism can be valid because they can’t get onto fox and one america news? BS.
To me there is a reality bubble around toirnap, and all the hand wringing and warning about not disturbing that bubble??? Wow. You are not doing one thing about it. She is.
I don’t want to speak for outlierrn, of course. But I believe they are referring to an actual warning of a diagnosable condition that authorities could act upon.
And it can’t be, of course. As has been pointed out, Lee has not met Trump and cannot, therefore, have actually diagnosed him.
OK. I don’t think she is claiming to have met him or diagnosed him professionally. I think she is acting under “duty to warn” doctrines. And that is already a part of the coverage of her and her message. So I don’t see deception or disingenuousness in it. And it doesn’t sound like she is a loony liberal or a crazy leftist or any of the names that some democrats here will give to outliers who upset them. If she is really the problem now then we might as well pack it in.
Right. He is a job holder, and also a job seeker, and we are the employers.
His strength and inertia are just about the peculiar and unreformed laws around potuses. Got to do something about that. But he is not a regular citizen. He is not even pleading for any right that any citizen has. He is pleading theoretical non existent legal theories of immunity.
He should not have to be held anyway, to be removed as psychologically unfit, by publically available evidence, no less. You don’t need to meet with someone to know he needs to go on the kinds of morals or conduct charges that prevail in other indistries.
Again, this is your term, why do you keep asking me to explain it?
I am not commenting on the 25th amendment, nor what should or ought to be the standards applied to the POTUS.
With regards to an involuntary mental health hold, such as referenced in that article as something a family member or co-worker can initiate, a valid example would be a secret service agent reporting that Trump demanded his weapon in order to prove he could shoot someone on 5th avenue with impunity.