←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 6 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
VBprogrammer ◴[27 May 20 13:33 UTC] No.23322903[source]▶
Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.
replies(6): >>23323205 #>>23327484 #>>23327571 #>>23328045 #>>23329677 #>>23329719 #
m-p-3 ◴[27 May 20 18:52 UTC] No.23328045[source]▶
And if he decided to "close" Twitter, it would actually be a clear case of censorship from the government and a violation of free speech.

Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content.

replies(4): >>23328387 #>>23329001 #>>23329224 #>>23329390 #
rsynnott ◴[27 May 20 19:13 UTC] No.23328387[source]▶
Well, it wouldn't be, because he _couldn't do it_. He's not a dictator, despite apparent aspirations.
replies(1): >>23328509 #
three_seagrass ◴[27 May 20 19:21 UTC] No.23328509[source]▶
Real question: As the head of the Federal executive branch, who would stop him?
replies(2): >>23328611 #>>23328846 #
colejohnson66 ◴[27 May 20 19:41 UTC] No.23328846[source]▶
Well, considering how huge that branch is, if he didn’t stop once the courts ordered him to, Congress could remove him from office, and he’d be “escorted” out of the White House by the Secret Service.
replies(1): >>23329003 #
three_seagrass ◴[27 May 20 19:51 UTC] No.23329003[source]▶
Didn't Congress already impeach the president but the Senate voted to keep him in office?
replies(2): >>23329260 #>>23329385 #
colejohnson66 ◴[27 May 20 20:08 UTC] No.23329260{3}[source]▶
Yes. But ignoring the courts would be a different thing: incompetence. See the 25th Amendment § 4[0]:

> Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

> ...

Basically, if Congress decides Trump is incompetent, Pence will immediately become President. No impeachment trial will be necessary. And if Trump refuses to leave the White House at that point, he will be forcefully removed. Whether that’ll actually happen remains to be seen; Section 4 has never been invoked since its ratification.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_...

replies(2): >>23329527 #>>23329589 #
1. three_seagrass ◴[27 May 20 20:33 UTC] No.23329589{4}[source]▶
The President was brought up for incompetence to Congress in 2017 when he fired FBI director Jame Comey after Comey refused the President's request to drop the election-meddling investigation involving the President's personal friend. It's right there in the wikipedia article. The President got a pass. How would this be any different?
replies(1): >>23330317 #
2. AnimalMuppet ◴[27 May 20 21:32 UTC] No.23330317[source]▶
If I understand correctly, it takes more than the President being charged with incompetence. It takes the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet agreeing. That didn't happen, not by a long shot.
replies(1): >>23330853 #
3. three_seagrass ◴[27 May 20 22:23 UTC] No.23330853[source]▶
Considering the President surrounds himself with people who only support him, such as firing all the IG's that were investigating any Republican party members, what's to keep that from happening again in this instance?
replies(1): >>23331226 #
4. AnimalMuppet ◴[27 May 20 23:02 UTC] No.23331226{3}[source]▶
Nothing. The correct thing happened last time, too.

See, "incompetence" doesn't mean blundering. It means senility or insanity. Firing Comey may be many things, but it's not incompetence.

You want him gone? Get in line; a lot of people want that. But you're going to have to either vote him out or impeach him. And to impeach him, you're going to have to persuade more than one Republican Senator that he's crossed the line - which means you need something that the other side recognizes as an actual case.

replies(1): >>23331448 #
5. colejohnson66 ◴[27 May 20 23:27 UTC] No.23331448{4}[source]▶
> The correct thing happened last time, too.

See, the thing is, during the trial in the Senate, Trump’s lawyers literally said:[0]

> Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

The fact that all but one GOP member voted to acquit is extremely concerning.

> Firing Comey may be many things, but it's not incompetence.

It may not be incompetence, but it sure as hell is corrupt.

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-...

replies(1): >>23331470 #
6. AnimalMuppet ◴[27 May 20 23:29 UTC] No.23331470{5}[source]▶
OK, fine, "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". That still doesn't apply to firing Comey.