←back to thread

763 points tartoran | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.81s | source
Show context
mikeyouse ◴[] No.45682307[source]
> Tim Rieser, former senior aide to Senator Leahy who wrote the 2011 amendment mandating information gathering, told the BBC the gateway's removal meant the State Department was "clearly ignoring the law".

We're in a really bad place... with a servile congress, it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch. When everything relies on "independent IGs" for law enforcement inside executive branch departments, and the President can fire them all without consequence or oversight, then it turns out there is no law.

replies(21): >>45682323 #>>45682445 #>>45682511 #>>45682590 #>>45682838 #>>45682977 #>>45682980 #>>45683124 #>>45683225 #>>45683230 #>>45683339 #>>45683432 #>>45683533 #>>45683596 #>>45683626 #>>45683638 #>>45683774 #>>45683801 #>>45683853 #>>45683854 #>>45683942 #
Joeri ◴[] No.45682838[source]
When a different side takes control of the justice department they may choose to go after all those who broke the law by order of this president. The president might be protected from consequences according to the supreme court, but those answering to the president are not.

This administration has set the standard that the justice department can be weaponized against political enemies. The ratchet only goes one way in American politics, presidents never relinquish the powers claimed by their predecessors.

replies(6): >>45682885 #>>45682894 #>>45682904 #>>45682967 #>>45683411 #>>45683693 #
1. ryandrake ◴[] No.45682904[source]
The obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress.
replies(1): >>45684017 #
2. itsoktocry ◴[] No.45684017[source]
>The obvious solution to this is to change everything structurally needed to ensure the other side never again takes control, which is clearly also in progress.

- Signed, the side that tried to throw a candidate in prison.

replies(2): >>45684106 #>>45684482 #
3. baggachipz ◴[] No.45684106[source]
A convicted felon. Candidacy shouldn't be part of the equation.
4. jarofghosts ◴[] No.45684482[source]
Prison is typically where felons go, yes.