Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenerdenator | Hacker News Reader

> You can’t have randos deciding what the leader can do.

These aren't randos; they're federal prosecutors that are hired by the sitting President of the United States.

Let's say that even if there is a decision that Trump's acts aren't related to his official duties and he somehow gets punished for those charges (I wouldn't hold my breath). How does this not give Biden and future Presidents a way to seriously abuse their power with a hope that they're not held accountable for it? Before it was just a hypothetical. Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power.

View on HN

It’s also likely that the project 2025 people will have almost every federal employee declared a political appointee which would give any sitting president the power to fire any prosecutor prosecuting him. This was one of the OMB changes Trump made at the end of his last presidency.

There are some already drawing up list of those employees for targeting during a potential second Trump term, using a grant from the Heritage Foundation, IIRC.

It may be a saving grace that little will get done when all the people with institutional knowledge are fired.

That’s the goal though. Eliminate everyone competent and then leave the gutted institutions for the next series of Presidents to deal with. Or in the case of the National Weather Service gut it, replace everyone with climate change deniers, then outsource all the weather and meteorology to someone like The Weather Channel.

I don't think this really matters in this specific case; the DoJ itself has a policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents.

And that's a problem. Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? Justice delayed until someone's out of office is justice denied until someone's out of office.

> Now we've crossed the Rubicon and established that there are scenarios in which a President can have unlimited power.

Yes, the places where he is explicitly given unlimited power.....

That's a tortuous use of the word unlimited. The president has very limited power that is spelled out by the constitution and proscribed by Congress. Using that limited power in the way it is permitted is not "unlimitedly using limited power."

This absolutely opens the door to that. It gives a scenario where a sympathetic judge can immediately toss a case against a President for abusing power.

I mean, this isn't outside the norm. Most government employees and officials either elected, appointed, or hired generally don't have personal liability for discretionary acts of their office under the principle of qualified immunity.

It's really weird to watch all that from the other side of the pond. In my country for example, all politicians have immunity but our parliament can revoke it for anyone using a majority ruling... ( having more than two political parties helps )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com