Supreme court already ruled him irreprochable.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
82 points (97.7% liked)
politics
27894 readers
3569 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So the reason why prisoners have rights is because if they didn't, what that would mean is that you could be stripped of your human rights by being declared a criminal.
Donald Trump wants to try to do that with the word terrorist.
He kills newborns, so of course he just wants to kill his enemies.
Is that confirmed to be in the Epstein files? I've heard this a few times recently.
This goes back to Obama. But according to US policy in action? Yes.
Liberals didn't have a problem with it under Obama, although the left did. One among many of the contributing factors to 2016, was liberals allegiance to the military industrial complex at the cost of American lives and our ability to find social programs. Hillary was very, very much on one side of that divide. And liberals then didn't care enough to see it as something Obama needed to be held accountable for. That lack of accountability or willingness to draw a distinction between right and wrong is the basis for why we're here today.
Is the answer also "yes" according to US law though? I doubt it, could be wrong though.
What exactly is law? Is it words on paper? Is it the decision of a court? A spiritual interpretation held in the heart of the reader?
A practical interpretation is that law is whatever policies the state chooses to either enforce or not enforce through its monopoly of violence. In this interpretation then, state assassinations are perfectly legal, habeus corpus, due process, etc... are merely administrative considerations.
Is the Intercept any good any more, generally speaking? Earnest question.
I used to read it when Grimm and Scahill were around…but I realized I haven’t read an article there in years. This one seems OK.