Comments by "Adam Ragusea" (@aragusea) on "LegalEagle" channel.

@akuseru85 "Please tell me, how many political opponents did Trump send the military to deal with during his first term? Where is the evidence backing up the claim that he will do this if he wins now? Please explain how Trump is authoritarian." — Why would you ask that question in a comment on this video, which answers is directly in great detail? It's fine if you disagree with Devin's analysis, but I think you ought to respond to the arguments already made in the thing you're replying to.
28
⁠ @ericp6496 what every video, edited or unedited, shows clearly is that she was climbing through a shattered window to overcome a police barricade. Whether or not she heard the warnings, she was literally breaking and entering. That much is not in dispute by anyone, as far as I know. Can anyone really be that surprised if they get shot while breaking and entering? Especially when doing so at the head of a violent mob trying to reach some of the most sensitive square footage in the world?
16
@ericp6496 exactly, it’s a complex topic, and therefore you were wrong to imply that the OP is stupid or uneducated for not immediately understanding why the president should be above the law.
6
@ericp6496 you wrongly presume I haven’t. Personally I agree that some limited degree of executive immunity is important, but the argument is neither simple nor obvious. If you think it is, I’m sure you could sum it up in a sentence.
4
@warrickwalter426 There is no such expression as "tow the line." It's "toe the line," which means walking right up to the line of what is allowed but not crossing it. Even if you had gotten the expression right, you would have been misusing it. Regarding the substance of your argument, I don't think Biden's debate performance convinced establishment Dems that Biden is too old to govern; rather, it convinced them he's too old to win. We'll know more when the history books are written, but the preponderance of insider accounts we have now tell us that Biden is still pretty sharp and effective at work, but he has bad days when his verbal communication abilities suffer, similar to Reagan.
3
@ericp6496 if the answer is so obvious and basic then it should be easy for you to articulate it now.
3
Stupid question: This decision does not preclude impeachment as a check on presidential power, right? I too am horrified by this decision, but comparing U.S. presidential power going forward to that of king strikes me as meaningfully hyperbolic, as an absolutist monarchic could not (theoretically) be removed from office by a separate, elected branch of government, while the president (theoretically) could be, even under this awful decision. We couldn’t prosecute a president for taking a bribe, but we could remove them from office to keep them from doing it again, right? And that’s still something, right?
1
@umbraemilitos the president could also remove the courts if he wanted to — whoever controls the military is whoever is actually in charge and ‘twas ever this, right? I don’t see how the judiciary’s power to practically constrain the president is any more or less than Congress’s power to do so. In the event of a legitimacy crisis, the practical question is who to the generals follow — if congress impeached the president and the president refused to go or tried to dissolve congress, that would provoke a legitimacy crisis, in the same way a court convicting a president and the president refusing to submit to the sentence would provoke a legitimacy crisis.
1
@umbraemilitos I’m not sure I understand how that answers the questions I’ve posed.
1
@umbraemilitos impeachment isn’t a legal remedy, it’s a political remedy. As I understand it, nothing about this decision makes the president immune from impeachment. Yes, a president could simply ignore the impeachment conviction, sparking a legitimacy crisis, but how is that new?
1
@brizzled5193 me give recipe about Cupcakes, no stop heart plz
1
@smilesthelmo I can see why you would take him at his word.
1