• CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why would it be bad to terminate investigations that are unlawful or contrary to national interests?

    • LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Think about how many times in the last few months Trump has complained about the rigged trials. Now imagine him being able to unilaterally decide which investigations are lawful and which aren’t.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The FBI shouldnt be investigating the executive branch… The only way it should happen is if the congress calls for it, and that is what they are trying to do.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      In Hungary, state institutions like the police of the tax bureau only target people and companies outside of Fidesz’es interest group. That’s what they want to adapt, so every company will fall in line with Project 2025.

      • funkajunk@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        At first I naively thought “why is that a bad thing?”, but then realized who exactly decides what these “national interests” are?

        Definitely using some “weasel words” in their policy to get away with some shady shit.

        • pacmondo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Any law that you see that you think “Wow, no way they can enforce that! That would get EVERYBODY in trouble” is a law that is intended to be selectively enforced against unwanted people

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        6 months ago

        That could be how you would mean it, but that is not how I interpret it or how they intended it.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            6 months ago

            You guys literally just claim things without any evidence… You guys have lost to plot

            • irreticent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              “You guys literally just claim things without any evidence”

              How ironic…

              You, just a few comments ago:

              “that is not how I interpret it or how they intended it”

              If you’re so sure of their intent then where is your evidence?

              You’re doing the exact same thing you accused the other commenter of; you literally just claimed something without any evidence.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yes because I know what they mean because I have heard them explain the problem. You guys on the other hand dont know what they believe because you dont know anything about them.

        • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          If something is against “national interest” and your president is trying to become an autocrat, that means they can essentially pick and choose what national interest is. This should be setting off alarm bells in EVERYONE’S head as an obvious grab for power.

          I’m not american, so I don’t have direct skin in the game, but everyone on both sides of the political spectrum who don’t self identify as fascist should be against this.

          If you don’t interpret this as something extremely dangerous, you need to have a sit down and really think about the implications.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            So the issue is that this is not what they are referring to. What they are talking about is when the FBI (and CIA) get involved in politics or directly sway things in direction that is outside of what the FBI is for.