Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepsun | Hacker News Reader

That's how dictatorship started in Belarus: a democratically elected president started violating the Constitution, and parlamentaries (aka congressmen) prepared the impeachment. Most active ones suddenly disappeared, those who protested got thrown out of the congress hall by guards by the order of president. Others got the message.

View on HN

What we need is Samuel L. Jackson and Ryan Reynolds to step up to their task.

The biggest shame is that it's not like they can't impeach. The majority just doesn't want to. Allies have been betrayed, 401ks have been devastated,, we're at least 7/10 bill of rights amendments broken, and the US weren't from dodging the recession to heading down into a proper one. All in 5 months. But somehow congress thinks it's alright.

My only solace right now is that Trump probably isn't in the health to survive to 2028, maybe not even 2027 to get potentially convicted if congress shifts. He's in worse wear in 2025 when Biden in 2024.

>But somehow congress thinks it's alright.

It's Republicans that think it's alright. Not "Congress". The Republicans just happen to control what happens in Congress - the Democrats are not complicit at all.

Trump can live as long as medically possible, which could be 10 or 20 more years, nobody really knows. Then Trump Jr. is going to take his place as the figurehead, and he'll probably win the next election if there is one. If Trump doesn't make it to the end of his term, we'll have President Vance and VP Miller, or maybe VP Trump Jr. It's not looking good no matter what happens.

It's so weirdb that someone would cite 401(k) performance as a valid reason for impeachment. I don't necessarily support recent Trump administration economic policies but that type of comment shows how disconnected most HN users are from regular US citizens.

Yep. And basically, as soon as that happens in US (which is a matter of when, not if, because Trump is for sure not going to let Dems win who will start prosecuting him and his cronies for all the blatantly illegal shit he has done), its time to leave the country.

Wouldn't now be the time to leave? A lot of people normally get stuck behind.

No, SCOTUS gave him de facto immunity for everything he does in office. He's either explicitly immune, presumptively immune, or not immune but only after numerous interlocutory appeals. And that's just his first layer of insulation from legal liability.

Immune from criminal prosecution, but if Dems actually had someone with balls in charge, they can go after a lot of his stuff like seizing funds, sanctioning businesses, and so on (cause in all likelyhood, they are funded by his crypto scams and insider trading)

Also note only the president is immune. Bondi can still be charged. Hegseth can still be held liable. Elon Musk wasn't even elected nor approved by anyone in office.

I do hope we have our version of a Numenburg trials one day, but I also wouldn't be surprised if all these people squirm under the cracks once their near octogenarian rallying point declines.

One question that they presume the answer to iiuc, is that they have a pardon waiting for them. - an inverted sword of Damocles hanging out waiting to save them. IMO, many probably do, but plenty who think they will be safe don't have the right profile and will only be offered one if they have enough money. Guliani offered them for.. 2 million I think last time? You'll have to check that.

Trump is pardoning people for buying Mar a Lago dinners. He certainly is going to pardon people he considers loyal.

  > Bondi can still be charged. Hegseth can still be held liable.

it will become harder of the house budget bill passes in the senate [0]

[0] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/05/27/trumps-budget-contemp...

And repealing the immunity. I think that's a pretty obvious path. It's not like "immunity" is set in stone forever.

You can't repeal immunity. The only paths here are a constitutional amendment or SCOTUS that overturns their previous decision. Both are nigh impossible before Trump croaks.

I read your above comment to be "Trump won't relinquish power because it will make him vulnerable to prosecution". If that was not your point then I misunderstood it. If it was, he is not vulnerable to prosecution nor is he liable civily for official acts.

You are right a lot of his actions can be (and have been) stopped via legal means. That's not so much democrats as individuals and groups with standing to bring suit. The dems can't really do much except fund the lawsuits which, again, don't threaten Trump in any way.

Autocrats don't believe in immunity -- they instated it, and they understand others can repeal it at any time later.

Case study -- Kazakhstan leader, Nazarbayev introduced all kinds of immunities before leaving. Didn't help later, all the titles and privileges got stripped. The only chance is to lose power and money and become harmless (and whole family as well), or get unreachable (keep the money).

PS: Autocrats like "small" wars, something that keeps people occupied and centralized. Not a large risky wars though, with unpredictable outcomes. "Small" is relative, e.g. for China a war with Taiwan very well might become "large", if India expresses an opinion on that. So they're reluctant to start it. For Russia, war with Ukraine anticipated to be "small", although grew up larger than expected.

So as I see it for Trump, a small war would be desirable, he envies Ukraine president, as they cannot conduct an election during war (and some territories occupied), that'd be nice for Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com