He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.

Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.

“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    They didn’t jail Nixon or that shitbag kissenger for the same shit, doubt anything will be done about this. Hell, both of those asshats got to live out their years rubbing elbows and “advising” the political elite of both parties.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What’s he got what, 34 federal crime convictions?

      He’s still running around and the media is still treating him like some random dude running for president, oh look what crazy don said seven times today!

      Shits ridiculous

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, a random dude would have been in prison years ago for doing a fraction of the shit this man has done.

        Low level bureaucrats working in municipal government are subject to much stricter ethics rules. It’s absurd.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        34 felony convictions for fraudulently interfering in the 2016 election that made him President.

        You know, the guy who accuses others of stealing elections from him — and getting people killed over it btw — after he already committed fraud to help win an election.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If anybody deserves to be locked up for being a clear and present danger to society, it’s this guy. At the very least, he should be forbidden from using a phone, then locked up when he eventually breaks that rule because he thinks that none of the rules apply to him. The way he’s treated, the government is basically encouraging that.

  • Juigi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump could punt a baby across a field and nothing would happen.

  • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Throwback to Reagan’s team intentionally sabotaging negotiations for the Iran hostage crisis, so it would make Jimmy Carter look bad right before the election.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The Logan Act was passed in 1799. A grand total of two people were charged with violating it, and none were convicted.

    Those fun facts are never going to change. Prosecutors should find something else to charge Trump with, it won’t be hard.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The trouble with prosecuting Trump under the Logan Act is that, technically, the ceasefire would not be an agreement between the US and a foreign government. It would be an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Here’s the text of the act:

      Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      Now, I would argue that brokering a ceasefire counts as “measures of the United States,” but it’s not a slam dunk legal argument. Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        or to defeat the measures of the United States

        My first thought is that the US is trying to broker a cease fire, so that should definitely count as a measure of the US.

        The founding fathers weren’t ignorant of international affairs and that countries do things that are not in relation to their own country. So that last clause seems to specifically address those other things not directly to do with the US.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.

        While judicial corruption is a real risk, this sort of assumed helplessness just lets them implement it without actually doing the corruption and putting their credibility on the line. And it could be applied to literally anything. Once you assume the Court will always act corruptly, it doesn’t matter whether a legal question exists, they’ll do it anyway.

        He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law. They can die in the Supreme Court and be added to the list of reasons for why extreme reforms are necessary.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        One reason that it’s never used is that a lot of lawyers suspect banning negotiation with anyone, even a foreign power, violates the First Amendment.

        And if it’s used against the Trump then the SCOTUS will surely agree.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think the last Republican presidential candidate to sabotage peace talks to help his own campaign was Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War, so Trump is just continuing their tradition of killing innocents for personal gain.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    How about the media stop using caveats like “may have” when shit is entirely 100% clear.

    There are laws on the books regarding things like this. There is no may have. It’s cut and fucking dried.

    • pingveno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      There is the Logan Act, but he likely would not be prosecuted under it, let alone convicted. From Wikipedia:

      Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act, one in 1802 and the other in 1852. Neither was convicted.

      The Logan Act gets talked about much more than it has ever been used. There’s also a debate as to whether the Logan Act is even unconstitutional.

        • pingveno@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yup, that’s the point. The journalist who wrote OP’s article should know better. The Logan Act is functionally dead. As much as I hate Trump, it would be a bad thing if he was prosecuted under it because it would clearly be a case of selective prosecution.

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s only libel if it’s not true. If he threatens to sue, grow some balls, call his bluff and make him prove it’s not true in court.

        Threatening to sue, effectively forcing the media to back down because it would too inconvenient to deal with a suit is how Trump keeps getting away with his bullshit.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They really can’t say “has” because it’s possible he wins the case in court. It should be something like “seems to have” though. “May have” means there’d a chance. It should be something that means “it is likely.”

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sorry, but no.

        The presumption of innocence doesn’t work that way. It’s a legal fiction imposed upon the courts and justice system as a means of (poorly) protecting the civil rights and liberties of those who are accused.

        On that, it’s a very important “fiction”- don’t get me wrong.

        What it does not do, however, is change historical reality. If Jackass murders a homeless woman, Jackass is a murderer- even if that woman’s murder was never properly investigated, and he was never suspected/indicted/arraigned/convicted for murder.

        One’s guilt at having committed a crime does not, in fact, change based on the outcome of a trial. After all the officers of the court, and the jury, are all human and prone to errors. They get it wrong. Sometimes that means guilty people go free, and sometimes that means innocent people are convicted.

        But the truth of that guilt is established when one commits a crime.

        So I’ll say it: Trump is a mass murderer.

        As president, he had a legal, moral and ethical obligation to act to protect Americans from harm during moments of crisis

        This includes from things like COVID. He had a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to voice sound medical guidance like “hey folks, I know it’s tough and it looks a little silly, but we need you to stay home if you can, and if you can’t, wear a mask. A real mask.”

        He failed us in that moment of crisis and as a direct consequence of his rampant bullshit; millions of Americans needlessly died.

  • rainynight65@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wouldn’t be the first time he has ‘crossed legal lines’.

    However, wouldn’t it be great if it was the last time?

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just wait and see: all it takes is for a judge to tell him not to do it - ten consecutive times, THEN threaten with actual consequences, and THEN you may or may not see him become more circumspect about his transgressions in order to skirt the legal line a tiny bit less obviously!

      After all: everyone is equal before the law!*

      *Unless you bought the highest judges and make them declare you an absolute ruler immune to criminal law.

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha, who escaped the besieged country in December, reported on Monday that the humanitarian area in south Gaza is little more than 14 square miles.

    “Crammed in it are more than 1.8 million people, with no water, no electricity, no food, no clinics or pharmacies, and no shelters,”

    How’s that work? Oh right is an obvious false statement.