You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
114 points
*

Most of the analysis of the Justices’ arguments on Thursday that I’ve read suggests that complete immunity is highly unlikely. To his point about the trial getting delayed and Trump getting elected, that’s a real possibility.

permalink
report
reply
63 points

He can still become president with a criminal conviction. He just can’t vote in the election. Isn’t our system swell?

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn’t want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

This is what Putin conveniently does for any opposition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

How does that make sense if you’re not allowed to participate in the voting process as a felon? Or do you also think that felons should be eligible to vote?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah, however in this case Trump did all the felonies is on his own. Your argument is for a very specific set of circumstances, in which one party nominates a candidate for the primaries, who, then commits felony crimes before the general election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’m actually okay with that.

There are too many people with false convictions

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You’re ok with a man who has openly conspired with Russia to overthrow the US government being president?

Please tell me that’s not what you meant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

What system is better bro? I mean, what country the size of the United States is doing it the “right way?” India? China?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That is a false equivalence

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Idk, not taking away voting rights of citizens after they did their time?

Come on, it’s not that hard to think about what could be made better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

They won’t come down on the side of presidential immunity because it would basically be saying “Biden senpai please assassinate me uwu”

Just close your eyes and imagine Clarence Thomas saying this. He’s winking and throwing up a peace sign with one foot kicked up in the air. It makes no sense and he will never do this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They’ll decide against immunity, but after the election. If Biden wins, they won’t want him immune. If Trump wins, he won’t need immunity anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They’ll issue the opinion in mid-late June, maybe early July, when most SCOTUS decisions come out. The issue is that they will probably remand it to the lower courts for other decisions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-35 points

There has to be a middle ground…if charging Presidents for things they did while in office is going to be allowed, this will in no doubt open a can of worms. I can see Republicans going after Obama for things…

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I mean if he broke the law and there is enough evidence to get a conviction amongst a jury of his peers then, like, yeah, go for it. I don’t want any president or any citizen to be able to claim immunity just because they held political office for some period of time. Like if you can’t lead the country legally then don’t lead it? Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time or some platitude.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

It’s not just “what he did in office”.

HE TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE MOTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO CLING TO POWER. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GOD DAMNED HEAD.

I’m sorry, but I am so tired of this argument. He commit fucking treason. That is literally what happened. We are all pretending like it is some nebulous thing, and it isn’t. He is the textbook definition of a fucking traitor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yup, and there are a hundred accomplices still in office.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

The Supreme Court will define “treason” by what the constitution says, and Trump does not fall into this category:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

So, unless you:

a.) Recruit and assemble a militia and use it to actively engage in insurrection or

b.) provide aid to a foreign power with whom we are actively in a declared war

He did not recruit all those Trumpsters, they did that stupid shit on their own. He didn’t help the cause, but he did not actively recruit them to attack the government.

My point is that the LEFT is throwing that word around way too much…without really knowing how it’s defined.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Ok Alito

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I can see Republicans going after Obama for things…

Please list these “things” and the laws they are in violation of.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 438K

    Comments