91 points

What the hell is the argument for immunity? Even if presidents can’t be charged for doing their job, stealing an election and walking away with nuclear secrets is not part of the job.

permalink
report
reply
70 points

What the hell is the argument for immunity?

It’s the well-established “throw shit at wall, hope it sticks” principle of legal argumentation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I started typing a joke comment about how the “term of art” was “kitchen sink defense,” but then I remembered that it actually is a bit of a term of art.

I trolled myself and am not sure how to feel about this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

The argument is that it’s hurting Trump’s feelings and that’s why he should be able to do whatever he wants without question.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

The argument is that it’s hurting Trump’s feelings it might keep him out of federal prison and that’s why he should be able to do whatever he wants without question.

Fixed the stakes for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The dumbass interpretation of “Separation of powers” means that the judiciary doesn’t have jurisdiction over any executive branch official, for anything, ever. Corollaries being that congress can’t pass laws that apply to judges, and the Department of Justice can’t investigate Congresspeople. Instead of checks-and-balances, they want independent kingdoms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I need you to be conscious of the fact that the people floating this argument know that it’s bullshit. They’d never accept the idea that Joe Biden can’t be bound by laws passed by Congress or rulings made by the judiciary, even though that’s exactly what they’re arguing. It’s just that the DoJ is saying “Trump broke the law and needs to be punished like anyone else would” and even the GOP doesn’t think they can convince us that the things we all watched happen on TV didn’t happen. They tried floating the idea that Jan 6 wasn’t actually an attempt to stop Joe Biden taking power and it didn’t stick. They tried saying that Trump didn’t incite it, but he clearly and obviously did right in front of us. Now they’re trying “okay, it happened and Trump incited it but it’s not illegal” but realistically they just need to be able to say something, even if they’re bullshitting, we know they’re bullshitting, and they know we know they’re bullshitting, because we can prove it to be false but there’s no way to prove that they don’t believe it. The card says “moops”, and that gives them enough cover to delay, obstruct, exhaust every avenue of appeal and generally keep the ball in the air as long as they can and hope for a miracle. The most likely miracle being that Trump wins the election, gets to be president and pardon himself of everything, thus rendering this all moot until his attempts to pardon himself get to the Supreme Court that he paid for. They will then rule that the Constitution doesn’t say he can’t declare himself above the law and the US will have a permanent one-party government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They’re also likely even just OK with keeping the ball up until after the primaries, when they can make a NEW argument about prosecuting a presidential candidate, about how it’s tantamount to creating a one-party state or something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

the argument is the fucking moron’s understanding of the president (that the president can do whatever whenever and no one can do anything about it). I had that same understanding of the president up until maybe the 2nd grade.

and that’s the point of how batshit bonkers this theory was. 77 year old trump was forcing his lawyers (because I cannot in good conscience believe that lawyers who have not committed sanctionable offenses actually believe this) to advance a theory about the office of the presidency that your average 10 year old could easily dismiss (just noting I wasn’t 10 in the 2nd grade but I was in the smart kid classes, so I’m giving average kids another 2 years).

the really over the top stupid side point of this argument is that the republican party is trying to impeach the current president for actions they say he made during(? after? do they even know?) the time he was vice president and none of them, the elected ones at least, are saying anything about trump which shows how ethereal at best that argument is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It was a somewhat successful delay tactic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The argument is that Trump gave all these judges some really cushy lifetime jobs, and he thought they would deliver some payback.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The tactic is to delay the inevitable in hopes that he can lead another, better coup attempt later, install himself as president for life and then pardon himself for all crimes, past and future

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
88 points
32 points
*

Excerpt:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

Well worth skimming the ruling if you ask me. And up vote parent comment for visibility please.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Also:

In relevant part, the district court rejected Trump’s claim of executive immunity from criminal prosecution, holding that “[f]ormer Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.” United States v. Trump, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Finally…

as the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Greatest works of poetry of all time:

  • William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’

  • T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’

  • Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’

  • Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’

  • US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s all well and good but he’s being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

And, as the ruling states, the president isn’t immune to all prosecution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

He’s being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn’t part of his official duties as President.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

So, you’re saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Thanks!

Who might analyze this at length, any YouTubers or podcasters? I’m thinking Leonard French or The Weeds…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Legal Eagle has been doing some good commentary videos on the slew of Trump legal stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle

https://nebula.tv/legaleagle

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ah nice, thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Interesting they used Nixon as precedent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
70 points

To think. A bunch of people who despised the king sat down and created the presidency as an act of defiance to monarch rule. You want us to believe that they intended the president to have powers only a king possesses. Get the fuck out.

permalink
report
reply
25 points
*

Careful, the “Original Intent” line of logic leads to Originalism and you could end up on SCOTUS!

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

The poor liberal judges on the court who have to show up to work knowing their contemporaries are corrupt sleaze bags.

There is nothing wrong with originalism as long as it is not selectively employed. If there is legislation that is behind the times it shouldn’t be the court deciding how the law should be written.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The problem with a lot of originalist shit is that the people talking about it just selectively apply it where they want. The supreme court will happily apply common law right up until you point out judges in it being tried for corruption. Then suddenly their wars turn off and judicial immunity has just existed forever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Originalism, at least, respects the idea of laws the government is not above.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

There was never a possibility it would rule any other way. Now we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.

permalink
report
reply
32 points
*

Now we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.

I believe he can request an en banc hearing (a hearing in front of all the circuit judges, as opposed to a three-judge panel), which he definitely will, because it will delay the proceedings further.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

The three judge panel anticipated that these arguments are primarily delay tactics. They have said in the decision they will stay their ruling only for an appeal accepted directly to the supreme court. If he appeals to the en banc panel first, then the trial can go ahead while that appeal plays out, so it can’t be used as a delay tactic. Only the Supreme Court can delay it further now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I assume that certain elements on the Supreme Court will attempt to delay it (Thomas, Alito, and probably Gorsuch, I’m looking at you). How much can they realistically delay the trial?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

He can request it, but the good thing about those is the appeals court can deny the request. He can appeal to the Supreme Court and they could either deny it or take it up to smack down the argument. If they side with his argument the country is over (along with all of the court’s own power) as they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.

And then Dark Brandon activates Seal Team Six for elephant hunting season.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Hopefully, the court will deny the request with prejudice. It’s such a goddamn dumb argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I didn’t share your faith in the outcome. But I’m glad they ruled as they should.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ah yes. History is inevitable.

Except that its not and they absolutely could have ruled some other way.

Nothing is guaranteed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Hey everybody! Guess what it’s time for?

I seriously need to save this image so I don’t have to download it each time.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Just remember to rename it so it’s easily searchable, especially on mobile. Otherwise you’ll end up with 20 copies of the same pic/gif

Source: me, and my many many hard drives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

But, then you’ll have saved that image. 🥹

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

What you say is rational and is something I should do. And yet…

(Actually, I just bookmarked it.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They mean if you’ve downloaded it, it’s already saved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That image shows up as a lemmy.world URL for me. Does Lemmy cache images somehow?

I would love to have Lemmy host a copy of a Biden “I Did That!” Sticker for every time we hear about the economy doing better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes, it caches them. I should probably just save that URL. I’m lazy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

LOL did you scrub the episode and get a new frame this time?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No, and oh ffs I just realized he’s not actually playing in this one.

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

  • 437K

    Comments