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.
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
444 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2592 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What the hell is the argument for immunity?
It's the well-established "throw shit at wall, hope it sticks" principle of legal argumentation.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
It was a somewhat successful delay tactic.
The argument is that Trump gave all these judges some really cushy lifetime jobs, and he thought they would deliver some payback.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
Careful, the "Original Intent" line of logic leads to Originalism and you could end up on SCOTUS!
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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?
IIRC it takes 4 of them to agree to take up a case. If they did they could decide to fast track it which who knows how much that would delay the trial. Weeks or a couple months.
If they tried to put it on their regular schedule who knows when you'd even have a ruling as the court typically goes into recess at the end of June and doesn't come back until October.
if 4 of them decide to take the appeal, I suspect the other 5 would make it an expedited schedule to not delay the trial even more.
also keep in mind, this thursday scotus is hearing the colorado 14th amendment case and the deadline for this appeal is monday. I really don't think scotus is going to destroy the little credibility they have with the 14th amendment case and then completely end their relevance by taking this appeal since the only logical reason they would take the appeal would be to overturn the decision.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.
And then Dark Brandon activates Seal Team Six for elephant hunting season.
Hopefully, the court will deny the request with prejudice. It's such a goddamn dumb argument.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
But, then you'll have saved that image. 🥹
What you say is rational and is something I should do. And yet...
(Actually, I just bookmarked it.)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
We don't really need a bunch of posts about this on the front page.
Keeping this one because it has the most comments and upvotes, locking the others and directing them here.
I appreciate your work keeping this clean for us
load more comments
(2 replies)
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that Donald Trump does not enjoy broad immunity from federal prosecution, a major legal setback for the former president who almost certainly will appeal.
The ruling comes a month after lawyers for Trump argued made sweeping claims that he enjoyed immunity from federal prosecution, claims that lawyers for the special counsel said would "undermine democracy" and give presidents license to commit crimes while in the White House, such as accepting bribes for directing government contracts or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.
That's quite a beating, President Drink Bleach was administered. The article is with the read. The judges gave excellent examples of why presidents shouldn't, you know, be criminals.
He'll appeal as much as he can. But I cannot see him succeeding beyond delaying.
Delay is success.
TIL that I am as smart as a Federal Judge.
No this case was just that dumb.
load more comments
(1 replies)
One step closer to putting dick cheney in jail for WMD hoax
Rumsfeld was on TV spreading thowe lies, and it was obvious he knew they were lies. He should be the first. But W, there's the fucker who drove the country into that shit show; even before Cheney, Bush Jr. should be in prison for the unwarrented deaths of US soldiers.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Likely prosecution roadmap. Trump is going to die in Federal custody.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Circuit has ruled that Donald Trump does not enjoy broad immunity from federal prosecution, a major legal setback for the former president who almost certainly will appeal.
The ruling comes a month after lawyers for Trump argued made sweeping claims that he enjoyed immunity from federal prosecution, claims that lawyers for the special counsel said would "undermine democracy" and give presidents license to commit crimes while in the White House, such as accepting bribes for directing government contracts or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.
Circuit judges, Florence Pan, pressed Trump attorney D. John Sauer at the oral argument about whether a president might sell pardons or nuclear secrets, or even order a Navy SEAL team to kill a political opponent, and still evade criminal prosecution under his theory of the case.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to four felony counts that accuse him of leading a conspiracy to cling to power and disenfranchise millions of voters in 2020.
Prosecutors say that this culminated in violence at the U.S. Capitol three years ago that injured 140 law enforcement officers and shook the foundations of American democracy.
The former president has signaled that he could seek to dismiss the federal cases against him in the District of Columbia and Florida if he regains the White House.
The original article contains 369 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›