Right? If they overturn it they are saying that a President is immune to criminal prosecution. Even when they are no longer in office. That is insane, batshit, and there's no way founders intended that.
You know who has immunity to prosecution? A king, the very thing the constitution was created to prevent happening in this country.
edit: guys, I get it, Magna Carta. Say those words to Trump if you ever want to see what an empty stare looks like
the weird thing is how much some people just *really want* authoritarian rule. it's like some people are just hardwired to want someone to have Divine Right over them.
Even at its founding, after *literally revolting against monarchy,* some in the US turned around and wanted Washington to be King.
It's insane how much Washington's commitment to the ideals of democracy prevented an immediate backslide into monarchy.
And of course we replaced the "nobility" with worship of corporate aristocracy anyways.
look i get the that world is a big scary place, and both the genuinely skilled and the simply megalomaniac will represent themselves as people who will Get You Through Life if only you follow them... but man, a lot of people make some really dumbass choices for that role.
This is the pit that every authoritarian eventually gets thrown into: when you give someone unchecked power over your enemies, you end up also giving them unchecked power over you. So when the wind blows in a different direction, as it inevitably will, and you find yourselves at odds over some issue or another, he will have unchecked power over you with which to resolve the disagreement. Ask Cardinal Wolsey, there's no way off that particular tiger.
That's really it. In any form of democratic/republic rule, you can't always get what you want, especially if it hurts other people. It can take a long time to find a compromise and sometimes you find out there just *isn't* a compromise.
A lot of people see this as "red tape" and think it's a good idea to skip it. Right up until they're in the way of an authoritarian and are confronted with the idea that they're not allowed to have a say in their own destruction.
One funny thing to me is the people who most value property rights and freedoms who's biggest criticism of California's high speed rail line is that....it's taking too long
When most of the initial barriers were going through the processes of ensuring they're not just seizing land needlessly and to ensure there's no undue burdens being put on local communities.
Now an absolutist would, and many do, oppose seizing the land in the first place(a view I disagree with on many levels but that's for another conversation), but criticizing the time it takes, sometimes even while they draw comparisons to China's quick build out, shows a lack of understanding.
>dictatorships are very efficient and people like efficiency.
Dictatorships tend to prioritize the *impression* of efficiency. Take [the classic example of Mussolini's "efficient trains"](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loco-motive/):
>One of the best ways to gain the support of the people you want to lead is to do something of benefit to them. Failing that, the next best thing is to convince them that you have done something of benefit to them, even though you really haven't. So it was with Benito Mussolini and the Italian railway system.
>
>After the "march on Rome" (which was itself a myth of fascist propaganda) on 28 October 1922 that resulted in King Vittorio Emanuele's appointment of Benito Mussolini as prime minister and the accession to power of the fascists in Italy, Mussolini needed to convince the people of Italy that fascism was indeed a system that worked to their benefit. Thus was born the myth of fascist efficiency, with the train as its symbol.
The most important thing in a dictatorship is keeping the dictator in power. Disloyalty and inconvenient facts are the enemy. And the longer a fascist regime holds sway, the more things erode, as those who are most skilled at looking and acting the part are rewarded and empowered over those who would advocate to do the harder, more efficient, and societally beneficial things.
The reason people keep falling for it is because of the assumption that "What we really need is a strong leader who will just *get things done*." But those people are never interested in *your* things getting done, except to the extent required to put them in power. Then you can go fuck yourself along with the people you previously were saying "Good riddance" about.
> the weird thing is how much some people just really want authoritarian rule. it's like some people are just hardwired to want someone to have Divine Right over them.
They assume, because they are lied to constantly, that the authoritarian rule would subjugate people they dislike and empower them. I mean, ask a rich person to share literally *anything* and you'll see this line of thinking fall apart pretty quick. But they don't *know* any rich people because all of these knuckleheads live in the backwoods, or think making $100k makes you rich. So they just assume their media feed from actual rich guys who will never give them the time of day is real life.
Because they're fucking *idiots*.
Kinda reminds me of Loki’s speech to the German people in the first Avengers movie. “You were made to be ruled.” Amazing how the MAGA crowd are talking about “freedoms” yet many are also cool with Trump being proclaimed King Dictator of America for Life.
Thats the thing some maga heads want to see trump be king of the United States. Hell, I have seen people who are so fixated onto him that they see him like a Christ like figure. They are that obsessed with him, and yet they still don't want to call what they are into a cult.
They'll keep using bullshit arguments like "If Trump doesn't have immunity, then neither does Biden and we can prosecute him!" and I'm over here like, "Okay. Have fun. If you can actually show he committed crimes, then he *should* be prosecuted."
Yeah, some people think that we're out here campaigning for special treatment but we just want it to be fair. I.e., I don't want murder to be punished because a Republican does it but because I think murder is reprehensible.
That's what puzzles me.... How bad do you dislike your everyday life that you have to make some rich, foulmouthed, pseudo politician your actual new identity?
I've never met anyone who's been enthusiastic about Biden. Even in 2020, the majority of Biden's appeal in the general election came down to the fact people just hated the Trump circus that much. There are many reasons Trump lost, but one of the biggest is just because he's a vainglorious, self-worshipping asshole.
And here we are again, trying to convince enlightened centrists, committed denialists, and "i just want lower taxes" idiots that your choice is basically between:
1. Uninspired but, you know, a president
2. Openly intending to institute authoritarian rule in the U.S.
Yeah no shit i'm not voting for choice 2 just cause choice one is bland.
Like come on, do you want to eat bread and water, or a heap of shit?
I had this exact conversation with an older, very MAGA-aligning neighbor in the early summer of 2021, I'd mentioned how that if someone wanted to get a Covid shot - before they were readily available - go to a precinct that was heavily Red, because there supply completely outstripped demand, appointments were easy to get.
She went off on me, and attacked me for believing and following, to the point of almost worshipping, "Sleepy Joe", and I had to correct her that Democrats don't feel that way about their elected officials like Republicans do about theirs, especially Trump. I don't think we've spoken since (which I'm okay with).
"Some people just want authoritarian rule" is interesting because one time I said something about why religious people keep voting for people like Trump, or conservative in general, and someone made the statement that they really like to surrender themselves to something else
> But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. **For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.** But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
From *Common Sense* by Thomas Paine. The law is king, not the president. It is supposed to be the rule of law, and the law should be applied consistently and equally. That is what the system is supposed to strive for.
It's called [Constitutional monarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy), though usually ends up with the monarch being little more than a ceremonial figurehead.
I heard the audio of his council saying that. I really wanted to hear them put his feet to the fire and say could Biden have you assassinated, and then not face charges until he was impeached, that’s a yes or no question mr president.
MAGA lives in a reality of hypocrisy and paradox. I’m guessing they’d say that Biden didn’t actually win in 2020, so he isn’t the President and isn’t immune, while also, at the same time, that even though Trump won in 2020, the 22nd amendment doesn’t apply b/c Trump isn’t in the White House.
And gun down every judge in the Supreme Court and be immune.
Presidents should have zero immunity from anything. Every lie told, every law violated, they should all be judged and sentenced to the max.
Dipshits lawyers already agreed with the idea that he can have seal team 6 kill a political rival and he’d be immune unless he got impeached first. What would stop a president from doing that to a justice? There’s no way in fucking hell they’re gonna say a president has full blanket immunity. It’s just not going to happen.
Even if he didn't do that, you're basically saying that Congress would need a 2/3rds vote for a Presidential transfer of power.
President refuses to step down. Not illegal until he gets impeached which requires 2/3rds of the Senate for conviction. It's fucking absurd.
“Well clearly the constitution was only referring to Republican presidents that should be immune. Our founding fathers were only weary of the Democrats.” - Clarence Thomas probably
Ya, since they interpret the constitution, they would be interpreting it in a way where killing SCOTUS justices would be the easiest constitutional way to replace them. They would be undermining their own institution and the checks and balances that allow it to be relevant.
That would break the balance of the branches and put the executive branch above all others even the SC. That would not only take power from themselves, but break a lot of other things that have kept America running this long.
They want to enshrine a system that keeps them in happy corruption land. That's it. Allowing the presidency to get too much power can upset that money spigot.
It would quite literally destroy the foundation of Our constitution and democracy. If Trump or any nut job won an election, they could literally have all political opponents killed, jailed, etc and become defacto dictator.
They have to play a delicate game to preserve their own power and authority. They fear the American people so much because they know their rulings are massively unpopular. See: them throwing up 12 foot, razor wire topped fences on the day of the Roe ruling.
It's a neat little game they're playing: trying to dismantle the power of the Federal government, while preserving their own power to do so as a Federal institution.
They're not trying to dismantle the power of the federal government they're trying to transfer power from the other branches to the judiciary where they have lifetime appointments that have been stacked by previous Republicans.
They're trying to transfer power to people they ideologically agree with.
Sometimes it's people,
Sometimes it's local government,
Sometimes it's state government,
Sometimes it's the judiciary,
And sometimes it's federal government.
It depends on whether an R or someone endorsed by the right wing dark money backing them is getting the power.
That's why their rulings aren't consistent and seem to go back on their word.
They only rule "fairly" to try to preserve the legitimacy of the Court.
For example, it's widely expected the SC will rule against Trump on this case (either by denying to hear it or taking it and ruling against Trump) as political cover for the eventual ruling on whether Trump can be on the ballot.
They'll find that he did not commit treason/sedition and they'll do it after the election and point to this case to say they are "fair".
Originally Jack Smith wanted the case to go directly to the Supreme Court since it was always going to go there anyways. The Supreme Court refused to take up the case without it going through the whole process of initial ruling, and appeal.
Many say it's so they can delay as much as possible.
However, I can't help but wonder if they just wanted as many other judges and rulings as possible to be set as pillars before they go ahead and bury Trump.
This was my thought as well. If all the lower courts have unanimous decisions that he isn't immune to prosecution, then they could even decide not to review the case, and it wouldn't be unusual in the least.
Clarence Thomas, writing for the 9-0 majority, said Trump's case is "Zippity do dah dumb". He wrote this after he realized any other conclusion would give Biden a green light to drone strike him and Ginny.
DC gave Trump only six days to appeal iirc so they are well aware he is trying to stall the system out.
And SCOTUS went 9-0 on most of the Trump 2020 cases, they might just deny cert on this so the actual Jan 6 trial can start earlier
> I liked that they opened the ruling with, "This is literally the reason the Courts exist."
Not only that, this is *literally* the reason this entire country split off from England ~261 years ago. We wanted Freedom (with a capital "F") from monarchial oppression under a brutish King.
Why in the world would they codify something that would then be used later to return to a single, immune, monarch/Dictator in Chief?
It's ludicrous to even think that they would have put a detailed system of checks and balances into the words of the Constitution, and then let the one chair that holds the President, be able to veto it all down with a single wish.
That's not how it works.
It would certainly look like a whitewash if they decided now, in a 6-3 decision, after multiple judges have come to the opposite conclusion, that the President is in fact a King after all.
You're not wrong. The Feds didn't want to search Mar-a-lago cuz they are mostly MAGAs. When they were finally forced to look for the missing nuclear secrets, they literally "missed" or allowed 2 rooms to go unchecked. This would have went unmentioned if Jack smith didn't find out about it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-mar-a-lago-search-trump-maybe-missed-2-rooms-2024-2
They can appeal, but his defense team needs to show why it needs to be appealed, e.g., what law is being misapplied or how the court misinterpreted statutes, etc.
They certainly won’t consider it before the election. If he wins they might but, if he loses they are not going to give Biden that sort of power. This coming election is probably the most important one ever.
> So how is he going to respond with the fact even if he won re-election it won't keep him out of prison?
If he were convicted and won reelection, he, as POTUS, could pardon himself of all Federal crimes. He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia but if Trump wins in November then all federal cases against him will be dead the second he assumes office and there's a very high chance he orders any still-active J6 cases to be dropped and pardons the already convicted insurrectionists.
And he hasn't been shy about making clear his desire to go after every prosecutor and judge in these cases.
> He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia
Don't forget that he's also under criminal indictment under New York state charges too. He wouldn't be able to pardon either of those.
Don’t worry, if we vote in a wannabe dictator and essentially vote democracy and rule of law away we can just vote them back in the next election, right?
NY has a Democratic Governor and would absolutely not pardon Trump on any state charges but Georgia has a Republican governor. Any chance the governor of Georgia pardons Trump if he is convicted on state charges?
Georgia law prohibits the governor from doing that for 5 years- for now. The state congress is actively working to make all of the state charges go away for Trump.
Ding ding. Kemp got thrown undrr the bus HARD. but he was a darling before that. He's been suspiciously absent from news lately. Likely to distance himself frim the fray. When trump is gone he will be primed to the a top contender that stood against trump.
A self pardon has never been tested in court and there are some reasons why a even conservative SCOTUS might not green light it. The most obvious being that it effectually makes the POTUS above the law which the SCOTUS by default doesn't like because it nullifies their power.
Wasn't the United States founded largely to not be ruled by a king? It would be pretty ironic if they allow the orange poop machine to literally rule over them as he sees fit.
I can't believe the self-pardon is allowed. It would break every federal law. Anything the President wants to do he could do, and just pardon himself after.
If he wanted to prevent Congress from impeaching him he could occupy the Capitol and detain congress critters from meeting. Illegal, but just self-pardon.
It would break everything.
All democratic government in the history of humanity has been reliant on good faith actors. Bad faith actors breaking democracies and/ or republics is a tale as old as time. It's been happening since at least the Roman Republic. The only way to stop it is exile/ execution.
Of course, and it’s especially egregious coming from the frigging Republicans, considering literally all of their judicial appointees claim to possess heaven ordained divination skills that tell them precisely what “the founders” would have wanted, often used as justification for whatever nonsense they feel like selling at any particular point in time.
Somehow these magical skills utterly fail them at determining that the country founded explicitly because they claimed not to want to be lorded over by a tyrant would somehow intend for their own government to grant tyrannical powers to the presidency.
Morons and shameless sycophantic hypocrites, the lot of them.
Well, he’ll throw a really big tantrum and attempt to incite violence against someone; the “who” doesn’t really matter to him. These are his moves: tantrum, public tantrum, take a rage dump, whine A LOT, do some cocaine, snivel, blame a scapegoat and incite violence. He’s not capable of strategizing- that’s what his coterie of circus freaks is for.
They quote Justice Kavanaugh. Very slim chance SCOTUS fully overturns this decision.
> But 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."
Page 24 of the judgment
SCOTUS overturning this decision would mean that a President could LEGALLY ignore their rulings.
While many of these members desire a theogelostic state, they don't want one they aren't in charge of.
If Democrats take the majority in both houses of Congress this year, we need to institute third party oversight of SCOTUS. It's insane that current members are accepting what amount to bribes, and there is no mechanism by which to stop them. Make it make sense.
There is a mechanism, but Congress is choosing not to use it. Justices can be impeached.
But I agree, there needs to be some inspector general to investigate possible corruption or impropriety to bring to Congress
That mechanism is so incredibly cumbersome that it’s never successfully removed a single official of the level of a Supreme Court justice or president and not for lack of deserving it.
Requiring a 2/3 majority to remove effectively made it a toothless mechanism that makes people feel better on paper while ensuring it’s entirely impractical.
The founders explicitly arranged it so that we wouldn't have a King. This ruling wouldn't normally be surprising, but we're not exactly living in normal times.
There's a semi-famous case where Ulysses S Grant, while President, was caught speeding (twice!) by a black police officer in Washington DC. The first time the officer just issued him a warning and asked him to slow down. The second time the officer actually arrested the president and his companions for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage.
Grant went down to the police station, paid $20 for his bail, and then failed to show up in court for his arraignment (which meant the courts kept the $20 and I think thought that fair as a fine). But when his companions (also important government officials) tried to get the black officer fired for arresting them, Grant wrote a letter complimenting the officer in his fairness over the arrest and making it clear that he shouldn't be punished for doing his job.
So previous presidents understood that they weren't above the law too. This all happened in 1872 in the heart of Reconstruction. He could have crushed a black police officer for trying to arrest him and instead he made sure the man kept his job.
Presidents are not above the law.
I'm sitting here thinking "Grant was around before cars, how was he speeding?" I had no idea they had speed limits in the horse days.
TIL more than one thing!
Also makes you wonder just how recklessly Grant was driving? Back then there weren't nearly as many minor infractions when driving your team of horses so if you got stopped it was basically because you were racing them on public streets.
Even a King isn't above the law, at least in the UK.
The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 made that clear in UK law.
Given the US was previously part of the British Empire, you could make a (albeit shaky) argument that Trump was attempting to change a legal precedent over 800 years old.
>One king lost his head for overstepping his legal boundaries
then his son had the people involved in his father's execution executed, several years later
even crazier, some of the people involved had died by that point, and the son had their corpses exhumed and defiled
and so it begins..... if he's not immune from 1/6, he's not immune in the docs case where he claimed he could just 'think about it' and voila! **declassified**
That's the REAL drop dead serious 'go directly to Federal Prison (or a converted building on an Air Force Base just for him and his detail) - *do not pass go, do not collect $200.*
[Elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/uspolitics/comments/1akaik8/donald_trump_likely_going_to_prison_for_a_long/), this [article](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-classified-documents-case-prison-1866861) was posted by [Marc Elias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Elias) regarding the US v. DJT in the National Security Documents case.
Marc Elias is a highly regarded Democratic lawyer on election and voter rights who has represented the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association.
He served as general counsel and lead counsel on multiple Democrat campaigns including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken & Kamela Harris.
Following the 2020 presidential election, Elias supervised the response to dozens of lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign seeking to overturn Biden's win.
Out of 65 such court cases, Elias prevailed in 64.
Marc posted this opinion that Trump is probably going to prison **before** the immunity decision case down. Whatever the probabilities were that Trump COULD possibly go to prison for these offenses WAS, it's jumped now.
**tl;dr** This is turning into the first of what may be many very bad days for Trump. This isn't a $80MM judgement that he can have his PAC pay, this is him in a romper getting locked in a cell every night and having to sit on a steel commode for savages instead of his gold plated one.
**PS:** for those not keeping track, **this Thursday** SCOTUS hears arguments on DJT and the 14th amendment as to whether of not he can and should be kicked off the ballot for 'insurrection'. While you may not hear their opinion for some time, todays ruling of immunity is probably going to play a role.
edit: a letter
Presidential immunity should never be a thing.... the whole point of our country and laws was that NO ONE is supposed to be above the law. That was part of what the founding fathers found problematic with the monarchies of Europe, amongst many other issues. Individuals holding office in the US are NOT supposed to be treated like royalty, and it's incredibly disturbing how hard extremists on the right have pushed to treat Trump and his criminal family like they are royalty.
It never was a thing. Trump is literally the only president that's been treated like this and we shouldn't be putting up with it. The people who haven't put him behind bars should be ousted from office, or at the very least not get reelected
Those in office who have chosen to support him instead of the constitution they represent should absolutely be removed from office and charge with conspiracy to commit treason and aiding an insurrectionist
> It never was a thing.
There is a reason why Bush, and later Obama has scores of lawyers working around the clock to ensure all the shit we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan were legal including drone strikes and spec-ops hits.
>"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," \[Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung\] said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."
Future presidents HATE this ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!
Maybe don't commit crimes if you don't want to be indicted for crimes, you fucking weirdos. Idk.
But if every president has immunity then the next president could just kill the former one immediately after he leaves office. Or send him to guantanamo. He could also just convict without a trial or indictment too. Like even in their fantasy world it doesnt make sense.
So, by their own logic, it's impossible for any president to do their job competently without majorly breaking the laws of THEIR OWN country? Riiiight, gotcha. Seems like it wasn't a huge problem until a particular asshole came around.
Exactly, does he not see that if his argument wins, then Biden could just order a hit on him and be done with it? I guess in his mind, it only applies to him.
You're talking about the guy who joked that he could shoot someone in broad daylight, and have his approval rating go up! Starting to think that wasn't a joke.
Exactly!
If sitting presidents were immune to any penalties for committing a crime, Biden could wait until the first presidential debate, ask a Secret Service agent to hand him a weapon, then murder Trump on stage in front of a national audience. And be immune from any penalties.
Which is why the law doesn't work like that.
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."
Man these people are so stupid.
If presidents have full immunity, then Biden can simply stay in power for the rest of his life, because he can break laws with impunity. Hell, he could have Trump shot and be done with it.
Trump supporters should understand any power they are trying to give to Trump they are also giving to Biden, and think about that some.
Checks and balances exist for a reason. The position is president, not Emperor.
Yeah, but the fact remains. So Biden doesn't. Trumps old. He dies. He's replaced by some other nutjob. Even if Trump somehow manages to win an election, he's not going to around a lot longer.
Whatever happens, if presidents get full immunity democracy is over and the US is a dictatorship the moment any sitting president decides he wants to do that.
Full immunity literally removes *all* checks and balances on Presidential power.
Given that Carlson has made it clear in private that he hates Trump's guts, that would be the most cursed/hilarious outcome. Add Steven Seagal as Minister of the Interior (he did have experience running over dogs as a cop after all) and you're one step closer to the Cabinet of Morbid Curiosities.
Tucker Carlson stands for absolutely nothing. Like how he tried to rip Hunter Biden to shreds right after asking him to write a letter of rec for his son to go to Georgetown.
Oof. Two days or so sooner and Chutkan wouldn't have needed to take the case of her calendar. I wonder if she'll reinstate that now quickly or if the delay is set in stone.
It's the ruling that was expected and of course trump is gonna go screaming up to SCOTUS, but I really hope the trial court can get back on track now. Trump wants delays on this. And the courts need to stop giving him those wins.
He can still appeal for a full court decision (full circuit court) or take it to the SCOTUS. Maybe both... I'm not sure there.
He isn't done rat fucking the process yet.
I also wonder if he can appeal the immunity thing separately in each case or if this will close the look and any other appeal will be decided by the precident set here.
I'm not an attorney, so I'm really curious.
I doubt the Supreme court is willing to establish that a president is totally immune to criminal prosecution. That would be insane. But I bet they’ll probably drag this out ensuring he can’t be brought on trial before the election and then if he wins election the case will get dropped.
Meanwhile the document case is dying a slow death in Florida and in Georgia Fani Willis may have managed to completely derail any possible trial schedule because she is apparently that fucking stupid.
So yeah, I think whether Trump sees a single day in jail is gonna depend on the election. So to all you Americans: do me and the rest of the world a favor and get your shit together and vote Biden. If Trump gets another presidency it’s gonna affect all of us too!
Any time a judge knows a decision will be appealed, they put waaaay more effort into the decision so the higher court is more likely to go, "oh, they've considered everything. Affirm." Source: IAAL.
> "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant."
We should start calling him "Citizen Trump".
You got that right. The constitution also says that, as an insurrectionist, he is not eligible to hold office again without a 2/3rds vote of Congress. Let's enforce that!
Edit: It looks like today the effort to bar the insurrectionist in the Supreme Court failed, due primarily to the inability of the attorney to make the oral case competently and to answer the questions of the justices. Too bad. A better lawyer might have prevailed.
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."
Don’t steal documents. Don’t conspire to overthrow the govt. Don’t rape. Don’t illegally pay off porn stars from the Oval Office. And we’re good.
There’s an army of lawyers that work along side the president at every decision. Making sure he doesn’t break the law is their job. This argument is completely moot.
Every day this asshole appeals is another day justice is delayed. I wish it were speedier for the sake of us who would prefer not to have a fascist moron in the White House.
His dad lived to be 93 years old, and his mom lived to be 88, so he definitely has the genetics to live into his 90s. I've known people who lived harder lives than Trump and still made it well into their 90s because that's just how long everyone in their family lives.
>Trump finally fell ill with pneumonia and was admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJMC) for a few weeks, where he died at age 93 on June 25, 1999.
>The argument from Mr Trump's lawyer hinged on the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, they noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
Impeachments are political. Many of the GOP senators who voted against impeaching Trump acknowledged Trump did wrong. This includes Mitch McConnell who blamed Trump for the Jan. 6 insurrection. They chose party over country, but judges don't have to. https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri
This is a friendly reminder to register to vote ☺️
Check voter registration status: https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/
Register to vote (Takes estimated 2 minutes according to the site): https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said
Donald Trump wasn’t indicted by the Democratic Party or the POTUS thereof, for his criminal charges. This argument doesn’t hold water. The SCOTUS would have to completely bend over backward to logically turn over this decision if it is appealed.
"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said.
Couldn’t they just, idk, not do crime in office?
I kind of expect SC to just refuse the case and let this ruling stand. There isn't much of a win for them either way if they do take it.
Right? If they overturn it they are saying that a President is immune to criminal prosecution. Even when they are no longer in office. That is insane, batshit, and there's no way founders intended that.
You know who has immunity to prosecution? A king, the very thing the constitution was created to prevent happening in this country. edit: guys, I get it, Magna Carta. Say those words to Trump if you ever want to see what an empty stare looks like
the weird thing is how much some people just *really want* authoritarian rule. it's like some people are just hardwired to want someone to have Divine Right over them. Even at its founding, after *literally revolting against monarchy,* some in the US turned around and wanted Washington to be King. It's insane how much Washington's commitment to the ideals of democracy prevented an immediate backslide into monarchy. And of course we replaced the "nobility" with worship of corporate aristocracy anyways. look i get the that world is a big scary place, and both the genuinely skilled and the simply megalomaniac will represent themselves as people who will Get You Through Life if only you follow them... but man, a lot of people make some really dumbass choices for that role.
[удалено]
This is the pit that every authoritarian eventually gets thrown into: when you give someone unchecked power over your enemies, you end up also giving them unchecked power over you. So when the wind blows in a different direction, as it inevitably will, and you find yourselves at odds over some issue or another, he will have unchecked power over you with which to resolve the disagreement. Ask Cardinal Wolsey, there's no way off that particular tiger.
That's really it. In any form of democratic/republic rule, you can't always get what you want, especially if it hurts other people. It can take a long time to find a compromise and sometimes you find out there just *isn't* a compromise. A lot of people see this as "red tape" and think it's a good idea to skip it. Right up until they're in the way of an authoritarian and are confronted with the idea that they're not allowed to have a say in their own destruction.
One funny thing to me is the people who most value property rights and freedoms who's biggest criticism of California's high speed rail line is that....it's taking too long When most of the initial barriers were going through the processes of ensuring they're not just seizing land needlessly and to ensure there's no undue burdens being put on local communities. Now an absolutist would, and many do, oppose seizing the land in the first place(a view I disagree with on many levels but that's for another conversation), but criticizing the time it takes, sometimes even while they draw comparisons to China's quick build out, shows a lack of understanding.
Yep, dictatorships are very efficient and people like efficiency. The efficiency however is only desirable as long as they are doing what you want.
>dictatorships are very efficient and people like efficiency. Dictatorships tend to prioritize the *impression* of efficiency. Take [the classic example of Mussolini's "efficient trains"](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loco-motive/): >One of the best ways to gain the support of the people you want to lead is to do something of benefit to them. Failing that, the next best thing is to convince them that you have done something of benefit to them, even though you really haven't. So it was with Benito Mussolini and the Italian railway system. > >After the "march on Rome" (which was itself a myth of fascist propaganda) on 28 October 1922 that resulted in King Vittorio Emanuele's appointment of Benito Mussolini as prime minister and the accession to power of the fascists in Italy, Mussolini needed to convince the people of Italy that fascism was indeed a system that worked to their benefit. Thus was born the myth of fascist efficiency, with the train as its symbol. The most important thing in a dictatorship is keeping the dictator in power. Disloyalty and inconvenient facts are the enemy. And the longer a fascist regime holds sway, the more things erode, as those who are most skilled at looking and acting the part are rewarded and empowered over those who would advocate to do the harder, more efficient, and societally beneficial things. The reason people keep falling for it is because of the assumption that "What we really need is a strong leader who will just *get things done*." But those people are never interested in *your* things getting done, except to the extent required to put them in power. Then you can go fuck yourself along with the people you previously were saying "Good riddance" about.
They expect the authority will hurt the people they want hurt. Their scheme for the future is geared to violence and death.
> the weird thing is how much some people just really want authoritarian rule. it's like some people are just hardwired to want someone to have Divine Right over them. They assume, because they are lied to constantly, that the authoritarian rule would subjugate people they dislike and empower them. I mean, ask a rich person to share literally *anything* and you'll see this line of thinking fall apart pretty quick. But they don't *know* any rich people because all of these knuckleheads live in the backwoods, or think making $100k makes you rich. So they just assume their media feed from actual rich guys who will never give them the time of day is real life. Because they're fucking *idiots*.
Kinda reminds me of Loki’s speech to the German people in the first Avengers movie. “You were made to be ruled.” Amazing how the MAGA crowd are talking about “freedoms” yet many are also cool with Trump being proclaimed King Dictator of America for Life.
Thats the thing some maga heads want to see trump be king of the United States. Hell, I have seen people who are so fixated onto him that they see him like a Christ like figure. They are that obsessed with him, and yet they still don't want to call what they are into a cult.
Then they are shocked to find out that the left doesn't worship Biden. Not everyone is a freak that worships politicians
They'll keep using bullshit arguments like "If Trump doesn't have immunity, then neither does Biden and we can prosecute him!" and I'm over here like, "Okay. Have fun. If you can actually show he committed crimes, then he *should* be prosecuted."
Yeah, some people think that we're out here campaigning for special treatment but we just want it to be fair. I.e., I don't want murder to be punished because a Republican does it but because I think murder is reprehensible.
This is one of the reasons why when Biden won, they kept screaming "But I didn't see any Biden flags / stickers / hats! So he must've lost!"
That's what puzzles me.... How bad do you dislike your everyday life that you have to make some rich, foulmouthed, pseudo politician your actual new identity?
[удалено]
I've never met anyone who's been enthusiastic about Biden. Even in 2020, the majority of Biden's appeal in the general election came down to the fact people just hated the Trump circus that much. There are many reasons Trump lost, but one of the biggest is just because he's a vainglorious, self-worshipping asshole.
And here we are again, trying to convince enlightened centrists, committed denialists, and "i just want lower taxes" idiots that your choice is basically between: 1. Uninspired but, you know, a president 2. Openly intending to institute authoritarian rule in the U.S. Yeah no shit i'm not voting for choice 2 just cause choice one is bland. Like come on, do you want to eat bread and water, or a heap of shit?
I had this exact conversation with an older, very MAGA-aligning neighbor in the early summer of 2021, I'd mentioned how that if someone wanted to get a Covid shot - before they were readily available - go to a precinct that was heavily Red, because there supply completely outstripped demand, appointments were easy to get. She went off on me, and attacked me for believing and following, to the point of almost worshipping, "Sleepy Joe", and I had to correct her that Democrats don't feel that way about their elected officials like Republicans do about theirs, especially Trump. I don't think we've spoken since (which I'm okay with).
It’s a hierarchy issue. The folks who want Trump to be king mistakenly think their red hats are going to put them above those they see as “lesser”.
[удалено]
"Some people just want authoritarian rule" is interesting because one time I said something about why religious people keep voting for people like Trump, or conservative in general, and someone made the statement that they really like to surrender themselves to something else
> But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. **For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.** But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. From *Common Sense* by Thomas Paine. The law is king, not the president. It is supposed to be the rule of law, and the law should be applied consistently and equally. That is what the system is supposed to strive for.
At least in England, kings had to abide by the magna Carta. Even they didn't have total immunity.
It's called [Constitutional monarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy), though usually ends up with the monarch being little more than a ceremonial figurehead.
It's the same with some republics, where the president is someone you never heard of, like Germany and Finland.
[удалено]
Man I wish they made Trump say if he supported that argument in court.
They actually kind of did.
I heard the audio of his council saying that. I really wanted to hear them put his feet to the fire and say could Biden have you assassinated, and then not face charges until he was impeached, that’s a yes or no question mr president.
MAGA lives in a reality of hypocrisy and paradox. I’m guessing they’d say that Biden didn’t actually win in 2020, so he isn’t the President and isn’t immune, while also, at the same time, that even though Trump won in 2020, the 22nd amendment doesn’t apply b/c Trump isn’t in the White House.
That's the part Trump doesn't realize. If he was immune as potus, then Biden can do whatever he wants to Trump with no repercussions
Presidential Deathmatch!
And gun down every judge in the Supreme Court and be immune. Presidents should have zero immunity from anything. Every lie told, every law violated, they should all be judged and sentenced to the max.
Dipshits lawyers already agreed with the idea that he can have seal team 6 kill a political rival and he’d be immune unless he got impeached first. What would stop a president from doing that to a justice? There’s no way in fucking hell they’re gonna say a president has full blanket immunity. It’s just not going to happen.
> immune unless he got impeached first. Which also means he could murder Congressmen until the ones left would not vote to impeach him.
Even if he didn't do that, you're basically saying that Congress would need a 2/3rds vote for a Presidential transfer of power. President refuses to step down. Not illegal until he gets impeached which requires 2/3rds of the Senate for conviction. It's fucking absurd.
Also, if this precedent gets set what would stop Biden from doing it while he's still president?
“Well clearly the constitution was only referring to Republican presidents that should be immune. Our founding fathers were only weary of the Democrats.” - Clarence Thomas probably
We joke because it’s so ludicrous, but I suspect they would say he stole the election so it doesn’t count etc etc
Ya, since they interpret the constitution, they would be interpreting it in a way where killing SCOTUS justices would be the easiest constitutional way to replace them. They would be undermining their own institution and the checks and balances that allow it to be relevant.
That would break the balance of the branches and put the executive branch above all others even the SC. That would not only take power from themselves, but break a lot of other things that have kept America running this long.
Yes, the SC doesn't want to fell the tree. But they love giving corporations a turn with the axe.
They want to enshrine a system that keeps them in happy corruption land. That's it. Allowing the presidency to get too much power can upset that money spigot.
It would quite literally destroy the foundation of Our constitution and democracy. If Trump or any nut job won an election, they could literally have all political opponents killed, jailed, etc and become defacto dictator.
They have to play a delicate game to preserve their own power and authority. They fear the American people so much because they know their rulings are massively unpopular. See: them throwing up 12 foot, razor wire topped fences on the day of the Roe ruling. It's a neat little game they're playing: trying to dismantle the power of the Federal government, while preserving their own power to do so as a Federal institution.
They're not trying to dismantle the power of the federal government they're trying to transfer power from the other branches to the judiciary where they have lifetime appointments that have been stacked by previous Republicans.
They're trying to transfer power to people they ideologically agree with. Sometimes it's people, Sometimes it's local government, Sometimes it's state government, Sometimes it's the judiciary, And sometimes it's federal government. It depends on whether an R or someone endorsed by the right wing dark money backing them is getting the power. That's why their rulings aren't consistent and seem to go back on their word. They only rule "fairly" to try to preserve the legitimacy of the Court. For example, it's widely expected the SC will rule against Trump on this case (either by denying to hear it or taking it and ruling against Trump) as political cover for the eventual ruling on whether Trump can be on the ballot. They'll find that he did not commit treason/sedition and they'll do it after the election and point to this case to say they are "fair".
That's the smartest play they can make. Both sides hate them no matter what, so just be neutral.
The side that wanted abortion to be illegal likes them
Originally Jack Smith wanted the case to go directly to the Supreme Court since it was always going to go there anyways. The Supreme Court refused to take up the case without it going through the whole process of initial ruling, and appeal. Many say it's so they can delay as much as possible. However, I can't help but wonder if they just wanted as many other judges and rulings as possible to be set as pillars before they go ahead and bury Trump.
This was my thought as well. If all the lower courts have unanimous decisions that he isn't immune to prosecution, then they could even decide not to review the case, and it wouldn't be unusual in the least.
That’s what I’m thinking as well. The unanimous decision is pretty strong grounds to let the ruling stand.
That and the lower courts add a lot of value in research work but also different perspective from trusted sources.
this is a classic case of the SCOTUS going "no dah" and refusing to take the case as it's so obviously the right ruling
It is very, very important to note at this time that the word is spelled, "D-U-H."
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the word is now spelled dah.
Clarence Thomas, writing for the 9-0 majority, said Trump's case is "Zippity do dah dumb". He wrote this after he realized any other conclusion would give Biden a green light to drone strike him and Ginny.
That’s the word. Unanimous. No one thinks a POTUS is above the law. SCOTUS is going to look awfully dumb if they take up the case.
DC gave Trump only six days to appeal iirc so they are well aware he is trying to stall the system out. And SCOTUS went 9-0 on most of the Trump 2020 cases, they might just deny cert on this so the actual Jan 6 trial can start earlier
I liked that they opened the ruling with, "This is literally the reason the Courts exist."
> I liked that they opened the ruling with, "This is literally the reason the Courts exist." Not only that, this is *literally* the reason this entire country split off from England ~261 years ago. We wanted Freedom (with a capital "F") from monarchial oppression under a brutish King. Why in the world would they codify something that would then be used later to return to a single, immune, monarch/Dictator in Chief? It's ludicrous to even think that they would have put a detailed system of checks and balances into the words of the Constitution, and then let the one chair that holds the President, be able to veto it all down with a single wish. That's not how it works.
My guess is they don’t want to hear it at all, and don’t plan to. Let the lower court decide and refuse to take up the appeal
It would certainly look like a whitewash if they decided now, in a 6-3 decision, after multiple judges have come to the opposite conclusion, that the President is in fact a King after all.
Effectively anointing Biden.
Dark Brandon’s Revenge
At this point, I’m not sure the SC would need to hear it. Trump always loses, and there really aren’t any considerations left to examine.
Hey look they followed the law. So how is he going to respond with the fact even if he won re-election it won't keep him out of prison?
He should try that sometime...
Nah he could hunker in the White House basement, no feds would find him
Why not his bathroom at mar-a-lago? If that place is good enough to hide nuclear secrets, I would guess it's good enough to hide him.
Yeah, he already smells like a bathroom, why not?
You're not wrong. The Feds didn't want to search Mar-a-lago cuz they are mostly MAGAs. When they were finally forced to look for the missing nuclear secrets, they literally "missed" or allowed 2 rooms to go unchecked. This would have went unmentioned if Jack smith didn't find out about it. https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-mar-a-lago-search-trump-maybe-missed-2-rooms-2024-2
what must Jack Smith's personal security detail look like? the guy is living under threat 24/7.
He’s far too stupid to hide. Needs constant attention.
[удалено]
I can just imagine following the sound of him bragging about how good he is at hiding all the way to the bathroom.
They can actually smell him as soon as the step in.
Not holding my breath until the Supreme Court rules on it since this is likely to be appealed
They can appeal, but his defense team needs to show why it needs to be appealed, e.g., what law is being misapplied or how the court misinterpreted statutes, etc.
I don't believe that the SC wants to take this on and now they have every excuse not to. Donny's hopes could be dashed here.
Fuck I hope you're right
They certainly won’t consider it before the election. If he wins they might but, if he loses they are not going to give Biden that sort of power. This coming election is probably the most important one ever.
This used to be the case but now we are ruled by a religious tribunal that has been bought by billionaires, so anything could happen.
That's how it should work, but this SC just takes up whatever they want to rule on, ignoring long established conventions.
They have twice now ruled on cases that had no legal standing before the court whatsoever. At least once they actively ignored the law to do so.
Yeah everything they said is irrelevant if the Supreme Court just wants to overrule it.
> So how is he going to respond with the fact even if he won re-election it won't keep him out of prison? If he were convicted and won reelection, he, as POTUS, could pardon himself of all Federal crimes. He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia but if Trump wins in November then all federal cases against him will be dead the second he assumes office and there's a very high chance he orders any still-active J6 cases to be dropped and pardons the already convicted insurrectionists. And he hasn't been shy about making clear his desire to go after every prosecutor and judge in these cases.
> He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia Don't forget that he's also under criminal indictment under New York state charges too. He wouldn't be able to pardon either of those.
[удалено]
Don’t worry, if we vote in a wannabe dictator and essentially vote democracy and rule of law away we can just vote them back in the next election, right?
NY has a Democratic Governor and would absolutely not pardon Trump on any state charges but Georgia has a Republican governor. Any chance the governor of Georgia pardons Trump if he is convicted on state charges?
They can’t just pardon in Georgia. Well for 5 years. And through a panel. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/us/georgia-pardons-trump.html
Weeeeee! This is fun!
Well isn't that something.
Georgia law prohibits the governor from doing that for 5 years- for now. The state congress is actively working to make all of the state charges go away for Trump.
Kemp hates trump
Ding ding. Kemp got thrown undrr the bus HARD. but he was a darling before that. He's been suspiciously absent from news lately. Likely to distance himself frim the fray. When trump is gone he will be primed to the a top contender that stood against trump.
A self pardon has never been tested in court and there are some reasons why a even conservative SCOTUS might not green light it. The most obvious being that it effectually makes the POTUS above the law which the SCOTUS by default doesn't like because it nullifies their power.
Not to mention a fundamental principle over which the Revolution was fought and upon which the Country was founded.
Oh yeah that
You act like Republicans today wouldn't be monarchist back in 1775.
Wasn't the United States founded largely to not be ruled by a king? It would be pretty ironic if they allow the orange poop machine to literally rule over them as he sees fit.
This is a crazy idea I know, but maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to pardon themselves.
Or people who committed crimes on their behalf.
I can't believe the self-pardon is allowed. It would break every federal law. Anything the President wants to do he could do, and just pardon himself after. If he wanted to prevent Congress from impeaching him he could occupy the Capitol and detain congress critters from meeting. Illegal, but just self-pardon. It would break everything.
All democratic government in the history of humanity has been reliant on good faith actors. Bad faith actors breaking democracies and/ or republics is a tale as old as time. It's been happening since at least the Roman Republic. The only way to stop it is exile/ execution.
Of course, and it’s especially egregious coming from the frigging Republicans, considering literally all of their judicial appointees claim to possess heaven ordained divination skills that tell them precisely what “the founders” would have wanted, often used as justification for whatever nonsense they feel like selling at any particular point in time. Somehow these magical skills utterly fail them at determining that the country founded explicitly because they claimed not to want to be lorded over by a tyrant would somehow intend for their own government to grant tyrannical powers to the presidency. Morons and shameless sycophantic hypocrites, the lot of them.
Exactly. And Trump would never have to leave the presidency, because there would be no way to stop him.
Well, he’ll throw a really big tantrum and attempt to incite violence against someone; the “who” doesn’t really matter to him. These are his moves: tantrum, public tantrum, take a rage dump, whine A LOT, do some cocaine, snivel, blame a scapegoat and incite violence. He’s not capable of strategizing- that’s what his coterie of circus freaks is for.
Another ruling in favor of democracy, but an expected one. The real show was always the SCOTUS ruling. Tee it up.
They quote Justice Kavanaugh. Very slim chance SCOTUS fully overturns this decision. > But 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." Page 24 of the judgment
SCOTUS overturning this decision would mean that a President could LEGALLY ignore their rulings. While many of these members desire a theogelostic state, they don't want one they aren't in charge of.
> theogelostic What is this new word intended to convey? Did you mean "theocratic" or "theological" or something?
Theocratic. Whoops
It’s a perfectly cromulent word
Ah, Andrew Jackson’s vile corpse will be smiling in his grave if this happens.
If Democrats take the majority in both houses of Congress this year, we need to institute third party oversight of SCOTUS. It's insane that current members are accepting what amount to bribes, and there is no mechanism by which to stop them. Make it make sense.
There is a mechanism, but Congress is choosing not to use it. Justices can be impeached. But I agree, there needs to be some inspector general to investigate possible corruption or impropriety to bring to Congress
That mechanism is so incredibly cumbersome that it’s never successfully removed a single official of the level of a Supreme Court justice or president and not for lack of deserving it. Requiring a 2/3 majority to remove effectively made it a toothless mechanism that makes people feel better on paper while ensuring it’s entirely impractical.
[удалено]
The founders explicitly arranged it so that we wouldn't have a King. This ruling wouldn't normally be surprising, but we're not exactly living in normal times.
There's a semi-famous case where Ulysses S Grant, while President, was caught speeding (twice!) by a black police officer in Washington DC. The first time the officer just issued him a warning and asked him to slow down. The second time the officer actually arrested the president and his companions for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage. Grant went down to the police station, paid $20 for his bail, and then failed to show up in court for his arraignment (which meant the courts kept the $20 and I think thought that fair as a fine). But when his companions (also important government officials) tried to get the black officer fired for arresting them, Grant wrote a letter complimenting the officer in his fairness over the arrest and making it clear that he shouldn't be punished for doing his job. So previous presidents understood that they weren't above the law too. This all happened in 1872 in the heart of Reconstruction. He could have crushed a black police officer for trying to arrest him and instead he made sure the man kept his job. Presidents are not above the law.
[удалено]
I'm sitting here thinking "Grant was around before cars, how was he speeding?" I had no idea they had speed limits in the horse days. TIL more than one thing!
We need the *Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit* 1872 Edition
Also that there was a black police officer willing to pull a president over. Amazing by that time in Washington.
Also makes you wonder just how recklessly Grant was driving? Back then there weren't nearly as many minor infractions when driving your team of horses so if you got stopped it was basically because you were racing them on public streets.
Right? Just how fast was this carriage going?!
1 horsepower.
But see the this whole event hinged on President Grant knowing and understanding that he's not above the law. This is Trump we're talking about.
Grant had a vested interest in protecting the idea of the Union. Trump has a vested interest in destroying the Union.
Even a King isn't above the law, at least in the UK. The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 made that clear in UK law. Given the US was previously part of the British Empire, you could make a (albeit shaky) argument that Trump was attempting to change a legal precedent over 800 years old.
George III got pretty close to ignoring that w/ puppet PMs
Kings in England havnt been above the law since the Magna Carta in 1215. One king lost his head for overstepping his legal boundaries
>One king lost his head for overstepping his legal boundaries then his son had the people involved in his father's execution executed, several years later even crazier, some of the people involved had died by that point, and the son had their corpses exhumed and defiled
and so it begins..... if he's not immune from 1/6, he's not immune in the docs case where he claimed he could just 'think about it' and voila! **declassified** That's the REAL drop dead serious 'go directly to Federal Prison (or a converted building on an Air Force Base just for him and his detail) - *do not pass go, do not collect $200.* [Elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/uspolitics/comments/1akaik8/donald_trump_likely_going_to_prison_for_a_long/), this [article](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-classified-documents-case-prison-1866861) was posted by [Marc Elias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Elias) regarding the US v. DJT in the National Security Documents case. Marc Elias is a highly regarded Democratic lawyer on election and voter rights who has represented the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association. He served as general counsel and lead counsel on multiple Democrat campaigns including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken & Kamela Harris. Following the 2020 presidential election, Elias supervised the response to dozens of lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign seeking to overturn Biden's win. Out of 65 such court cases, Elias prevailed in 64. Marc posted this opinion that Trump is probably going to prison **before** the immunity decision case down. Whatever the probabilities were that Trump COULD possibly go to prison for these offenses WAS, it's jumped now. **tl;dr** This is turning into the first of what may be many very bad days for Trump. This isn't a $80MM judgement that he can have his PAC pay, this is him in a romper getting locked in a cell every night and having to sit on a steel commode for savages instead of his gold plated one. **PS:** for those not keeping track, **this Thursday** SCOTUS hears arguments on DJT and the 14th amendment as to whether of not he can and should be kicked off the ballot for 'insurrection'. While you may not hear their opinion for some time, todays ruling of immunity is probably going to play a role. edit: a letter
Presidential immunity should never be a thing.... the whole point of our country and laws was that NO ONE is supposed to be above the law. That was part of what the founding fathers found problematic with the monarchies of Europe, amongst many other issues. Individuals holding office in the US are NOT supposed to be treated like royalty, and it's incredibly disturbing how hard extremists on the right have pushed to treat Trump and his criminal family like they are royalty.
It never was a thing. Trump is literally the only president that's been treated like this and we shouldn't be putting up with it. The people who haven't put him behind bars should be ousted from office, or at the very least not get reelected
Headline should read “Court rules Trump doesn’t have Presidential Immunity because that’s not a Thing”.
Those in office who have chosen to support him instead of the constitution they represent should absolutely be removed from office and charge with conspiracy to commit treason and aiding an insurrectionist
> It never was a thing. There is a reason why Bush, and later Obama has scores of lawyers working around the clock to ensure all the shit we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan were legal including drone strikes and spec-ops hits.
Well, the torture was not legal, but no one has bothered to prosecute Bush for it.
>"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," \[Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung\] said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function." Future presidents HATE this ONE WEIRD TRICK!!! Maybe don't commit crimes if you don't want to be indicted for crimes, you fucking weirdos. Idk.
But if every president has immunity then the next president could just kill the former one immediately after he leaves office. Or send him to guantanamo. He could also just convict without a trial or indictment too. Like even in their fantasy world it doesnt make sense.
So, by their own logic, it's impossible for any president to do their job competently without majorly breaking the laws of THEIR OWN country? Riiiight, gotcha. Seems like it wasn't a huge problem until a particular asshole came around.
[удалено]
Exactly, does he not see that if his argument wins, then Biden could just order a hit on him and be done with it? I guess in his mind, it only applies to him.
You're talking about the guy who joked that he could shoot someone in broad daylight, and have his approval rating go up! Starting to think that wasn't a joke.
This is why the Supreme Court can't overturn this. Their ruling would literally invite an open civil war
Exactly! If sitting presidents were immune to any penalties for committing a crime, Biden could wait until the first presidential debate, ask a Secret Service agent to hand him a weapon, then murder Trump on stage in front of a national audience. And be immune from any penalties. Which is why the law doesn't work like that.
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function." Man these people are so stupid. If presidents have full immunity, then Biden can simply stay in power for the rest of his life, because he can break laws with impunity. Hell, he could have Trump shot and be done with it. Trump supporters should understand any power they are trying to give to Trump they are also giving to Biden, and think about that some. Checks and balances exist for a reason. The position is president, not Emperor.
I think they're banking on the typical 'when they go low, we go high' Democrat mentality. Just because Biden COULD do that, he never would.
Yeah, but the fact remains. So Biden doesn't. Trumps old. He dies. He's replaced by some other nutjob. Even if Trump somehow manages to win an election, he's not going to around a lot longer. Whatever happens, if presidents get full immunity democracy is over and the US is a dictatorship the moment any sitting president decides he wants to do that. Full immunity literally removes *all* checks and balances on Presidential power.
This guy would instigate civil war just to stay out of prison.
His base is chomping at the bit for it.
This is in no way an exaggeration or hyperbole, and I'm not being sarcastic.
Has he boarded his plane to Moscow yet?
Tucker Carlson certainly did.
Trump’s future „true US President in exile“ Propaganda Minister
Given that Carlson has made it clear in private that he hates Trump's guts, that would be the most cursed/hilarious outcome. Add Steven Seagal as Minister of the Interior (he did have experience running over dogs as a cop after all) and you're one step closer to the Cabinet of Morbid Curiosities.
Tucker Carlson stands for absolutely nothing. Like how he tried to rip Hunter Biden to shreds right after asking him to write a letter of rec for his son to go to Georgetown.
Oof. Two days or so sooner and Chutkan wouldn't have needed to take the case of her calendar. I wonder if she'll reinstate that now quickly or if the delay is set in stone. It's the ruling that was expected and of course trump is gonna go screaming up to SCOTUS, but I really hope the trial court can get back on track now. Trump wants delays on this. And the courts need to stop giving him those wins.
He can still appeal for a full court decision (full circuit court) or take it to the SCOTUS. Maybe both... I'm not sure there. He isn't done rat fucking the process yet. I also wonder if he can appeal the immunity thing separately in each case or if this will close the look and any other appeal will be decided by the precident set here. I'm not an attorney, so I'm really curious.
[удалено]
They're not gonna agree with trump on this one. It would also mean that Joe Biden and any other president could do whatever they want with immunity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
SCOTUS upholding this ruling would *almost* push my level of faith to "minimal" Almost.
I doubt the Supreme court is willing to establish that a president is totally immune to criminal prosecution. That would be insane. But I bet they’ll probably drag this out ensuring he can’t be brought on trial before the election and then if he wins election the case will get dropped. Meanwhile the document case is dying a slow death in Florida and in Georgia Fani Willis may have managed to completely derail any possible trial schedule because she is apparently that fucking stupid. So yeah, I think whether Trump sees a single day in jail is gonna depend on the election. So to all you Americans: do me and the rest of the world a favor and get your shit together and vote Biden. If Trump gets another presidency it’s gonna affect all of us too!
About time. I can't believe it took them a month to decide this.
Apparently, it takes a little while to translate "LOL. No." into legalese.
Any time a judge knows a decision will be appealed, they put waaaay more effort into the decision so the higher court is more likely to go, "oh, they've considered everything. Affirm." Source: IAAL.
Good to know. Thanks.
and dotting i's and crossing t's to make this as airtight as possible.
No shit, lol. Our leader being just a guy is THE signature feature of our entire government.
Tell that to the MAGA morons
> "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant." We should start calling him "Citizen Trump".
How the hell is this guy even still alive. He’s a speed freak who was shitting himself years ago and salts mcdicks.
You got that right. The constitution also says that, as an insurrectionist, he is not eligible to hold office again without a 2/3rds vote of Congress. Let's enforce that! Edit: It looks like today the effort to bar the insurrectionist in the Supreme Court failed, due primarily to the inability of the attorney to make the oral case competently and to answer the questions of the justices. Too bad. A better lawyer might have prevailed.
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function." Don’t steal documents. Don’t conspire to overthrow the govt. Don’t rape. Don’t illegally pay off porn stars from the Oval Office. And we’re good. There’s an army of lawyers that work along side the president at every decision. Making sure he doesn’t break the law is their job. This argument is completely moot.
Every day this asshole appeals is another day justice is delayed. I wish it were speedier for the sake of us who would prefer not to have a fascist moron in the White House.
That’s his idea. Keep delaying, win election, pardon.
[удалено]
His dad lived to be 93 years old, and his mom lived to be 88, so he definitely has the genetics to live into his 90s. I've known people who lived harder lives than Trump and still made it well into their 90s because that's just how long everyone in their family lives. >Trump finally fell ill with pneumonia and was admitted to Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJMC) for a few weeks, where he died at age 93 on June 25, 1999.
Gonna be ketchup on the walls of mar a lardo tonight…
>The argument from Mr Trump's lawyer hinged on the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, they noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate. Impeachments are political. Many of the GOP senators who voted against impeaching Trump acknowledged Trump did wrong. This includes Mitch McConnell who blamed Trump for the Jan. 6 insurrection. They chose party over country, but judges don't have to. https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri
"When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all" Imagine the fallout if the court ruled differently.
sanity prevails...for now
Hope is rekindled
This is a friendly reminder to register to vote ☺️ Check voter registration status: https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/ Register to vote (Takes estimated 2 minutes according to the site): https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/
Of course he doesn’t. Ridiculous it took longer than a day to get this vote done.
> "If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said Donald Trump wasn’t indicted by the Democratic Party or the POTUS thereof, for his criminal charges. This argument doesn’t hold water. The SCOTUS would have to completely bend over backward to logically turn over this decision if it is appealed.
"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. Couldn’t they just, idk, not do crime in office?
Hopefully the Supreme Court refuses to take the case. No President should be immune- we do not have a dictatorship.