• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10410 months ago

    It’s disgusting that they’re even entertaining his claims, and a legitimate threat to our democracy if they decide that he does have actual immunity. Remember, Trump is claiming that everything, including treason and fraud, is covered by presidential immunity. By this logic, Biden could have Trump assassinated, and as long as Biden is a sitting president it would be legal.

    Trump’s claim has absolutely zero legal merit, but the Supreme Court has already been compromised. I will start planning to leave the country if they decide to uphold Trump’s claim.

    • @Evilcoleslaw
      link
      44
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      So this gets complicated but essentially the question before them is whether he has immunity for official acts, as the trial judge decided he did not.

      My guess is the court will wait until the last day of their term, in July, to decide that he does have immunity for official acts. Then it’ll get sent back to the trial judge who will fairly obviously rule that these were not official acts. Then Trump’s attorneys get a couple more months of delay while they appeal it up the chain losing. This easily pushes his federal cases beyond the election.

      After the election, depending on the results, this will 1) all be settled and he will face trial or 2) he becomes President and self pardons or otherwise kills the prosecutions.

      • @kmartburrito
        link
        1110 months ago

        Nowhere does this court case align with acts that the president performed in an official capacity - rather this is about things outside of the scope of his duties. Campaigning for example, is not an official duty. Attempting to subvert the outcome of an election is not an official duty. Trump is claiming that these things are on the “outer orbit” / fringe of his duties, so he’s trying to argue that these are official acts, but that is not the case.

        The argument that interfering with any part of an election is ANYWHERE associated with a President’s official acts is farcical at best, and this should have been dismissed right out of the gate.

        I completely disagree with how you are framing this as an argument about official acts (and I could have just misinterpreted I suppose). It makes it sound like the argument is whether he has immunity for official acts. Presidents DO have immunity for official acts, that’s not the question here. It’s a question on whether unofficial acts like electioneering are part of a president’s duties, and they are squarely not.

        • @Evilcoleslaw
          link
          510 months ago

          The argument is over official acts because of the ruling of the District Court. The judge very specifically didn’t rule on whether or not these were official acts but ruled that there’s no immunity even for official acts. So in this case right now before the Supreme Court that’s all they’re going to evaluate. They spell it out in the grant of the writ of certiorari.

          I think there’s a substantial chance that there will be immunity for official acts. But that’s also why I think it’s fairly obvious that once it gets back to the District Court the judge will find these aren’t official acts. It’s just unfortunately going to burn up more time to get there.

          • @kmartburrito
            link
            510 months ago

            I see that now after re-reading part of the ruling, thanks for guiding me there. What a mess.

        • admiralteal
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          Executive immunity isn’t limited to official acts in any case. That limit has been theorized, but existing case law has not established it. The outcome of this SCOTUS case will likely be the official answer - and the only hope of any good outcome is that the court granted cert because they intended to establish that limit to limit presidential power.

          While possible, I’m not optimistic that this is the intent.

    • @omega_x3
      link
      2110 months ago

      If Trump wins this case then Biden could just legally shot Trump in the head or order someone else to do it.

      • @btaf45
        link
        710 months ago

        Kamela Harris can simply refuse to certify Treason Trump. Thats legal according to Cheeto Benito.

      • LanternEverywhere
        link
        fedilink
        510 months ago

        Depends on the timing, Trump may get back into the presidency before the ruling comes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The case won’t be resolved until Trump is your president next year.

        Downvote all you want, you better show up at your polling location with all your family and friends and coworkers and neighbours on election day if you want to avoid it

        • @Riccosuave
          link
          English
          810 months ago

          The case won’t be resolved until Trump is your president Dictator in Chief next year.

          Other than that I agree. People are going to downvote you out of fear, but that is precisely where we are headed. Even if he loses there will be a violent coup and a legislative coup to attempt to insert him anyway. If you don’t think that is the plan then you are lying to yourself.

        • @omega_x3
          link
          310 months ago

          Simple, Biden kills trump. If they forget that they were just arguing that the president is immune then Biden resigns. Harris pardons Biden. Then Harris appoints Biden to be vice president. Harris resigns. Biden appoints Harris vice president.

          It would be fun to watch everyone that thinks Trump is immune change their minds.

    • @RampantParanoia2365
      link
      710 months ago

      I mean, he should have him assassinated as a self-proclaimed enemy to Democracy. He obviously cannot under any circumstances be allowed back in that office. That’s just facts.

    • admiralteal
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Fun fact: presidential immunity does now show up anywhere in the Constitution or federal law. It is entirely an invention of the courts.

      Nixon v Fitzgerald is the big case in question. And the court at the time – corrupt as always – gave the president broad immunity rather than, say, limiting the immunity to just acts related to the office of presidency. The SCOTUS basically said that only political solutions – impeachment or elections – can get past executive immunity. That’s basically standing law. It’s real fucking bad.

      Also notable that this case should not have even been granted cert. There was already a settlement. The case was over. One must interpret the court’s decision to grant cert in that case to be entirely based on their desire to legislate from the bench and do a favor to the office of the president.

      The current very-corrupt SCOTUS picking up this Trump case leaves me very worried.

      • @Riccosuave
        link
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Worrying is pointless. Based on their decision to hear this case it is a 100% guarantee they have the votes to grant him immunity, and they know it. How they are stupid enough to believe that he won’t immediately usurp their own power the second he gets back into the White House I will never know, but I am positive that is where we are headed. Every single piece of available evidence suggests we are in for a Trump dictatorship. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.