• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9110 months ago

    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.

      • ALQ
        link
        1210 months ago

        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.

    • theprogressivist
      link
      2010 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        10 months ago

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

        Fixed the stakes for you.

    • @tburkhol
      link
      1510 months ago

      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.

      • Alien Nathan Edward
        link
        fedilink
        English
        710 months ago

        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.

        • @Mirshe
          link
          510 months ago

          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.

          • Alien Nathan Edward
            link
            fedilink
            English
            410 months ago

            reality of the month club. whatever they need to be true, that will be the truth for as long as it serves their ends. when it’s no longer useful to them, it will be discarded and the complete opposite will become the truth.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1010 months ago

      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.

    • Jaysyn
      link
      fedilink
      710 months ago

      It was a somewhat successful delay tactic.

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      610 months ago

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

    • Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      English
      510 months ago

      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

    • @agent_flounder
      link
      English
      32
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • @agent_flounder
        link
        English
        2110 months ago

        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.

        • @agent_flounder
          link
          English
          19
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.”

          • @june
            link
            English
            110 months ago

            Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Greatest works of poetry of all time:

        • William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’

        • T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’

        • Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’

        • Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’

        • US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        010 months ago

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

        • @agent_flounder
          link
          English
          610 months ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I’d like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president

        • @mdurell
          link
          410 months ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president…I’d like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn’t operate on common sense

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            No, I’m saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump’s situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?

    • @Riccosuave
      link
      810 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      Thanks!

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

  • @Daft_ish
    link
    6910 months ago

    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.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      10 months ago

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

      • @Daft_ish
        link
        14
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          210 months ago

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

  • @kescusay
    link
    3810 months ago

    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.

    • @aseriesoftubes
      link
      32
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2010 months ago

        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.

        • @aseriesoftubes
          link
          510 months ago

          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?

          • @Evilcoleslaw
            link
            910 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              810 months ago

              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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            They could potentially accept an appeal and wait to hear it until next Fall and then not rule on it until after the election, if they’re so inclined, unfortunately. That would mean if Trump was elected he could try and nullify it by self pardoning or ordering his attorney general to drop the charges (not supposed to do that, but it hasn’t stopped Trump from trying to directly order around his attorney general before).

            The supreme court could choose to hear it quicker, or they could just deny the appeal outright without hearing the case. Though all it takes is four justices want to hear it for the appeal to be accepted.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              410 months ago

              First of all nobody should accept a self-pardon as legitimate.

              But beyond that, the 14A says how someone can regain their eligibility to hold office, and a pardon isn’t listed as an option. If anything, accepting a pardon would cement his ineligibility because it’s an admission of guilt.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Oh I’m not saying to accept it, I think it’s totally illegitimate. I’m just saying what I think he will do if elected. More likely he just appoints some stooge as attorney general who orders the charges be dropped though.

      • @Evilcoleslaw
        link
        1910 months ago

        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.

        • Jaysyn
          link
          fedilink
          12
          edit-2
          10 months ago

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

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

      • @kescusay
        link
        English
        1310 months ago

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

    • @agent_flounder
      link
      English
      410 months ago

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

    • @TropicalDingdong
      link
      110 months ago

      Ah yes. History is inevitable.

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

      Nothing is guaranteed.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    3510 months ago

    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.

    • @AngryCommieKender
      link
      810 months ago

      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.

    • littleblue✨
      link
      510 months ago

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

      • Flying Squid
        link
        6
        edit-2
        10 months ago

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

        (Actually, I just bookmarked it.)

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      310 months ago

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

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

      • Flying Squid
        link
        310 months ago

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

      • Flying Squid
        link
        210 months ago

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

  • @jordanlundM
    link
    2910 months ago

    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.

    • @Chocrates
      link
      1310 months ago

      I appreciate your work keeping this clean for us

    • @someguy3
      link
      410 months ago

      What about doing megathreads?

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        910 months ago

        TBH, it’s not a big enough story. The judges ruled, it’s getting challenged to the Supreme Court.

        The Supreme Court will be megapost worthy and we’ll be doing one on Thursday for that hearing.

  • nkat2112
    link
    fedilink
    2210 months ago

    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.

    • Hominine
      link
      English
      110 months ago

      Hey, it’s one of my co-workers.

  • @Fedizen
    link
    1410 months ago

    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.

      • @cmbabul
        link
        English
        410 months ago

        I was about to say I’d like to get Cheney in first because W will probably live more years… But Dick may be then next Kissinger, the insufferable fuck that deserves death the most but refuses to die. I mean he already is that but he’s not the figurehead yet. Just through them both in stocks forever

  • Jaysyn
    link
    fedilink
    710 months ago

    Likely prosecution roadmap. Trump is going to die in Federal custody.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    510 months ago

    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!