The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2333 months ago

    Call me old fashioned but it seems like a flaw in the legal system if it takes slightly longer than one 4-year presidential term to prosecute someone for interference in a presidential election.

    • @Burn_The_Right
      link
      783 months ago

      The real screw up here was appointing a fucking conservative as attorney general.

      Never, ever show kindness to conservatives. Politeness and professionalism? Sure. But a conservative sees kindness as a weakness to exploit. That is just who they are at their core.

      Reaching across the aisle by appointing Merrick Garland was an extremely stupid move that could cost us our democracy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      543 months ago

      Yes, very. Federal judges have huge case loads, and expanding the size of the federal bench would be one way to fix that. At least doubling it, and quite possibly doubling it again.

      Democrats haven’t touched this because they’re spineless and don’t want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        283 months ago

        Democrats haven’t touched this because they’re spineless and don’t want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

        I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.

        The vast majority of people in Congress are affluent white people, and they really have nothing to gain by replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one. A conservative judicial system isn’t going to stop them from leaving the country for an abortion, or change what the private schools teach their children. While a liberal judge may increase their taxes, make it harder to accept bribes, or even ruin their businesses by implementing labor laws.

        I just don’t really see anything that would really motivate anyone in Congress to enact a more fair judicial system.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          143 months ago

          Yeah, it seems to me that Democrats are in a pretty nice position for themselves - they can claim to be for the people, while lamenting that they’re unable to make the big changes that the people want due to conservatives holding them back. If they didn’t have that excuse, they might actually need to coordinate those changes, which they likely don’t want to do.

          • @Burn_The_Right
            link
            33 months ago

            That’s certainly true for the neoliberals, who are the majority of the DNC. Unfortunately, we don’t have a viable progressive party. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

        • @dejected_warp_core
          link
          6
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.

          Sadly, I think you’re right. Occams razor would suggest that’s what we’re seeing here. IMO, it’s far more likely that politicians are being self-serving (power corrupts) than being a bunch of shrinking violets in circumstances where it hurts everyone else.

      • @Dadifer
        link
        113 months ago

        Didn’t the turtle Mitch refuse to fill hundreds of members of the federal judiciary?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          113 months ago

          Yes, that’s exactly why Trump was able to fill so many. His administration was very slow to fill vacancies at other federal agencies, but not judges. Shows exactly where they had their priorities.

    • @Blue_Morpho
      link
      283 months ago

      Charles Manson never personally murdered anyone. There was no video of the crime. It took 2 years from the day his cult murdered people to Manson being sentenced to jail for life.

      3 years later after a live televised insurrection and not even a trial.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      263 months ago

      Garland was gonna let him skate. It wasn’t until he refused to give back the classified documents that he crossed the line and Garland have the go-ahead to prosecute him for that. And once you’ve given permission to prosecute an ex-president for one thing, you can’t tell the other prosecutors who want to nail him for other crimes ‘no’.

      Garland should never have been picked as AG. He’s literally the guy democrats pick when they want to tell Republicans “Hey, we see you, we love you, and you have nothing to worry about from us. So please just be normal 💕”

    • Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      English
      103 months ago

      it seems like a flaw in the legal system

      Oh no, this is exactly how it’s designed. The rich are above the law.

    • @nutsack
      link
      3
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      he’s about to win and make the country permanently more autocratic

  • @snekerpimp
    link
    1773 months ago

    And we slip even closer to fascism

    • the post of tom joad
      link
      fedilink
      65
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What if i told you…

      Morpheusface

      We are already there?

      I’m not being edgy. Let’s review the 14 signs:

      The 14 characteristics are:

      • Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

        Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

      • Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

        Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

      • Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

        The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

      • Supremacy of the Military

        Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

      • Rampant Sexism

        The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

      • Controlled Mass Media

        Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

      • Obsession with National Security

        Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

      • Religion and Government are Intertwined

        Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

      • Corporate Power is Protected

        The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

      • Labor Power is Suppressed

        Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

      • Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

        Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

      • Obsession with Crime and Punishment

        Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

      • Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

        Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

      • Fraudulent Elections

        Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

      I expect pushback on this, simply because it is absolutely terrifying and worse? I don’t know what to do other than try and point this out to people. Maybe someone somewhere knows a way outta this mess.

      It’s not coming, it’s here friends, the future is today. Fascism isn’t binary. It’s not yes/no, it’s analog, the dial slowly turned up. And like the proverbial boiling frog, if you’re expecting there to be a flashing sign, one giant moment that signals to everyone yes, yes now we are here, this is fascism?

      It walks the streets outside your home, in the hallways of your building. It is just outside your door, getting ready to knock on someones. Will you know it before they knock on yours?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        17
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Fascism isn’t binary. It’s not yes/no, it’s analog, the dial slowly turned up.

        My biggest concern is that we’re crossing a point of no return from which there is no way back except for violent overthrow of the regime. My biggest fear is that we’ve already crossed it.

        • the post of tom joad
          link
          fedilink
          83 months ago

          My biggest fear is that we’ve already crossed it.

          …mine too. I am coming to grips with what i increasingly believe is…yes, we have. And i am not ready, so very not ready to accept what that actually might mean. I said this slightly differently earlier, but part of my problem, now that I’m on that road to acceptance, is trying to find some direction, some way to find agency. And to share that agency I’ve found (it must exist! It must! I must find it!) with other people who would listen. But i am adrift. I hate this feeling of fearful helplessness. I would wish it on no one. But all I’ve got is what i see right now, and the faith that someone out there smarter than me has an answer we can all share

          • @vikingqueef
            link
            73 months ago

            the monopoly on violence that is reserved for the state is what drives that feeling of fearful helplessness. there are no right and easy answers because they have been labeled wrong. i will not advocate for violence but i will point out that we are not allowed to carry out violence against the state or its infrastructure.

            if you have been the victim of repeated physical abuse and had the opportunity to physically fight back and took it, then you know how powerful that feeling after is, when you realize that you actually do have power.

      • @Buffalox
        link
        93 months ago

        Absolutely no doubt the Republicans are a bunch of fascists. But they don’t have full control yet.

        • the post of tom joad
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I don’t play party politics my friend. I am saying this is the way the nation is currently running. What i mean is to say that the country, despite (as you say) the Republicans not having ’ full control’, that this is our country, now. My point is fascism, as defined in these 14, is here. Now. Setting aside party politics (gamified by our corrupted media) where each “news company” plays different flavors of

          Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

          the “news” is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser? Can’t you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

          Today, when you woke up, it was under the flag of a fascist nation.

          • @Eldritch
            link
            English
            93 months ago

            the “news” is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser?

            As much as I have disdain for all corporate media. That isn’t something the non overtly conservative media does. Whether it’s to service their false narrative of turning everything into a horse race for ratings. Or actual journalistic integrity. I can’t say, though my money is on the former.

            Can’t you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

            Nope. I definitely have heard individuals wound up about this election get overly concerned about primary shenanigans on the Democratic side. The corporate media however often focuses on false criticisms still. Out of some misguided need to APPEAR fair and balanced . Rather than be succinct and honest.

            • the post of tom joad
              link
              fedilink
              8
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I would like you to be my ally, and in fact you are. Our light disagreement here is (in my opinion) that you are still holding on to the idea that while propaganda exists, it isn’t something you personally consume. That while fascism exists and is growing, it is not at all on the side you are on. That the things you believe, you believe because you are informed, and that you disagree with others because they are not.

              I would like you to consider the possibility that you are subject to lies and propaganda. That the things you are told, the people you believe? Might be lying to your face. Might be twisting things juuust enough for your compliance and support. Is that not possible?

              I really don’t want to push any harder than this because i desire your open mind above all else. But my opinion is you’re far too quick to dismiss other’s opinions as uninformed or plain wrong, and i would like that part of you to change.

              • @Eldritch
                link
                English
                33 months ago

                I’m not a Democrat. Nor am I Republican. Nor am I a member of any major American party. Propaganda does exist everywhere. But I think what you’re not recognizing is that you are subject to it as much as anyone else. And as such, have been a bit radicalized.

                I do not dispute that the American Republican party has been aspirationally and openly fascist for much of the last 100 years. And I do not dispute that the Democratic party since at least the 1980s has been far too comfortable and enabling of it. Nor do I dispute that America has committed genocide throughout its history. Including against my ancestors. Easily right up until the late 1970s early 1980s at minimum. I do not dispute that America at the behest of the wealthy and industrialists have overthrown democratic governments. Puting authoritarian/fascistic dictators in place.

                But I also acknowledge that for all their many faults. And there are many. That even though they don’t do enough to push back. That many of the morons still opining openly about the “loss of bipartisanship”. Wanting to work with Republicans. Despite Republicans basically saying fuck you to their face. That there is a difference between rudderless spinelessness, and fascism. I acknowledge that for all the horrible positions Biden has taken in his career. That he has actually genuinely grown and tried to make amends. Remember, he’s a big part of why we have marriage equality. Despite Obama saying he was against. I’m not going to defend the stupid liberal brained things Biden continues to do. I understand why Biden was still trying to work with Israel. And it wasn’t to support genocide. Despite it being truly, obviously, stupid.

                However I acknowledge above all. That anyone who portrays Democrats as fascists, or the same as the Republican party. That screeches ignorant teenage edge lord slogans like “genocide joe”. Aren’t interested in solutions. Aren’t interested in reaching people. Fully focused on farming drama and making enemies. Rather than making hard decisions, working to save lives.

          • @Buffalox
            link
            33 months ago

            Unfortunately you are more right than wrong. 😐

        • gradyp
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          no, but they have no problem with cheating and the branch of government that would hold them responsible when they do, just showed their hand. I don’t think it’s going to be easy for them to steal it, but I don’t think there will be much in the way of them trying every trick they have.

      • HACKthePRISONS
        link
        fedilink
        -23 months ago

        waitwaitwait, you mean accusing our political opponents of being traitors isn’t democracy? well what if we just want to criminalize their political activity and throw em in jail? or accuse them of working with foreign interests? surely, it’s not fascism all the way down: the corporate media insists fascism can’t be here until the next election!

    • @guacupado
      link
      13 months ago

      People forgetting we didn’t win the revolution through voting.

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

    Of note, this has nothing to do with the $450,000,000 and $83,000,000 bonds he needs to put up very soon

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      423 months ago

      It doesn’t matter. He can hold off on liquidation until November and if he wins, (which would mean there’s a strong chance the Senate flips), have his cronies pass a, " lol god emperors don’t pay for summary judgements" bill.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        403 months ago

        No he can’t. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he’s satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there’s interest running on the meter until he does.

        He’s gonna pay whether he likes it or not.

        • @Tyfud
          link
          6
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            How? Given the powers that the Special Monitor has, how could he possibly avoid paying?

            RNC certainly doesn’t seem like a likely option right now, and nobody else has ponied up the money.

            • Butt Pirate
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              bro people have been saying that dump will face the consequences of his actions for like seven years now. You’ll excuse us if we’re tired of playing this dance yet again.

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

                I always figured the Jan 6 ones were a long shot, but these other two cases are done. He’s going to have to pay, and he can’t get an appeal unless he pays, thanks to NY law.

                That’s why it’s different from the federal ones.

                ETA: and he can’t just not pay, because the Special Monitor has a court-ordered obligation to ensure he pays his court debts. She’ll just seize his assets, which she has the power to do.

                • Butt Pirate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  13 months ago

                  “But this time it’s different”!

                  I’ll believe it when I see it.

            • Subverb
              link
              -123 months ago

              He can pardon himself. And he will.

              • @SinningStromgald
                link
                133 months ago

                I thought both were state charges and only federal charges could be pardoned?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                7
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                These are state crimes. He can’t pardon himself from them.

                ETA: I was referring to the conversation context, which is his financial crimes, not the article, which are federal crimes.

              • @RunningInRVA
                link
                53 months ago

                You cannot pardon a judgement in a civil case.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          okay what has he seized so far? Trump’s already stated he’s not paying that amount

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            33 months ago

            I don’t know what she has seized. But that doesn’t mean she hasn’t or won’t. It just means we don’t know.

            But it doesn’t matter what Trump has said publicly, because he’s obligated to pay, and it’s not just up to him or his accountants whether he does.

            • blazera
              link
              fedilink
              33 months ago

              You’re operating under the reasonable logic of how this is supposed to work. But nothings gone how it’s supposed to work for Trump. He’s had a decade of very public crime and been found guilty in several different ways, but has so far not had any consequences enforced. guilty of rape, tax fraud, defamation, campaign finance violations, and bribery, and so far not a penny, much less jail time.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                I would argue that the two NY cases have gone exactly as you’d expect. Nothing has happened in them that was particularly unusual. Typical rape case + defamation and a corporate fraud case. All already with judgments.

                And as far as collections go, it’s not like buying groceries. He doesn’t have to pay the full amount all at once (and probably can’t). He does have to front the money if he wants to appeal, though, and all he’s done is file for one. They won’t take it up until he’s paid up.

        • @guacupado
          link
          0
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          and she can do that right now.

          If she hasn’t, then she won’t. We all know what could and should happen, and we all know none of it has.

      • @dhork
        link
        English
        163 months ago

        He wouldn’t even need to do that. He would just need to sell a few of those Top Secret documents to MBS, and all of a sudden the Trump Org has another 2 billion worth of business in Saudi Arabia

    • DarkGamer
      link
      fedilink
      13 months ago

      This judgment has far more frightening implications, if the president is above the law.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    363 months ago

    Remember though…. The propaganda machine is here actively telling everyone that Biden is the evil one.

    • @LesserAbe
      link
      53 months ago

      Get out of here. It’s possible to criticize more than one thing. It’s possible to say one thing is bad while recognizing another thing is worse.

  • iquanyin
    link
    263 months ago

    it’s what they were installed for. trump gave us a corrupt court that will last for decades, regardless of him not being in office.

  • It's A Faaaahhkeah!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    233 months ago

    “Literally popping champagne right now,”

    Is that what people call snorting coke now?

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.

    If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

    “Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

    For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.

    During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

    The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.


    The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

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

      During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

      Maybe Biden should take one for the country. You know the court would rule against absolute immunity for something Biden did. And he’s old enough, that he probably wouldn’t even see jail. No more Trump, no question as to if the president is above the law. Win win.

      • @fluxion
        link
        English
        12
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          273 months ago

          The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

          Well, that’s the thing, they won’t rule in Trump’s favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump’s case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn’t taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There’s no legal support at all for Trump’s claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.

          • @NightAuthor
            link
            English
            73 months ago

            And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

            • @RGB3x3
              link
              English
              83 months ago

              You know how parents would say “because I said so” without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?

              That’s the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

              Somehow the founders didn’t see that as being a problem.

              • @NightAuthor
                link
                English
                103 months ago

                I think impeachment was supposed to be a check on their powers, but that never happens.

                • @SinningStromgald
                  link
                  53 months ago

                  No one wanted to “politicize” impeachment so Congress just played ball with the Supreme Court and would reword laws till the current batch of justices gave a thumbs up. Or wait for the slant of the court to change and try again. This has, of course, put us in our current predicament. We should be watching the impeachment proceedings for Alito and Thomas, at the very least, right now, but instead we are going to see the hubby of an insurrectionist rule on wether insurrection is okay or not if a sitting president does it. All while that justice and another pocket millions in “gifts” from right wing fascist Nazis.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              53 months ago

              And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

              Nothing, other than wanting to have an historically favorable legacy. But ignoring that, despite Alito and Thomas being unabashed GOP operatives, ruling in favor of immunity would be a stretch for even them. Undoubtedly all the justices realize that if they affirm presidential immunity for life, a president can Seal Team Six one or all of the justices, on a whim. A ruling to affirm immunity would neutralize the power of the court, something an even unethical and selfish justice would want to prevent.

              • @NightAuthor
                link
                English
                33 months ago

                But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

                My gut says yes, they’re smart, some of them just have questionable ethics.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

                  Absolutely. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that intelligence and ethics are two totally separate qualities. I’ve listened to SCOTUS televised proceedings a few times and the level of mastery of the law and history, and the lines of thinking and arguments are quite stunning. I say this equally of both the conservative and liberal members of the court. But that’s not to say they don’t steer the arguments and decisions in a way that aligns with their ideology and/or their political allies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        Maybe Biden should take one for the country

        At the very least (and less gory of an outcome) Biden should assemble Seal Team Six in the Oval Office and publicize it. The media and pundits will run with it and it will put Trump, MAGA, and the conservative “think tanks” in a tizzy over the immunity claims, and perhaps make the conservative SCOTUS justices (who are going to ultimately rule against Trump anyways, after enough of a delay to torpedo the federal charge trials) squirm behind close doors. But Biden and the Democrats won’t do it, because they’re always taking the high road and won’t use the media to their advantage, even when democracy is in the balance.

  • TruthAintEasy
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yea give presidents immunity, Biden can use it exactly once, and then cancel it all together

    Edit spelling