I don't understand how you can be skeptical about this. If he has immunity from committing an act of sedition and breaking his oath to defend the constitution, then there is no basis for the rule of law.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
94 points (98.0% liked)
News
23287 readers
4078 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There’s an interesting nuance Trump’s defense seems to be arguing: that a president can’t be prosecuted for “official actions,” only personal ones by extension of the separation of powers. Otherwise, any president could be prosecuted for some crime (e.g. “Biden’s mismanagement of the border”).
I think it’s a load of crap, although an interesting reach. The judge’s line of questioning seems to agree but they’re also concerned about opening the floodgates. Their best bet is to delay, delay, delay and that’s what they’re doing.
Is that essentially the qualified immunity the police were given?
not a lawyer but qualified immunity basically shields government officials from being sued for their misconduct. They can still be prosecuted but there’s no remedy for the harm they’ve caused.
If presidents were immune, Nixon would not have needed a pardon.
I've heard that notion posed several times. IANAL, but just because Ford and Nixon both thought he needed a pardon does not necessarily mean that he actually needed a pardon. Those are two different things; it is possible that Ford and Nixon were both wrong on the necessity. (Edit: Of note, I don't think they were wrong, but I'm also not a federal judge, so what I think doesn't matter, in the same way as what Ford and Nixon thought didn't matter.)
Judges heard from a lawyer for Donald J. Trump who argued that a president could face criminal charges only if impeached and convicted first, even if the case involved the assassination of a political rival.
So Trump's lawyer is saying its totally cool and legal for Biden to get a marine with a sniper rifle to pop Trump's head, right? Right?
All this is moot.
The supreme court will rule in his favour. 100% guaranteed.
If they do than Biden can do the unthinkable. These folks think the Dems are just gonna hand them their dictatorship by transferring power. That will never happen
Dems are acting helpless to resist the republicans. They won't do a thing. They'll stick to the rule of law even though the judges are corrupt.
What I mean is the only move rule of law can make at this point only ensures that either justice is done or that Biden can use the authority to make the necessary changes
Checkmate assholes ♟️
Expect the SC to torture Logic to the point that they can render a decision that gives trump what he asks for but denies the same for biden
That's tricky though. Once the basis for The Rule Of Law has been dissolved (and we should be clear that, at base, this very concept is on trial), the SC isn't even worth their Robe budget anymore and Biden has no real reason to consult them further. They would be writing themselves out of relevance.
There's just no way that doesn't simultaneously and irrevocably disenfranchise or neuter themselves in the process. They're gonna bail on it and defer to whatever Appeals court that has the penultimate say on the matter
They're not rational actors. They are there to cement the republican party's power over the USA. They absolutely will make conflicting rulings because nobody can stop them.
I don't think that gets him out of Georgia's RICO case, theres just no way
Yeah, that's how many of them were installed there in the first place.