this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024

155 points (95.9% liked)

News

38393 readers

2313 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

155

Trump urges US Supreme Court to endorse 'absolute immunity' for ex-presidents (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 years ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in his bid for criminal immunity for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, arguing that a former president enjoys "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts."

The case is due to be argued before the justices on April 25. Trump has appealed a lower court's rejection of his request to be shielded from the criminal case being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith because he was serving as president when he took the actions at the center of the case.

The filing advances arguments similar to ones Trump's lawyers previously have made and echoes statements he has made on the campaign trail as he seeks to regain the presidency.

"The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," the filing said.

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 82 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If an "official act" is anything that happens while they're in office, Biden should just shoot Trump on his last day in office. Following this argument, he'd be immune to prosecution.

A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.

It's funny that this hasn't happened in 45 presidencies, yet his argument is that it's suddenly going to be a problem for every future president...

[–] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Biden should just shoot Trump on his last day in office.

He shouldn't even wait until the last day.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 17 points 2 years ago

Especially since then Trump's VP would be President and who knows what fucko he's going to run with.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Justice = blackmail Accountability = extortion

It's diabolical the limits the law places on people who just want to pick winners, losers, and sell secrets. Kinda unfair, really.

What's the point of all that power if it's fettered?

[–] tal@lemmy.today 81 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," the filing said.

The presidents from 1789 to 2016 did seem to manage, one way or another.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

It also presumes that the independent presidency is of any value to the republic, pretty consistently it has actually been a source of conflicts both over the authority it holds and over the authority it is not supposed to but does anyways because an independent executive will inherently form a parasitic relationship against any legislative body it is unaccountable to.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wtf are official acts when you leave office?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

it means [for official acts performed during their tenure] [retroactively punished once they have left the office]

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 63 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why does he need immunity if everything he did was “perfectly legal”?

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

He’s no longer claiming what he did was legal. He’s pretty much admitted he’s guilty because he won’t shut up about it.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 46 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The moment he does, I want a cage match between trump and clinton.

But also under this law, if Biden were to lose, he could simply murder Trump and reclaim his seat? Democracy?

What a buffoon.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Under this philosophy he wouldn't have to wait. Actions taken in the name of national security. Done.

[–] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ex presidents... Plural. Could someone get Dubya or Clinton or one of the others to retire Trump, since they're now immune too

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Fuck under that Obama could take him out. After all he is ex president.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Are the Bush’s also against Trump? If so I feel like they should be more vocal about that.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

By that logic, doesn't that mean he's endorsing the idea that Biden can toss Trump in jail and fuck up his family, and save us all the hassle of a trial. And get away with it, since he's president and immune, according to Trump.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Yes

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

He clearly hasnt thought this one through. Biden can just order that trump be execjted by a hitsquad and have complete immunity lol. Ohh u dont like a political opponent and u are still presedent just execut them.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

Not to mention how it basically gives Biden cart blanche to ignore all their previous rulings against him with absolute impunity

"No prosecution you say? Well guess who's student loan debts are being forgiven!"

[+] APassenger@lemmy.world -15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

He doesn't have access to a group that would follow this unconstitutional order.

And he'd be impeached if it was found out.

Unless you're talking about some sleeper Manchurian Candidate... I dunno that this goes the way fantasies want.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I bet he could get federal officers that would arrest Trump on charges for insurrection and deny bail. And then similarly for Republican members of Congress who would support such obvious treason. It's not necessary to execute political enemies but to enforce the law more quickly and not leave a treasonous SCOTUS in charge to undermine democracy.

I'm sure Biden could find people willing to do that. And it's not the kind of thing Biden would do without being certain he had the people to follow through. But Biden wouldn't do it. Which is a huge problem as SCOTUS can effectively call this bluff. That will give Trump a huge political advantage and effectively make him dictator if he wins.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The President isn't part of the judicial branch. He makes appointments that get approved... But he's not part of that process.

He has some political clout, but what you describe is exactly what we fear Trump will do if he's able to fill all the slots with minions (who should know better but may break conventions and laws regardless).

It isn't done. Even for actual crimes it goes through the judicial side.

Y'all are saying Biden should break the law and do the very same, chilling thing Trump hopes to. The balance of powers is critical to our system. It's in need of repair, but what's being banded about would be a major breach.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're missing the point that it would make it legal for Biden to do those things if the supreme court agreed with Trump. They aren't advocating for Biden to do these things, but the obvious buffoonery of even proposing the ruling by Trump. He could murder Trump, the house impeaches, the Senate does nothing as usual, and tada it's all legal now.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm not missing the point. Others are missing the reality: Biden won't create a government that allows him to get away with it. Trump almost has.

As a practical matter, impunity works only for those who lack virtue or are willing to become the baddies out of necessity.

We can talk principles all we want. And if we do, we continue to miss the fact that Dems tend to abide laws, conventions and principles. Republicans don't. They have the will to rule regardless of what gets trampled on the way.

People are fantasizing about how silly it is. It is one of the few checks that remained enforced when Trump was in office - separation of powers.

This isn't diverting or silly. We just look naive.

I doubt SCOTUS would botch this, but if they do it only advantages the willing.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He has access to the entire american market im sure he could find someone.

Cant be impeached if hes immune to to everything as trumps trying to implement.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Legal immunity would not nullify the impeachment powers of congress enshrined in the constitution.

It's already partially a political thing that's done at their discretion.

Trump's argument Is that impeachment is how a president is held accountable. In this case, removal from office is the punishment.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would nullify it, because all you'd need to do is sit in congress with a shotgun ready for one of them to even begin the word "impeach"

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In this scenario, yes. Though it seems inelegant and unlikely in this form, the threat of death would cow most.

It would mean our government has already collapsed and we're just watching the final gasp.

It's also why I've not enjoyed seeing the dem/rep split on guns. The left may own guns, but I'm not sure there's as as many or as much willingness as the other way around.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm surprised that the supreme court would even hear this request. He's just a normal citizen now and the brief sounds a lot like someone requesting retrospective absolution for their crimes.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Iirc this is just a brief and the court can choose not to hear it, without giving their reasons.

Although it would be hard to say no to the boss. :P

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The really scary part is that this 'court' might do what he wants

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If it does, I hope Biden goes on a huge crime spree. I mean, that's the endgame so might as well be entertained while the shop goes down.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

OK OK OK New theory: Trump's lawyers are trying to get him killed.

Lawyers argue during presidents should be able to literally assassinate people
Conservative supreme court agrees
Biden, with newly granted powers, takes next logical step and has Trump retired.

I doubt any Republican would risk accepting the nomination for, or running against, Biden - or any Democrat president ever again.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Tbf I don't think his lawyers are the ones pushing him to go through with this. I think it's him pushing them to do it 'cause he owns SCOTUS.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

Occam's Razor, for sure, but I like mine.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 11 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately I really doubt Biden would break the law even if SCOTUS said he couldn't be prosecuted. It would effectively stain him forever and he'd need to keep breaking the law in order to stay in power. He imprisons Trump he's probably looking at impeachment. So then he needs to jail dissidents in congress. Now he's definitely not winning re-election so he needs to suspend the election.

Either way dictators win if this decision gives Presidents absolute immunity. Which is the only reason I'm hopeful the corrupt SCOTUS won't decide along those lines. The SCOTUS, and the entire country would effectively be held hostage under the dictator President.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

This sounds great, let's do it

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Fuck Donald Trump and whatever he thinks

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 years ago

Remind repubs that absolute immunity would cover sexual crimes against children. Let's use their insane "think of the children" crap to actually do something positive.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Just like an good oligarch dictator would.

[–] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Do it!

Then we can blacksite that fucker and never have to hear about his shit again!

[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No matter what they do the orange man loses. Either they rule against him and he goes to jail or they rule in his favor and Biden takes full advantage of his own "Presidential Immunity."

[–] distractionfactory@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Presidential Immunity would be the single worst outcome for the country, regardless of what happened to Trump himself. It would remove all oversight to the Executive branch. And it would confirm that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt, because there is no way it could be interpreted as constitutional by reasonable people. Even hearing the case is an obscene waste of time and resources.

I'm embarrassed as an American that we are seeing any of this take place.

[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Completely agree.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

He really doesn't see how this could backfire on him, does he?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Translation: Trump is shitting his pants out of fear of actual consequences.

[–] Mastengwe@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

He was a president in title only, dude didn’t do jack shit.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The Supreme court should agree with Trump and then be executed the next day by Presidential order.

Just to send a message.