229
US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
229 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18080 readers
2286 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
First thing that came up, but pretty accurate: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/29/opinion/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case/
I didn't even have to open that to see that's the documents case. This post was about immunity for trying to overturn the election. Different cases.
No, she (Cannon) literally mentioned she was waiting for a decision on this case as well since some of the evidence showed he had people stealing documents BEFORE he left office.
The DC judge (Chutkan) related to this won't fuck around due to this ruling, and is even somewhat empowered by it since it puts more power in her hands. I don't think they can fast track it though, so that sucks.
Really doesn't change that you were going on about this case (overturning election case) being maga all the way down, while Cannon is on a different case (documents case).
So how is this case (overturning the election) maga all the way down? I've not read up on it and if you can fill us in that'd be great.
There are multiple judges in multiple cases waiting for this decision. I'm not getting your point.
If you come in with grand claims about this case (overturning election case), then you better be prepared to back that up for this case (overturning election case).
Just did. Not understanding your point still.
You really didn't, you went to other cases. And not just the supreme Court bit, all the way down on this case (overturning election case).
But I see you're not going to admit it.
Christ. Being Pedantic on the Internet is a privilege, not a right, buddy. I clarified it. Move on with your day, and I hope you have better things to do. 🙄