825
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 157 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Sadly no. The way they turned it around was very clever.

So they said that only official presidential business is immune, but were ambiguous what that actually means, so inevitably they made it so it would go through them to determine what is the official business.

Second thing is that they picked up from their ass that Constitution also says that no official business can be used in any trial, even if it is unrelated. This not only jeopardizes all the indictments he had, it possibly will negate the New York trial.

trump already submitted request to have it referred based on this SCOTUS ruling.

This election might be the last free election we have. And even if trump loses it will still not be over.

Please vote and make your friends and family vote. And not just for president but also for the Congress.

Edit: I also recommend everyone a book "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" (there's also reading on YouTube) all the warning signs are present. The more people are aware what it is at stake the higher chance that this can be stopped.

[-] [email protected] 51 points 5 days ago

I also recommend everyone a book "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century"

In case it makes a difference to someone, it's a pretty short book.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 5 days ago

How does one prove whether or not something is official business if official business can't be used in any trial?

[-] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago

The “unbiased” judge will define what is allowed in the trial or not. And the prosecutor can appeal that decision and hope the higher judge is not also bought and paid for by the criminal president.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Until it eventually hits the Supreme Court and they decide what is and isn't an official act based on what political party the President is affiliated with.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

I wonder how that would work if the act was against them. I mean he could assassinate the entire Supreme Court because of the war or drugs or whatever, and then who stops him?

[-] [email protected] 23 points 5 days ago

Idk, one of the judges said this ruling made him a king. I'm going to take her word over your half-assed opinion. lol

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

For all intents and purposes does. Just SCOTUS made itself as a final check on what is an official act and what isn't.

[-] Jyek 11 points 5 days ago

So officially dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new pack of judges and let those judges decide if it was an "Official Act" and thus totally legal.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

So... he could assassinate Biden and all political opposition, but not Stormy Daniels

[-] [email protected] 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Trump could kill anyone and they would determine that it was official business. On the other hand, Biden could have the Republican judges executed and replaced with sycophants who could rule that this also was an official act. It’s a bad ruling.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

He can't appoint justices without Senate approval. He only needs 50 Senators to approve though. The rest can be bombed for reasons that apparently don't matter.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago

He only needs 50 senators if all 100 are present. Start tossing some of the more treasonous ones in Gitmo as an official act and that threshold can be brought down quite a bit.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

YES! GITMO! I knew we kept that around for a reason. 🤩

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Unless he signs an executive order. It doesn't get much more official than that.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

I don’t think this immunity applies to states. So the NY trial was unrelated.

[-] Jyek 5 points 5 days ago

The NY trial was unrelated to his presidential business anyways. It was about private property and fraud relating therein.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

But also, other states that have indicted him for Jan 6th activity are unaffected by this, regardless of how Trump could spin this.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

We are dealing with an openly partisan court. Normally this wouldn't affect it, but they already broke a lot of rules.

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
825 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2286 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS