this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
260 points (96.4% liked)

News

23024 readers
3936 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.


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
 

The filing came in the federal election subversion case ahead of 9 January oral arguments

Special counsel Jack Smith has hit back at Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in a new court filing.

Mr Smith’s office argued in a Saturday filing that Mr Trump’s claim “threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.”

The filing came in the federal election subversion case ahead of 9 January oral arguments before a US appeals court in Washington DC, reported CNN.

“The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.’ To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” Mr Smith wrote.

“This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s — and the defendant’s — compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case,” he added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 91 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Best quote in the comments by Freethought sums it up for me:

If what Trump says is the standard that a US president has immunity to commit any crime they see fit to do while in office, then the premise of the rule of law is meaningless.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It already was kinda meaningless since the president can tell someone to commit a crime and then pardon them (as happened ~~with Michael Cohen~~)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Only if it’s a federal crime. Crimes like assaulting police officers, and even bank or election fraud are often filed at the state level. The charges Trump are facing in Georgia are just one example.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What? Who pardoned Michael Cohen? He went to prison. Twice. Trump's attack dog Barr made sure of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

sorry, was mixing up Paul Manafort and Roger Stone - there were just so many criminals in that team

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

No problem, there's still many shitbirds.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

And it means Obama can commit any crimes he likes now. Pretty sure the trump humpers wouldn’t like that.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

Fascists worship power. They don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the position that gives them more power.

A prime example of this is free speech. Fascists love to complain about being silenced yet the moment they take power one of the first things they do is silence the press and shutdown dissenting opinions. Free speech is a tool to get them power, quickly discarded when it comes to maintaining or expanding power.

Fascists know they are hypocrites, they don't care. They'll abandon positions the second they don't lead to getting them more power.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Where did you get that?

Trumps flat out wrong about this immunity claim, and it would pretty much destroy all checks and balances if allowed, but he’s only claiming it for acts while he was still in office. Jan 6th happened while he was still legally the President. He’s claiming that he has immunity for actions as President.

Obama hasn’t been president in 7 years. Anything he does now is as a normal citizen. An equal comparison would be if Obama were charged today for something that happened in 2016, and he claimed immunity.

It would mean that Biden would be immune from prosecution for anything though now, which would set up for him just ignoring any election, legally.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Serious question: can you not recognize sarcasm, or irony? The poster you're answering was clearly not serious, and was pointing out hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

I don't see any sarcasm is irony in there. It's an attempt at an analogy but the mistake is so big as to only confuse the matter further.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I meant if the SC accepted trump’s argument that he’s got unconditional immunity even for things after he left office (which they won’t, but hypothetically if they did), it would mean that would apply to Biden, Obama, and Clinton, too.

He’s trying the immunity argument for the classified docs thing, too, not just J6. If he can still claim immunity after leaving office, Obama could go on a crime spree and claim immunity, too.

None of that matters, though, because this whole claim is laughably unconstitutional.