this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024

457 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers

2006 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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

• 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

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

457

Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department's election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (11 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.

If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.

During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.

The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Elie Honig had an interesting take on this on his podcast. While I'm not sure that I completely agree with Elie, I feel like he tends to say things that, emotionally, I wish weren't true but that are very factually true.

Elie said that, as supreme court cases go, even important ones, this is a very accelerated timeline. They are asking both sides to prepare their arguments quickly but want to allow both sides to construct their arguments. He also suggested that this is exactly the kind of case that the supreme court should hear. It is an issue of first impression with dire impacts for our country, both in the short and long-term. He argued that this kind of decision shouldn't be left to an appeals court simply because it is simply too important. It requires the weight of the supreme court.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Totally valid. That said, it's unreal that the question is even being asked. It was never a question before Trump. The fact that he is actually the GOP nominee when this is a question before SCOTUS because of him blows my mind.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Mostly likely, the conservative majority will affirm the lower court ruling and agree that the president doesn't have that sort of immunity. But they can do so late enough to kill the case, which is the goal here.

load more comments