632
submitted 1 month ago by some_guy to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Surely Trump just appeals to the SCOTUS and they free him in line with today's ruling?

[-] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 month ago

Wouldn't be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump's personal lawyer. So there's pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.

That said, I have no doubts that they'd find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he'd have to go through normal appeals first, he can't just go straight to SCOTUS.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It’ll be interesting to see how stiffing your lawyer is an official act

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

You're right, but I'm confident he'll get there in the end.

[-] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They're great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I'm absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they'll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

They ruled on a goddamn hypothetical. 6-3.

None of the conservative judges are qualified to do anything except take leaves.

[-] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

They've pulled that one a lot recently, haven't they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn't even actually passed yet?

[-] Atom@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

SCOTUS can't do shit for state charges. Doesn't mean they won't try.

However, His legal team will argue literally any punishment is too harsh and appeal the NY state charges, which will be granted because he was a president and has money. Then it will be delayed past the election and not matter anyway because this system is not made to resist willful destruction by those entrusted to protect it.

Edit: Turns out they can. The NY prosecution has agreed to postpone charges less than a day after the ruling. Trump's team asserts that the criminal activities occurred before he was president, but since the evidence was gathered during, he can not be prosecuted. Apparently concealing evidence unrelated to the presidency is an official act...

[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

There's move afoot by the GOP to get any state charges against the president to be elevated to the Federal court.

Guess who can pardon himself or have federal charges dropped?

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

That's not how Federalism works. The President is not a member of any state government, and has no immunity from state crimes. There's no way to move this case from state court to federal.

[-] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

Unless you change the laws to say you can! Which was the point of the above comment.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

The Constitution can't be changed that easily. There's no reason for the State of New York to give up the case, even if it were possible to do. And there's no way to compel it, considering the issue is NY State law.

[-] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They’re already trying it on appeal, though. Sure, they’re applying federal precedent to a state case, but why would Trump’s team let stop them?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4yp9g7ynwo

[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They cannot currently cancel state charges, but the GOP is trying to change that. It is one of a raft of measures underway. Some are truely frightening, such as using Red State National Guard troops against non-compliant Blue States. Check out Project 2025 - the Republicans are even trying to hide their planned dictatorship.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

He was not President at the time of these acts, but I doubt that would stop them.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
632 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4382 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! 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.
  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