285
Trump asks judge to gut classified documents case after immunity ruling
(www.theguardian.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 06 Jul 2024
285 points (97.0% liked)
News
21850 readers
5250 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
I can't imagine how anyone could make a serious argument that is an "official act".
I know they'll try, but it's cartoon villain levels of ridiculous.
The layers of protection provided in the Supreme Court ruling makes it very easy to justify either immunity or simply excluding all evidence of a non-official crime. It's much broader than just "official vs. non-official". The LegalEagle YouTube channel has a good run through of all the ways in which immunity or effective immunity could be achieved and it's bad. "Top 5 worst Supreme Court rulings ever."
It may not matter at all. Imagine it's deemed unofficial and he wins the election, he will almost definitely pardon himself. Pardon powers were never given reasonable limits.
People have undervalued that the real check on a president's powers is in the hands of the voters. The next strongest checks seem to be the lifespan of the executive and the two term limit.
Oh, I know he's going to try any and all bullshit tactics to cover his ass, just like he always has.
I'm just hoping there are still a couple of checks and balances left un-shredded to not let him fully get away with it.
Here’s how it’s gonna work:
Because, sadly, some of those others are still in limbo, Canon will be more than happy to put things on hold “while preceding matters are sorted out”
Because the ruling quite literally says that anything the president does as the president is presumed to have immunity unless the prosecution can argue that applying criminal law couldn't possibly impact on the core work of the office of the president, and that their motivation for doing what they do can't be considered when making that determination.
"As the president" Trump asked the justice department to falsely claim it had discovered election fraud as part of a plot to steal the election.
The supreme Court ruled that this is protected because if you ignore his motivation, punishing the president for consulting with the justice department about election fraud would clearly impede the core functions of the office.
Without considering motivation, would punishing the president for transporting documents he has legal access to to a place he's allowed to take them impact impact the function of the office?
It's a very bad ruling.