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
He was no longer president. How is this an official act?
He may try to argue he took them while he was president, and therefore, no charges can be filed. Actions and motives while the president can not be looked at either.
In the immunity ruling, "Just Us" CT added a note he thought Jack Smiths appointment was illegitimate. This means that if she tosses the entire case, it will inevitably get to the SCOTUS where there is at least 1 friendly judge that would let him off. Judging by the 6-3 ruling, I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually 6 judges.
I am sure Jack Smith can argue all the other crimes of keeping, obstructing, and distributing the documents to those with out security clerence is still a crime but it's if the question of his legitimacy if the reason. I think the SCTUS will agree with Cannon over the actual law for some BS reasons the founding fathers are believed to have said along time ago.
For what it's worth, it's really hard to read this post (which you seem to have put some actual effort into) because you're writing it with odd abbreviations and slang. I know you're trying to be edgy or something but when you have something worthwhile to say, it's best to communicate it in a way that the majority of people who run across it can understand, rather than wrap it in what effectively amounts to lingo and jargon.
It would force them to drop evidence about his state of mind when he took the documents. They would essentially be unable to argue anything at all about how they ended up there. The case would then ONLY be about him not returning them later on request, with no other context available for the ruling
Don't they have proof of him having them moved after the fact to try and hide he had them?