449
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 Feb 2024
449 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18821 readers
4596 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf
Excerpt:
Well worth skimming the ruling if you ask me. And up vote parent comment for visibility please.
Also:
F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.
Finally...
Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.
Greatest works of poetry of all time:
William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’
T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’
Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’
Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’
US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump
That's all well and good but he's being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president
And, as the ruling states, the president isn't immune to all prosecution.
According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I'd like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president
Read the ruling. It discussed this.
He's being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn't part of his official duties as President.
The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president..I'd like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn't operate on common sense
So, you're saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?
No, I'm saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump's situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?
^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.
Thanks!
Who might analyze this at length, any YouTubers or podcasters? I’m thinking Leonard French or The Weeds…
Legal Eagle has been doing some good commentary videos on the slew of Trump legal stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle
https://nebula.tv/legaleagle
Ah nice, thanks.
Interesting they used Nixon as precedent.