• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    151
    ·
    4 months ago

    That a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them could possibly be shielded by this ruling demonstrates just how insane it is.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      4 months ago

      a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them

      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.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.”

      • pewter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Here’s how it’s gonna work:

        1. Claim immunity in this case? “Well why? You weren’t the president”
        2. Claim that the 2020 election was “stolen” and that he rightfully was President when 1 occured
        3. Claim 1/6 was “official” too due to a stolen election

        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”

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Heikki@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago
      1. 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.

      2. 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.

      • eramseth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months 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.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    One of the core functions of the presidency is to sell secrets and advance foreign technology such that they may hurt our country economically in the future. Yeah, let’s absolve Trump of this too. And if we could also bring three or 4 virgins for him to rape comfortably during the preceding that would be great 👍.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Your honor, could you please bring Trump to the podium? Oh it’s ok, that’s how he does it. He usually doesn’t grab too hard so no worries, your pussy will be just fine.