this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
481 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3401 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] theodewere@kbin.social 53 points 8 months ago (2 children)

he sure likes to cry IMMUNITY doesn't he.. wonder why he needs so much of that stuff..

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If only vaccines existed….

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They do. They even come in "pill" form. Unfortunately nobody gave Trump his when it would have done the most good.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That would have been the morning after, right? And technically given to his mom?

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago

They do. They even come in "pill" form. Unfortunately nobody gave Trump his when it would have done the most good.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Objectively speaking it would short circuit a lot of law suits - regardless if he's found guilty or not.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

objectively speaking, he's the only other one besides Nixon who needed any

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Bush, Jr. might have needed some.

[–] DarthonTV@startrek.website 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

IMO the Jan 6 stuff should eliminate him off ballot access but what do I know, I just live here.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

but what do I know

 The fourteenth amendment, and how it applies to this moment in time. 
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will this have any bearing whatsoever on Jack Smith’s case?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not really. This is all theater because they are ignoring the law. As was passed, section 1983 of the federal code doesn't allow for any immunities whatsoever, not even Qualified Immunity. President Grant called this out in 1872 the year after it passed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

The next time that any sort of immunity case lands in front of SCOTUS they need multiple amicus briefs that point out the full text of the law with the 16 words that were illegally removed in 1874 added back in so that they are unable to claim that they didn't know, the way the 1982 SCOTUS could with Harlow V Fitzgerald.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 months ago

Innocent people don’t need immunity.

[–] doc@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

This is the case where DC police filed suit, not the Jack Smith case everyone is watching where SCOTUS refused to expedite when asked to circumvent the appeals courts.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based its decision on a ruling in a separate case brought by two Capitol Police officers and a group of House Democrats that was handed down earlier this month.

Circuit rejected Trump's claim that he is shielded from civil liability because his alleged actions in connection to the Jan. 6 attack fell within the official functions of the presidency.

Trump asked the federal District Court in Washington to dismiss the case, arguing he is absolutely immune from being sued for the alleged acts.

Referencing Trump's speech outside the White House before the Capitol building was breached, Mehta said the remarks were not part of the president's official duties.

Circuit agreed with the lower court's finding and rejected Trump's argument that he was engaging in an official function of the presidency when he spoke outside the White House on Jan. 6.

"When a first-term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," Srinivasan, who was assigned both cases, wrote for the three-judge panel.


The original article contains 737 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

January 6th should have earned him a spot against the wall in front of a firing squad. Anyone trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic government with both fraud and violence should be shot.

That also goes for those that plotted and executed the overthrow of democratic governments in Iran, Chile, etc etc etc so take that as you wish...