495
submitted 2 years ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal.

Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date.

Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpones the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The judges gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 74 points 2 years ago

Now he hits the big red appeal button and delays judgement until May.

[-] bedrooms@kbin.social 55 points 2 years ago

It's stupid. Imagine the presidential immunity were a thing: POTUS could hold a press conference, rape a reporter in front of cameras, kill her husband at the same time, and nobody would be allowed to stop it.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 27 points 2 years ago

Also Joe Biden could do whatever he wants to his political opponents

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

It would be kinda hilarious if the Supreme Court took up the case and Biden showed up to watch the hearing carrying a baseball bat.

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

He could have his Secret Service detail aiming red laser pointers at whomever he points finger guns.

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago

Or, you know, shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue

[-] orbitz@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago

No, no, couldn't congress impeach and convict him during the ordeal and then they'd be good to charge him with a crime? Only the one he was committing once the vote was tallied of course, after the senator filibustering the vote was pressured, and it was on the agenda. It seems like such a simple thing to do unless the President gave himself a pardon in advance of course.

The whole idea is completely preposterous, that anyone should have that sort of immunity, to the point that justices should have been writing their decision as soon as the idea was brought up and knew it could land in their court.

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

Congress couldn't do shit because anyone voting to impeach the president would be a "political opponent" and would get murderized

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

They don't need to write anything if they wish stay true to the constitution and justice. All they need to do is simply say, "Nope we good Fam, we ain't hearing shit about this." And that lets the Appeals Court stand.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 7 points 2 years ago

I mean as long as he accused the couple of voting illegally or something, sure, yes.

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
495 points (98.2% liked)

News

36569 readers
508 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS