827
Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines
(newrepublic.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 20 Aug 2024
827 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1368 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 Logan Act was passed in 1799. A grand total of two people were charged with violating it, and none were convicted.
Those fun facts are never going to change. Prosecutors should find something else to charge Trump with, it won't be hard.
We can always change the traditions
One reason that it's never used is that a lot of lawyers suspect banning negotiation with anyone, even a foreign power, violates the First Amendment.
And if it's used against the Trump then the SCOTUS will surely agree.
In that respect, I don't disagree with them. Though they're right for very much the wrong reason.
The trouble with prosecuting Trump under the Logan Act is that, technically, the ceasefire would not be an agreement between the US and a foreign government. It would be an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Here's the text of the act:
Now, I would argue that brokering a ceasefire counts as "measures of the United States," but it's not a slam dunk legal argument. Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don't have any faith that he will be held accountable.
While judicial corruption is a real risk, this sort of assumed helplessness just lets them implement it without actually doing the corruption and putting their credibility on the line. And it could be applied to literally anything. Once you assume the Court will always act corruptly, it doesn't matter whether a legal question exists, they'll do it anyway.
He probably won't be held accountable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be initiating court cases for every violation of the law. They can die in the Supreme Court and be added to the list of reasons for why extreme reforms are necessary.
I agree with you completely, but also keep in mind that every corrupt ruling from the current federal and supreme courts is a precedent that must be later replaced if/when we get reasonable judges in place. Not only do we need to win, but we need the court to hear a case where a former president is charged with a crime and the "official acts" bullshit is thrown out. That, or the legislature passes a constitutional amendment. Until either one of those happens, presidents have immunity from prosecution.
My first thought is that the US is trying to broker a cease fire, so that should definitely count as a measure of the US.
The founding fathers weren't unaware of international affairs and that countries do things that are not in relation to their own country. So that last clause seems to specifically address those other things.
I agree with you, but I doubt very much that Trump's judges will rule against him.