208
This argument should be laughed out of court. Elections are not under the purview of the President of the United States, constitutionally or statutorily.
I am no legal scholar, but I don't see any way for a court to find Trump has that immunity but Biden doesn't. I really don't know that any high court loves Trump enough to give Biden that sort of power. Maybe I'm wrong, but I hope I'm right.
Remember, SCOTUS refused to indulge Trump's election denial claims.
That's always my first thought as well. If the President has criminal immunity, then Biden could order the FBI to arrest Trump and send him to Guantanamo without notifying any courts/lawyers/family members. He could then have prominent Republicans/right wing figures killed in "accidents."
Not that Biden would do any of that stuff, but he theoretically could. Do any right wingers really want to give Biden that much power?
Accidents my ass, Joe can start hunting SCotUS Justices for sport if they fuck up & find that a President is immune to criminal prosecution.
I’d just be happy if he dissolved the current SCOTUS then created a new one with term limits, independent ethics oversight, etc.
Congress could dissolve the Court on Tuesday if they wanted to. Impeach and removal. Not every justice has behaved egregiously enough to merit it, but it's a political decision anyway.
Don’t tempt me with a good time.
And even if they are absolutely sure that Biden wouldn't, they better also be absolutely sure there will be Republican rule in perpetuity, or the next Democrat in office could decide to go on a major revenge streak like Trump couldn't even dream of. I'm guessing they're aware of that.
If this happens, Biden should just go: "Ok, I'm president for life now until someone overturns this."
Republicans will break their necks getting that decision they want now undone.
He could send hit squads for everyone implicated in j6, end his reelection campaign and retire. If the SC rules for absolute immunity.
And a few for certain corrupt members of the SC as well.
This is definitely the legal strategy I would take if I was completely innocent of what I was being accused of.
I couldn't be guilty of trying to overthrow the government, I was the government! Also, vote for me to become president again.
Remember what this qlown said about those that plead the Fifth?
If the only person who could be convicted of it should be immune from it, then it shouldn’t be a crime. That argument is, in its face, absurd, since the people who crafted the law certainly imagined someone should be subject to it.
Every time he trots out this lame attempt to avoid accountability, this is what I think of (from Lethal Weapon 2).
Links broken.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Trump wants the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower-court ruling rejecting his claims of immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case.
The former president has been attempting to delay his March 4 trial in the case, with his fight over the immunity claim underscoring those efforts.
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from Smith for the justices to immediately hear the case before the DC Circuit had a chance to weigh in.
Trump’s team asked the appeals court earlier this month to examine the immunity ruling issued by Chutkan.
Chutkan rejected Trump’s immunity claims, writing in an opinion that his “four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”
They also warned that, in their view, Trump’s indictment “threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come.”
The original article contains 507 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
208 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2150 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