157

Summary

Donald Trump is seeking "temporary presidential immunity" to delay or dismiss a civil lawsuit filed in Delaware by co-founders of Trump Media & Technology Group, who accuse him of blocking their full stake in the company.

Trump argues that defending lawsuits during his presidency would distract from his official duties, citing the burden of managing numerous pending cases.

His legal team claims state court lawsuits undermine the presidency.

This effort follows broader Supreme Court rulings expanding presidential immunity, though critics cite concerns over accountability.

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Soup@lemmy.world 116 points 3 weeks ago

This dude basically got no punishment and yet still wants to not have to face consequences. He’s got a CVS reciept of felonies and was completely let go of any punishment from the last thing and he’s still mad?

Exhausting, and imagine if a Democrat did this shit.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago

imagine if a Democrat did this shit.

No need. We saw the response to Obama's tan suit, arugula, fist bump, dijon mustard, etc, etc.

[-] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 53 points 3 weeks ago

Trump seeks federal law overriding state's rights?

I feel like I've heard a complaint or two about this before...but from where?

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago

Judge should just respond with this:

[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 weeks ago

So; when do you states plan on your next civil war?

We'll come help you burn the white house down again. :) 🇨🇦

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

I wish, but no. It's going to be fascism and "principled" and meaningless #resitance

[-] jimjam5@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago

I’m no political scientist or savvy follower of politics, but isn’t there a paragraph or two in the Declaration of Independence about our right (duty even) to overthrow such dictators…?

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in any way. It describes nothing about the law in the US or the rights of its citizens.

[-] jimjam5@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Ahh so it was like a free-spirited manifesto letter they wrote for posterity? Shame that it’s not a law or otherwise legally binding document.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

His legal team claims state court lawsuits undermine the presidency.

Oh no! It could cut into his golfing time!

[-] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 14 points 3 weeks ago

lawsuits during his presidency would distract from his official duties

that is covfefe, golfing and making ai slop executive orders?

Congrats to the US of A on becoming the newest monarchy!

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Monarchy or dicatorship... is there much difference between the two tho?

[-] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yes there is. Or there can be. A monarchy doesn't automatically mean the King/Queen actually has power.

The Netherlands, for example, is a monarchy, but is a parliamentary representative democracy. I think monarchies are ridiculous, we should just get rid of it. But you definitely can't call Willem-Alexander a dictator.

Indeed. European monarchies are like this. The monarch has no real power, they can only sign the laws passed by the parliament. It's basically like a president of the republic in countries like Italy. Except you can't vote to choose a new one.

Turd's model of monarchy is akin to those absolutists we remember before France invented their well known and completely democratic way of unelecting a king.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Temporary.

lol.

Everyone is going to buy it too.

[-] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 weeks ago

Meh... It's too much. The storm of obsene dystopian shit is just overwhelming. Wake me up when he's Supreme Leader for life,

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

Just swap working on this for your golf time.

Problem solved 🤝

[-] Tilgare@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

citing the burdon of managing numerous pending cases.

It's so easy to not have numerous pending cases against you in the first place. I want nothing more than for this dipshit to be stuck in court defending every one of his illegal actions taken the last 55 years. Couldn't happen to a better person.

[-] Geobloke@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

He could just divest his stuff if it's too much

this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
157 points (98.2% liked)

politics

20345 readers
1224 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS