News

Both. Within the last week.

They're altering the fabric of our rule of law to protect Trump. Bribery? It's cool as long as it's AFTER the politician carries out the request. President does anything illegal (including killing a political rival (sorry, Traitor!) or selling state secrets to Russia for example.... as long as it's "official" (and SCOTUS rules what is and isn't "official") - it's all good.

If Trump wins we are one Reichstag Fire away from a complete fascist dictatorship and frankly it may not even take that. Trump already "liked" a couple of posts suggesting military tribunals and firing squads for Biden, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and anyone else he finds disloyal or having persecuted him... And he's said he'll be a dictator on day one. If someone tells you who they are, believe them.

They did.

Kind of. "Gratuities" are legal, bribery is not, and presidents are immune for prosecution for acts undertaken as part of their duties.

A "gratuitity" must be made after the fact, which is still totally a type of bribery, but it isn't the same as making all bribery legal as a blanket rule.

Presidents are now immune to prosecution, but only regarding official acts. The court refused to rule on what an official vs unofficial act is, basically meaning that they'll decide whether something is legal or not when they feel like it. The obvious problem here is how heavily stacked the supreme court is, but they also didn't just come out and say "fuck it, presidents have absolute power."

Edit: To be clear, both of these rulings are absolutely fucking terrible. If our courts had any appropriate amount of oversight, the blatant corruption on display would be enough to see the court disbarred and indicted. They're just not quite as bad as people describe on Lemmy.

Bribery: SNYDER v. UNITED STATES

Kavanaugh writing for the majority:

The question in this case is whether §666 also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities—for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like—that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no.

The official act was a $1.1 million contract. The "token of appreciation" was a $13,000 check. At trial it was argued that the payment was for consulting services, but presumably the jury did not believe that.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

Presidential immunity: TRUMP v. UNITED STATES

At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient

The court takes a very broad view of core constitutional conduct

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives

Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove ... " The Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined.

Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Where have you been for the last 3 days?