this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024

155 points (95.9% liked)

News

23424 readers

4393 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

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.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

155

Trump urges US Supreme Court to endorse 'absolute immunity' for ex-presidents (www.reuters.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/news

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in his bid for criminal immunity for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, arguing that a former president enjoys "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts."

The case is due to be argued before the justices on April 25. Trump has appealed a lower court's rejection of his request to be shielded from the criminal case being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith because he was serving as president when he took the actions at the center of the case.

The filing advances arguments similar to ones Trump's lawyers previously have made and echoes statements he has made on the campaign trail as he seeks to regain the presidency.

"The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," the filing said.

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 82 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If an "official act" is anything that happens while they're in office, Biden should just shoot Trump on his last day in office. Following this argument, he'd be immune to prosecution.

A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.

It's funny that this hasn't happened in 45 presidencies, yet his argument is that it's suddenly going to be a problem for every future president...

[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Biden should just shoot Trump on his last day in office.

He shouldn't even wait until the last day.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

Especially since then Trump's VP would be President and who knows what fucko he's going to run with.

[–] APassenger 10 points 8 months ago

Justice = blackmail Accountability = extortion

It's diabolical the limits the law places on people who just want to pick winners, losers, and sell secrets. Kinda unfair, really.

What's the point of all that power if it's fettered?

[–] [email protected] 81 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," the filing said.

The presidents from 1789 to 2016 did seem to manage, one way or another.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

It also presumes that the independent presidency is of any value to the republic, pretty consistently it has actually been a source of conflicts both over the authority it holds and over the authority it is not supposed to but does anyways because an independent executive will inherently form a parasitic relationship against any legislative body it is unaccountable to.

[–] twistypencil 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wtf are official acts when you leave office?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

it means [for official acts performed during their tenure] [retroactively punished once they have left the office]

[–] [email protected] 63 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why does he need immunity if everything he did was “perfectly legal”?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

He’s no longer claiming what he did was legal. He’s pretty much admitted he’s guilty because he won’t shut up about it.

[–] foggy 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The moment he does, I want a cage match between trump and clinton.

But also under this law, if Biden were to lose, he could simply murder Trump and reclaim his seat? Democracy?

What a buffoon.

[–] mrcleanup 9 points 8 months ago

Under this philosophy he wouldn't have to wait. Actions taken in the name of national security. Done.

[–] dyathinkhesaurus 44 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Ex presidents... Plural. Could someone get Dubya or Clinton or one of the others to retire Trump, since they're now immune too

[–] Fredselfish 23 points 8 months ago

Fuck under that Obama could take him out. After all he is ex president.

[–] jaybone 4 points 8 months ago

Are the Bush’s also against Trump? If so I feel like they should be more vocal about that.

[–] Son_of_dad 41 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

By that logic, doesn't that mean he's endorsing the idea that Biden can toss Trump in jail and fuck up his family, and save us all the hassle of a trial. And get away with it, since he's president and immune, according to Trump.

[–] Adalast 4 points 8 months ago

Yes

[–] muntedcrocodile 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

He clearly hasnt thought this one through. Biden can just order that trump be execjted by a hitsquad and have complete immunity lol. Ohh u dont like a political opponent and u are still presedent just execut them.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

Not to mention how it basically gives Biden cart blanche to ignore all their previous rulings against him with absolute impunity

"No prosecution you say? Well guess who's student loan debts are being forgiven!"

[+] APassenger -15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

He doesn't have access to a group that would follow this unconstitutional order.

And he'd be impeached if it was found out.

Unless you're talking about some sleeper Manchurian Candidate... I dunno that this goes the way fantasies want.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I bet he could get federal officers that would arrest Trump on charges for insurrection and deny bail. And then similarly for Republican members of Congress who would support such obvious treason. It's not necessary to execute political enemies but to enforce the law more quickly and not leave a treasonous SCOTUS in charge to undermine democracy.

I'm sure Biden could find people willing to do that. And it's not the kind of thing Biden would do without being certain he had the people to follow through. But Biden wouldn't do it. Which is a huge problem as SCOTUS can effectively call this bluff. That will give Trump a huge political advantage and effectively make him dictator if he wins.

[–] APassenger 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The President isn't part of the judicial branch. He makes appointments that get approved... But he's not part of that process.

He has some political clout, but what you describe is exactly what we fear Trump will do if he's able to fill all the slots with minions (who should know better but may break conventions and laws regardless).

It isn't done. Even for actual crimes it goes through the judicial side.

Y'all are saying Biden should break the law and do the very same, chilling thing Trump hopes to. The balance of powers is critical to our system. It's in need of repair, but what's being banded about would be a major breach.

[–] whotookkarl 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're missing the point that it would make it legal for Biden to do those things if the supreme court agreed with Trump. They aren't advocating for Biden to do these things, but the obvious buffoonery of even proposing the ruling by Trump. He could murder Trump, the house impeaches, the Senate does nothing as usual, and tada it's all legal now.

[–] APassenger 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm not missing the point. Others are missing the reality: Biden won't create a government that allows him to get away with it. Trump almost has.

As a practical matter, impunity works only for those who lack virtue or are willing to become the baddies out of necessity.

We can talk principles all we want. And if we do, we continue to miss the fact that Dems tend to abide laws, conventions and principles. Republicans don't. They have the will to rule regardless of what gets trampled on the way.

People are fantasizing about how silly it is. It is one of the few checks that remained enforced when Trump was in office - separation of powers.

This isn't diverting or silly. We just look naive.

I doubt SCOTUS would botch this, but if they do it only advantages the willing.

[–] muntedcrocodile 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He has access to the entire american market im sure he could find someone.

Cant be impeached if hes immune to to everything as trumps trying to implement.

[–] APassenger 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Legal immunity would not nullify the impeachment powers of congress enshrined in the constitution.

It's already partially a political thing that's done at their discretion.

Trump's argument Is that impeachment is how a president is held accountable. In this case, removal from office is the punishment.

[–] BrokenGlepnir 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It would nullify it, because all you'd need to do is sit in congress with a shotgun ready for one of them to even begin the word "impeach"

[–] APassenger 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In this scenario, yes. Though it seems inelegant and unlikely in this form, the threat of death would cow most.

It would mean our government has already collapsed and we're just watching the final gasp.

It's also why I've not enjoyed seeing the dem/rep split on guns. The left may own guns, but I'm not sure there's as as many or as much willingness as the other way around.

[–] zik 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm surprised that the supreme court would even hear this request. He's just a normal citizen now and the brief sounds a lot like someone requesting retrospective absolution for their crimes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Iirc this is just a brief and the court can choose not to hear it, without giving their reasons.

Although it would be hard to say no to the boss. :P

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The really scary part is that this 'court' might do what he wants

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If it does, I hope Biden goes on a huge crime spree. I mean, that's the endgame so might as well be entertained while the shop goes down.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

OK OK OK New theory: Trump's lawyers are trying to get him killed.

Lawyers argue during presidents should be able to literally assassinate people
Conservative supreme court agrees
Biden, with newly granted powers, takes next logical step and has Trump retired.

I doubt any Republican would risk accepting the nomination for, or running against, Biden - or any Democrat president ever again.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Tbf I don't think his lawyers are the ones pushing him to go through with this. I think it's him pushing them to do it 'cause he owns SCOTUS.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Occam's Razor, for sure, but I like mine.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Unfortunately I really doubt Biden would break the law even if SCOTUS said he couldn't be prosecuted. It would effectively stain him forever and he'd need to keep breaking the law in order to stay in power. He imprisons Trump he's probably looking at impeachment. So then he needs to jail dissidents in congress. Now he's definitely not winning re-election so he needs to suspend the election.

Either way dictators win if this decision gives Presidents absolute immunity. Which is the only reason I'm hopeful the corrupt SCOTUS won't decide along those lines. The SCOTUS, and the entire country would effectively be held hostage under the dictator President.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

This sounds great, let's do it

[–] ME5SENGER_24 15 points 8 months ago

Fuck Donald Trump and whatever he thinks

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Remind repubs that absolute immunity would cover sexual crimes against children. Let's use their insane "think of the children" crap to actually do something positive.

[–] mechoman444 12 points 8 months ago

Just like an good oligarch dictator would.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Do it!

Then we can blacksite that fucker and never have to hear about his shit again!

[–] BillDaCatt 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No matter what they do the orange man loses. Either they rule against him and he goes to jail or they rule in his favor and Biden takes full advantage of his own "Presidential Immunity."

[–] distractionfactory 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Presidential Immunity would be the single worst outcome for the country, regardless of what happened to Trump himself. It would remove all oversight to the Executive branch. And it would confirm that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt, because there is no way it could be interpreted as constitutional by reasonable people. Even hearing the case is an obscene waste of time and resources.

I'm embarrassed as an American that we are seeing any of this take place.

[–] BillDaCatt 5 points 8 months ago

Completely agree.

[–] RizzRustbolt 9 points 8 months ago

He really doesn't see how this could backfire on him, does he?

[–] Treczoks 8 points 8 months ago

Translation: Trump is shitting his pants out of fear of actual consequences.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

He was a president in title only, dude didn’t do jack shit.

[–] Cypher 3 points 8 months ago

The Supreme court should agree with Trump and then be executed the next day by Presidential order.

Just to send a message.