449

Federal appeals court rules Trump doesn't have broad immunity from prosecution (www.npr.org)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by mp3@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Wayback Machine
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 88 points 9 months ago

The ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Excerpt:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

Well worth skimming the ruling if you ask me. And up vote parent comment for visibility please.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Also:

In relevant part, the district court rejected Trump’s claim of executive immunity from criminal prosecution, holding that “[f]ormer Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.” United States v. Trump,

F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Finally...

as the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

Greatest works of poetry of all time:

William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’
T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’
Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’
Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’
US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

That's all well and good but he's being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

And, as the ruling states, the president isn't immune to all prosecution.

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I'd like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Read the ruling. It discussed this.

[-] mdurell@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

He's being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn't part of his official duties as President.

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president..I'd like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn't operate on common sense

[-] Wiz@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago

So, you're saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

No, I'm saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump's situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Thanks!

Who might analyze this at length, any YouTubers or podcasters? I’m thinking Leonard French or The Weeds…

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Legal Eagle has been doing some good commentary videos on the slew of Trump legal stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle

https://nebula.tv/legaleagle

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Ah nice, thanks.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

Interesting they used Nixon as precedent.

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024

449 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4543 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

• 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