• AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are “absolutely” immune from criminal prosecution when their actions involve allegedly official acts while they were in office.

    In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts remanded the case to the lower courts, which now have to determine whether Trump’s conduct was official or unofficial.

    A grand jury approved an indictment against Trump in August for charges including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding.

    Trump faces a series of legal challenges across the country both at the state and federal levels.

    Most recently, he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in a trial over hush money payments, including payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress a story about her and Trump having sex.

    That means — unlike in the state case — that if Trump were convicted but elected president, he could potentially pardon himself.


    The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    What he did was not official. Now the lower court gets to decide what is official, and it’s being intentionally slowed down until AFTER the election so the current admin can’t go ballswild with the new allowances. Fuck these Maga-locing shitheads on the SC.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It’s technically treasonous.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.

              His public tweets would be admissible.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m clairvoyant and I can see the future: They won’t. It’s always been all bark and no bite when it comes to armed revolution here in the states.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well I suppose not always. We did have a revolutionary war and a civil war.

        But anybody alive today? Less bite than a newborn.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Also the Whiskey rebellion and Union/county wars, but nobody remembers them because they were relatively small. Also a lot of Rednecks especially Boomers and Gen X ended up being fucken bootlickers, sure there are some of us within Gen Z who are trying to revers the damage but well culture rarely moves fast.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Hey now, don’t besmirch the name Redneck with those sad sods. The Rednecks fought the good fight at the Battle of Blair Mountain, only to be put down by the US military backing robber barons.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Oh no I agree, I was moreso opining the damage done to Redneck culture as a whole. I may be of the Southern Californian variety and have little to no relations to those fine sons of bitches in the Appalachians but I have nothing but respect for mine distant kin. No I was simply stating that the bootlickers in who were taken advantage of through several points of cultural weakness did a shit tonne of damage. I have had the pleasure of talking to Rednecks of the Greatest generation and Silent generation, theyre no shits given savagery is something I wish I could muster but given the fact at least one of them car bombed one of his bosses and smuggled guns to the IRA I can say that I will never match up. But im still doing better than the Boomers.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        And that’s why they didn’t bother with guns in Iraq. Defeating the Americans was hopeless; mission accomplished.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          This response is so weird I can’t quite tell what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Iraqis resisted with small arms fire? Because that’s not the case.

          More US citizens die each year in the US from guns than US soldiers died in the entirety of the Iraq war. And it’s not a small difference either - each year 4-5x as many citizens die from gun violence. Not including suicides (which would more than double the number)

          So was your post trying to say the small arms resistance in Iraq was effective?

      • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        When a group of American freedom fighters go to take over a U.S.A. military base and hesitant soldiers aren’t sure if they should follow a traitorous president or their oath to the Constitution, the American freedom fighters being well-armed will make the difference.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        To be fair, the fighting would be guerilla warfare which the us hasn’t been that great at dealing with.

      • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        We could probably mount a pretty decent resistance with what we have available. look what happened in iraq during the occupation. insurgency would be the way to go in a rebellion against the us govt.

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Exactly why I think americans who say the 2A needs to stay to overthrow a fascist government is full of shit. I would love to be proven wrong though

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s still good enough to shoot people who accidentally step on your lawn, or the teachers and co-students you had a disagreement with.

  • Apothenon1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.

    The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.

    No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.

    Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      And Europe’s next. Another far right puppet of Putin will be elected to run a European country in the next few weeks. Just shows that Europe follows the US in lockstep with a 5 year delay.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The sad thing is that you’re completely correct.

      It’s over. This is the beginning of the true end. The end has been in sight for a while now, but it was always over the horizon.

      Now we can actually see it.

      There is not a way for us to legally come back from this.

      In retrospect, I guess that we should have seen it coming that the Supreme Court of lifelong, unelected officials would be our undoing.

      It’s pretty sad that we’re all taking this lying down with all of our Second Amendment talk.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    As an official act, dissolve the current supreme court and reverse every terrible decision they made.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Biden can now legally shoot Trump on stage during the next debate. Gotcha.

    I don’t think having a raspy voice will be the biggest talking point in the aftermath this time.

    And if anyone raises a stink and somehow manages to prove that this was illegal anyway, I’m sure it’s the same people who have claimed that he’s senile anyway.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Biden could, but he won’t. We’re just going to get more finger wagging and muttering at him about being a scoundrel and shit.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Correct. He’s still trying to Chamberlain when it’s long overdue that he goes full Kubiš & Gabčík.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        “The only way to solve this is by voting harder.” They leave out the “for the next 30 years, continuously, until the court is rebalanced through natural causes and decides to undo what is now ‘precedent’”.

  • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The key point here is what constitutes an official act. I would say an insurrection is the opposite of official.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    If anyone ever doubted that the DNC and the GOP weren’t on the same team, just watch as the DNC let this opportunity slip right through their fingers. Access to the greatest political, strategical, minds and they will let this opening wash away into a river of fascism.

    It’s a play, we are watching theatre. Meant to keep you distracted. Meant to keep you oppressed.

        • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          For starters, by spending the last 4 years training a different candidate to beat trump this year.

          But failing that, they could absolutely have prevented that disaster on the debate. They knew full well how the rest of America will react to seeing Biden look like that, and I find it no coincidence that it happened directly before The Supreme Court ruled to overturn Chevron and Grant immunity to Trump.

          • Fluba@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            While that is interesting, you realize before the 4 years you mentioned, Trump did everything he’s in trouble for doing. He also established the supreme court we have. If Biden randomly died his first 5 months, we still would be in a similar (if not the same) situation. Every person who made this happen, would still have their previously established power. Training someone new would not have stopped this inevitability.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        We could all collectively decide to chop the heads off of the elite. We don’t need to argue about which capitalist is better every 4 years. There’s nothing physically stopping 90% of the country from just overthrowing the other 10% if we really tried together

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Surely if something he does is unconstitutional, it is not within his official capacity or power!?
    But somehow I have a feeling I’m being extremely naive just thinking that.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The SCOTUS majority just decided that nothing the president does is illegal, at least in a way that can ever be prosecuted.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean… I actually agree with (aspects of) that ruling. A nation’s leader is going to have to, by necessity, do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

    The issue is defining what counts as an “official act” and having any kind of checks and balances on that.

    For example: Let’s look at the purely hypothetical example of an outgoing president engaging in a violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to prevent losing power. Crazy, right? But, in that example, it is not at all a stretch that said former president is an enemy of the state. There is a lot of legal discussion on whether it is legal to pop them in the head without a series of trials but it is in that range where it is probably better than not to give the elected POTUS immunity in that situation.

    But what if that outgoing president insisted that it was an “official act” to lead that violent insurrection? No intelligent person would at all consider that a defense.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Prior presidents have done all kinds of shady shit without worrying about prosecution. Even the angry orange didn’t get charged until he tried to overthrow an election.

      There was zero reason to even decide this case except to give immunity to someone who blatantly abuses their authority.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      From the dissent:

      Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless

      When the foremost observers of the fascist cabal say their ruling is “just as bad as it sounds”, I will take their word for it.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

      Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is “legal”, and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.

      For an “official” act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn’t be possible for an illegal act to be “official”.

      Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can’t even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can’t mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.