Most of the analysis of the Justices’ arguments on Thursday that I’ve read suggests that complete immunity is highly unlikely. To his point about the trial getting delayed and Trump getting elected, that’s a real possibility.
The rationale for this actually makes some sense. You wouldn't want an incumbent to be able to remove an opponent by railroading them into a minor felony conviction. With the way Trump ran things, if all it took was a minor felony to make sure Biden was ineligible, he absolutely would have pressured the DOJ to find something.
How does that make sense if you’re not allowed to participate in the voting process as a felon? Or do you also think that felons should be eligible to vote?
I can't think of any good reason anyone's right to vote should be revoked. In fact, it's probably very important that those that have been targeted by the system are able to have their voice.
If you have served your time, then all rights should be restored to you. So many people are stuck in a system of poverty because of how our system works.
That’s primarily due to application disclosure law not having an expiration or qualification for forgiveness. Make one bad choice at 18 and you’ll be working entry-level or manual labor for the rest of your life. Not to mention the difficulty in finding a landlord that’ll rent to you. It’s so close-minded that we don’t believe in rehabilitation or change as a nation.
Agreed. Our one-chance system is designed to kill addicts. Prison is not rehabilitation, and often leads to the homeless/prison cycle for those who struggle with addiction.
It is in fact a problem when you can prescribe drugs and are expected to be impeccably honest.
Is it a bit of a Catch-22? Sure. Should a doctor be able to do heroin? Sure. Should a doctor caught selling heroin to junkies without even checking their health history be able to keep his license or practice medicine?
Or how about an accountant that embezzled from his clients?
felons should be elligible to vote. For one, there are statistically a number of people in jail who are fully innocent but convicted anyway. Second it means that politicians would have incentives not to ignore conditions of inmates. If you look at groups unable to vote: noncitizen legal residents, kids, and prisoners then you see people with fewer rightds.
Yeah, however in this case Trump did all the felonies is on his own. Your argument is for a very specific set of circumstances, in which one party nominates a candidate for the primaries, who, then commits felony crimes before the general election.
When the choice is between a conspired atrocity vs an active support of a genocide... ima go with the one that just says yeah we're guna kill them all.
They won't come down on the side of presidential immunity because it would basically be saying "Biden senpai please assassinate me uwu"
Just close your eyes and imagine Clarence Thomas saying this. He's winking and throwing up a peace sign with one foot kicked up in the air. It makes no sense and he will never do this.
They’ll issue the opinion in mid-late June, maybe early July, when most SCOTUS decisions come out. The issue is that they will probably remand it to the lower courts for other decisions.
There has to be a middle ground..if charging Presidents for things they did while in office is going to be allowed, this will in no doubt open a can of worms. I can see Republicans going after Obama for things...
I mean if he broke the law and there is enough evidence to get a conviction amongst a jury of his peers then, like, yeah, go for it. I don’t want any president or any citizen to be able to claim immunity just because they held political office for some period of time. Like if you can’t lead the country legally then don’t lead it? Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time or some platitude.
HE TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE MOTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO CLING TO POWER. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GOD DAMNED HEAD.
I'm sorry, but I am so tired of this argument. He commit fucking treason. That is literally what happened. We are all pretending like it is some nebulous thing, and it isn't. He is the textbook definition of a fucking traitor.
The Supreme Court will define "treason" by what the constitution says, and Trump does not fall into this category:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
So, unless you:
a.) Recruit and assemble a militia and use it to actively engage in insurrection or
b.) provide aid to a foreign power with whom we are actively in a declared war
He did not recruit all those Trumpsters, they did that stupid shit on their own. He didn't help the cause, but he did not actively recruit them to attack the government.
My point is that the LEFT is throwing that word around way too much...without really knowing how it's defined.
Nobody should take you seriously because you are as pathetically weak willed and spineless as you are dishonest. Defending what Donald Trump did and the Supreme Court's usurpation of the Constitution to allow him to avoid prosecution makes you a traitor to democracy. You disgust me.
I’ve got to hand it to you… although it takes a completely empty head to support a rapist traitor to his country, you’ve at least got some balls to admit it here.
I don't necessarily "support" Trump, it's about what he will actually be found guilt of. Left wing driven sites like Lemmy and Reddit do nothing but attack the Right and anyone who supports Republicans...I just like to remind you all that the Right is NOT just about Trump. In the meantime, let's wait and see what he's actually found guilty of... I vote primarily Republican (although I'm registered Independent), but I'm leaning more towards RFK Jr. if anyone...
I wonder if he is found guilty, can other Presidents be charged with past crimes? I mean, I get the anger from Lefty Lemmy, but, there has to be a middle ground. A President simply can't be charged for something just because one side thinks he's guilty. If that's the case, I can see Republicans going after Obama for crimes he committed while POTUS...
Now now, Trump isn't NECESSARILY being charged with just that.
He also removed confidential documents from the White House without them being properly redacted, potentially sold or gave those documents to other parties (or at least allowed them to see the documents), AND may have conspired to silence stories about him in an illegal manner prior to the 2016 election, AND may have also conspired to submit false documentation regarding the 2020 election results to several states AND may have also attempted to force the Georgia Secretary of State to falsify their results.
Unfortunately, I have little hope of any of these coming to fruition as convictions - Cannon is all but conceding the documents trial to Trump via extensions, delays, and simply attempting to drop the trial entirely, Georgia's prosecution forgot it was improper to fuck each other during a case, and New York can't help but keep giving them more time.
Hopefully, if someone commits a crime they should be charged, and novel trials may improve justice by setting precedent through transparent jury trial instead of closed doors scotus. If you charge someone without sufficient evidence you should be open to a countersuit. Based on oral arguments it sounds like they are defining where 'in the line of duty' ends and 'actions of some guy who also has a job as president' begins. Asking for 11,780 votes pretty obviously falls outside of the bounds of the job and it shouldn't take months to rule on that.
A President simply can’t be charged for something just because one side thinks he’s guilty.
He'a being charged because he committed a crime. Republicans could retaliate in kind and charge Obama, but it wouldn't work because Obama didn't commit a crime. Simple as.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. It's been the plan since the insurrection failed. They need to nail down R support with an iron fist single they'll never get the popular vote again.
One of the justices should have asked "If we decide in favor of immunity, couldn't Biden claim in order to protect the rule of law he could kill us and replace us with justices who would actually uphold the law and the Constitution?"
You have to consider what people actually will do.
They can make this decision knowing that the Dems won't commit the domestic-genocide they're committed to enabling,
knowing that it is the nonwhites & left who're going to be getting the genociding.
Political-motivation works that kind of way.
That is why I want a "political-motivation-ectomy" for civilization.
Political-motivation is cancerous.
Issue-diagrams are objective, & capable of cracking even urban-planning problems.
but who is going to force objectivity/practicality against ideology's-highjacking?
The dems won't, the left won't, the libertarians can't even understand civil-infrastructure, the "conservatives" ( privilege-conservatives aren't the only category of people who "conserve", as conservationists conserve, but are called non-conservatives.. damned newspeak bullshit )
