• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    113
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      631 month ago

      He can still become president with a criminal conviction. He just can’t vote in the election. Isn’t our system swell?

      • qantravon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        601 month ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 month ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              161 month ago

              I agree. It simply makes no sense that felons don’t get a say in the nation, but can somehow run it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            15
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            131 month ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 month ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 month ago

                It really shouldn’t be legal to ask if someone was a non-violent felon (violent felons would need a different classification).

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 month ago

                  There are some things it’s relevant for, in terms of financial crimes or pharmaceuticals.

                  Or a rape charges for working in a SA survivor clinic.

                  Elder abuse in nursing homes…

                  Etc.

                  And all of a sudden when see why we just need to stop categorizing things into felony/misdemeanor and take cases individually

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 month ago

                    I would say some of that is violent though, rape and elder abuse has a victim, drug use does not.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 month ago

                  As of now, it’s mandatory to disclose if you’ve ever had a conviction, and verified prior to employment.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 month ago

                    I know it is, I just don’t think it should be. Way to many non-violent drug users have their lives ruined over an addiction.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 month ago

          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 month ago

          You’re ok with a man who has openly conspired with Russia to overthrow the US government being president?

          Please tell me that’s not what you meant.

          • Alto
            link
            fedilink
            81 month ago

            I think they were meaning they’re fine with felons voting, which I can’t disagree with.

          • NoIWontPickAName
            link
            fedilink
            11 month ago

            It’s similar to how many guilty men would you let go free before you were ok with jailing an innocent man.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -131 month ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -241 month ago

        What system is better bro? I mean, what country the size of the United States is doing it the “right way?” India? China?

        • @Birch
          link
          41 month ago

          That is a false equivalence

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It’s much more of a question that requires perspective and thought to address beyond just drive by hand waving one liners.

        • Turun
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          Idk, not taking away voting rights of citizens after they did their time?

          Come on, it’s not that hard to think about what could be made better.

    • @Socsa
      link
      8
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 month ago

        They’ll decide against immunity, but after the election. If Biden wins, they won’t want him immune. If Trump wins, he won’t need immunity anymore.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 month ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -331 month ago

      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…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 month ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 month ago

        It’s not just “what he did in office”.

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -41 month ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

            a.) Recruit and assemble a militia and use it to actively engage in insurrection

            Definitionally it was a militia:

            Recruiting said militia:

            Proof of motive for committing treason:

            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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                I would stick a shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger with my toes before I would vote for Donald Trump.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                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.

                Props. I’m actually impressed.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -51 month ago

                  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…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 month ago

        I can see Republicans going after Obama for things…

        Please list these “things” and the laws they are in violation of.