230
US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
230 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18082 readers
3104 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
New York Times: “The bottom line practical effect of the court ruling appears to be that the trial judge in Washington, Tanya Chutkan, is going to have to hold an evidentiary hearing on many, if not most, of the allegations in the special counsel’s indictment of Trump. That hearing will delve into the question of whether the allegations were based on official acts Trump took as president or unofficial ones.”
“That process is going to take time. How much time remains unclear at this point.”
And that, right there, was the goal. This decision, rather than clarifying anything, intentionally muddied the waters - and treads awfully close to turning the presidency into a monarchy - in order to allow Trump to drag things out even more. They really, truly do not want him to face any sort of justice for January 6th before the election, and they hope the election will result in him never having to face justice at all.
I don't care if you fucking hate Biden, people... Vote for him like democracy depends on it, because it fucking does. This is not a dress rehearsal. There will be no do-overs. If you let Trump become president again, America is done.