this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
55 points (92.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3756 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On Aug. 1, a hearing committee of the District of Columbia Bar recommended the suspension of Jeffrey Clark from the practice of law for two years with reinstatement to be conditioned on demonstrating his fitness to practice law. Clark, one will recall, is the former Trump assistant attorney general who briefly seemed to be designated by Trump as acting attorney general at the Department of Justice, as part of Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

...

... the dissonance between the committee’s recommendation and the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v. United States is stunning. Clark is to be disciplined for conduct as to which the Court says Trump is immune. Though it is possible, logically, to resolve the dissonance without legal gyrations (if only on the ground that presidents are not their subordinates), the difference in outlook is, nonetheless, as stark a demonstration as possible of how differently the bar and the Court conceive of the law and the obligations of the president and the legal profession.

Archived at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/jeffrey-clark--donald-trump--and-control-of-the-department-of-justice

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Immunity is such a bullshit precedent to begin with that we should make zero effort whatsoever to voluntarily increase its scope. Crimes are crimes until explicitly told otherwise by the Supreme Circus

[–] One_Honest_Dude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why would trump being immune protect Jeff Clark from consequences? The supreme Court didn't even state that what Trump did was legal, only that he's immune from prosecution.

[–] JackiesFridge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

This will be interesting if allowed to play out. The president* is immune to prosecution, but none of his flunkies are. So he has to do every last thing himself because nobody is gonna risk their neck. I would pay to see that.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support