This was one of those "they'll take as long as they take" types of appeals and they got the decision out fast. Which is good.
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
632 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2436 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! 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.
- 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.
- 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
IMO the Jan 6 stuff should eliminate him off ballot access but what do I know, I just live here.
but what do I know
The fourteenth amendment, and how it applies to this moment in time. They said he was going to jail every month since 2016, when can I expect to see it happen?
To say it again and again:
Stealing someones money or hitting someone in the face takes only seconds or minutes. Getting justice takes years or even a decade.
The sandy hooks parents fought for 10 year until they got their justice. In a case like Trump without any previous legal cases in the case of a (obvious) corrupt president, it might take 10-16 years. So 2026-2032. He knows this. His whole corrupt Trump Inc. it’s based on a slow justice system. He actively tries too stretch it out as long as possible to have as many options he can (e.g. Reelection for a dictatormode).
I know how you and everyone feels. It is tiresome and disappointing that there is no swift justice. But there never is swift justice. Because Justice needs indisputable legal standing. Hitting someone or steal money does not. That the J6 Coup Attempt of 2021 saw rulings in 22/23 is alsmost light speed for a federal justice level. But the evidence was there, people were convicted in the past for this in many cases and that thing had congressional hearings. The case for Trump is much more difficult to unfold. He is guilty and a working justice system will confirm it, but it will be unbearable long. Better getting used to it. Swift justice does not exist only lynching justice. That is quick, but has no legal standing.
Everyone who said we will see him in prison in 2016-2020 was just as a dummy as the “Lock her up”-Crowd. They think trump could have thrown her in jailsg personally on his first day. Turns out: he didnt. He never did. He did not even get close. He did not even pursued it (as it was all just lies to his minions). Because justice takes time. The bigger the case the more time it takes. Locking up a (former) president hopefully will always take years to justify. Else you would be on one level with an autocratic system like china/iran/saudiarabia where nothing is real as “justice” is what the current leader defines as such and everything is based on arbitrariness.
This is a civil suit. Jail isn't involved for this.
They'll delay things until he dies of old age, then throw up their hands.
They'll handcuff his skeleton after that
They should. I mean they dug up a pope then beat him with sticks and hung his corpse. Just prop Trump up on the national Mall for a few days after he dies and let everyone line up with sticks.
Hell, I'd throw some money at a ticket.
It’d sure help pay down some debts if they charge for it
Do you really not understand the process here or are you just venting?
This guy has been criming since before he was elected. I'll be honest, no I don't understand the process that has kept him out of jail for seven years. I don't understand how this process can be called justice.
I do not know. In my life time. Clinton happened, GorevBush happened, 9/11 happened, Iraq/Afghanistan happened, 2008 happened, the Tea Party happened, Trump happened, COVID happened.
And people are still unsure what to do and what the right moves are. We need better politicians, where the fuck are they?
Are you familiar with Douglas Adams?
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
They won’t take bribes, so they get blacklisted.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal indictment
Will this have any bearing whatsoever on Jack Smith’s case?
Not really. This is all theater because they are ignoring the law. As was passed, section 1983 of the federal code doesn't allow for any immunities whatsoever, not even Qualified Immunity. President Grant called this out in 1872 the year after it passed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
The next time that any sort of immunity case lands in front of SCOTUS they need multiple amicus briefs that point out the full text of the law with the 16 words that were illegally removed in 1874 added back in so that they are unable to claim that they didn't know, the way the 1982 SCOTUS could with Harlow V Fitzgerald.
I don't think we should say "illegally removed", it should be "illegally omitted" from publishing. what a mother fucking huge ass headache that dude caused
Well, since The Federal Register is what is used as "the law as written and passed by Congress," while that person did commit a lie of ommission, it has effectively become the law of the land, other than in the 1871 Congressional Record. Therefore that person illegally removed the clause from the law.
Innocent people don’t need immunity.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based its decision on a ruling in a separate case brought by two Capitol Police officers and a group of House Democrats that was handed down earlier this month.
Circuit rejected Trump's claim that he is shielded from civil liability because his alleged actions in connection to the Jan. 6 attack fell within the official functions of the presidency.
Trump asked the federal District Court in Washington to dismiss the case, arguing he is absolutely immune from being sued for the alleged acts.
Referencing Trump's speech outside the White House before the Capitol building was breached, Mehta said the remarks were not part of the president's official duties.
Circuit agreed with the lower court's finding and rejected Trump's argument that he was engaging in an official function of the presidency when he spoke outside the White House on Jan. 6.
"When a first-term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," Srinivasan, who was assigned both cases, wrote for the three-judge panel.
The original article contains 737 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
January 6th should have earned him a spot against the wall in front of a firing squad. Anyone trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic government with both fraud and violence should be shot.
That also goes for those that plotted and executed the overthrow of democratic governments in Iran, Chile, etc etc etc so take that as you wish...