369
'Shaken': Analyst claims John Roberts has been left reeling from immunity ruling backlash
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
369 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3479 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And potentially the removal of that person's ability to ever run for office again.
Yes, that's the design. Because it's not an "impartial" process but a political one. And because only 40 or so people have been given that protection, it makes perfect sense.
The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.
Remember the DOJ reports to the President. A process where you're either suppose to investigate your boss or investigate your Boss's political allies/opponents would be way to open for abuse.
Trump can be prosecuted for what he did before the Presidency (as is being done in New York) and for what he has and will do after the Presidency (should he run back J6 part deuce). But for crimes committed while President impeachment is counterbalance.
The SCOTUS that made that decision via a majority run by a political party actively trying to speedrun a fascist takeover of the country. The decision was made specifically to protect a twice impeached Republican who stole thousands of classified documents when he left office.
The current SCORUS is clearly filled with partisan hacks and they've thrown out any attempt at hiding that fact now.
Clearly that wasn't the thought process decades ago before this hyper partisan court. Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes. So obviously the idea that the President had blanket immunity wasn't a fucking thing.
Congress didn't have to stop the impeachment of Nixon. They chose too because Nixon agreed to never run for office again.
If we want that to change we need an Amendment that established an Independent, non-partisan Prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute Presidents and former Presidents.