Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
It's like the alt-1985 Biff reality came to pass.
Any reasonable person looking at these circumstances say 10, 15, 20 years ago would think 'No, that could never happen. He'd be barred from office, maybe even imprisoned."
And yet, here we are. This timeline, for the US anyway, deserves to be pruned.
In the end, it’s just variants all the way down.
We knew that the Republican party were traitors 10 years ago.
Yeah 10 years ago was 2014. I feel like alot of folks think 10 years ago was 2008.
It baffles my mind that anyone would consider the shit he did to be "within the outer perimeters" of his constitutional duties.
It’s disingenuous bullshit.
Clown Car Country
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Even if the court then acts with considerable speed and definitively rules against Mr. Trump within a month, the trial would most likely not start until at least the fall, well into the heart of the presidential campaign.
In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy,” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington wrote, “the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
“Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances,” Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote for a unanimous court.
“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
“This case involves the far weightier interest in vindicating federal criminal law in a prosecution brought by the executive branch itself,” he wrote.
The original article contains 999 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!