politics
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
Lots of people in this thread are asking why this would pertain to the case since it was only official acts that were covered in the Supreme Court ruling.
Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.
So corruption is legal now
Effectively yes. The SCOTUS has been hard at work over the past few months dismantling government checks and balances. They've ruled that politicians can throw out rulings from experts, take bribes without consequence, and attempt to overthrow the results of an election.
Corruption has been legal since 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United vs. FEC
Only for the wealthy and those peripherally connected.
Is it typical for a lawyer to, partly, build a case using things that happened after the person did what they were accused of doing?
Assuming this is fine and normal, this would mean they would need to first get judicial review to determine if the incidents they're citing are 'core' (Article II) official acts or not. Peripheral official acts, assuming a judge demes them to be, would certainly be admissible.
Yes, post-offence conduct is commonly used as circumstantial evidence in trial. Regarding the hush money case, I think a big goal for Trump's team is to delay the sentencing until after the election.
Fuck me… I knew it. I knew it was too good to be true. I was just waiting to see how it would be scuttled and here it is. This was my final shred of hope for justice in this world. I am now official one of the permanently jaded.
nah, don't give up so easily..
Easily? Man it’s hard to constantly be batted around for literally 8 years now… all of the shit Trump did while in office, and now all the shit he’s getting away with, not to mention his legacy of a court he left behind. At what point is there hope left to look for? Every time it looks like there could be some justice, SCOTUS or another court just rips it away and lets him keep at it.
Yeah I’ll vote, but where does it end?
it'll never end, friend.
Hopefully when Trump goes to a McDonald's and gets a poisoned burger
WTF do you mean, "easily?" Do you have any fucking clue whatsoever how many times Trump should have had consequences applied to him already!?!!!!?!???!?!?
yes I do
Rather apparent that you don't.
I do, but just because I'm not complaining loudly about it doesnt mean I've lost focus or faith
I don't fully understand. The Supreme Court has granted immunity for official acts performed as President. Aren't the charges for this case for actions from before his presidency, and therefore not subject to immunity?
His team claims that the evidence used was gathered during the presidency, when he was immune. It sounds absurd, since concealing private business records is clearly not an official function of the presidency, but its was apparently enough to sway the prosecution who admittedly may know more about the legal system than I do.
Some (specific points to be later determined at some random point in time) evidence is being indicated as being protected (ie, some of the evidence comes from official acts). Thus, it taints the whole thing and ergo everything should be tossed out.
Have they tried holding down the handle until it's done flushing?
He made those payments before he was president, how would the Supreme Court ruling change this case in any way?
The payment by Cohen to Daniels for her story happened before the election. The problem is that a bulk of, if not potentially all of the fraudulent payments to Cohen from Trump to reimburse him didn't happen until he was president. I don't remember exactly when the repayment started.
The worry I guess is that while the crime itself doesn't involve official acts, some of the evidence of the crimes used in the trial might have just become privileged communication that can't be used as evidence. I don't think anything has changed personally reading it, but I'm no lawyer. So they might have agreed to postpone the sentencing as a bit of caution to review everything to make sure that too much of their evidence didn't just become inadmissable. Basically, it seems mostly like a bid to make sure they don't get torched on appeal.
If they toss out this guilty verdict, I'm going to burn it all down. No justice, no peace.
No you won't.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Manhattan prosecutors on Tuesday agreed with Donald J. Trump’s request to postpone his criminal sentencing so that the judge overseeing the case could weigh whether a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil his conviction, new court filings show.
Mr. Trump, who was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his cover-up of a sex scandal during his 2016 presidential campaign, was scheduled to be sentenced on July 11.
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official actions taken as president, dealing a major setback to his federal criminal case in Washington, where he is accused of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.
In a letter to the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the conviction should be set aside.
“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” wrote Joshua Steinglass, one of the assistant district attorneys who tried the case against the former president.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers proposed filing their court papers on July 10, and the district attorney’s office said it would respond two weeks later.
The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 45%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I have a dumb question. Is there any way that this is actually a good thing? I assume that if one is sentenced to prison, they may be ordered to report to prison pending appeal. Then based on the outcome of that [those] appeal[s], they may have to continue being imprisoned or may be released from prison. So if one is sent to prison, there's a certain chance that they will be out three to six months later, but a lesser chance that they will be out a week later, as I imagine there is a delay for the appeal to be heard.
Am I just clutching at straws of optimism / I have no idea how any of this works?