Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.

Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.

But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This is a lose-lose. If this is shot down, it’s just another case of presidents (and former presidents) being above the law. If this goes through, the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.

    edit: If you don’t think republican states would abuse this, let me remind you that republicans are still trying to impeach Biden just to retaliate for the Trump impeachments.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        What the heck is Lemmy.zip (asking you in reference to the guy you’re rebutting, I’ve come across nothing but schizos from this particular instance…

            • citrusface@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Looks like I’ll be doing a good old blockerino! Thanks for the heads up.

              Edit - oh God I just visited, what a shit hole

              • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Can I have the link please?

                Also ya. And it literally sounds like those virus sites we were warned about. Zip is a file type so its super fucking weird right out the gate

                • citrusface@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I just clicked the link you posted in my previous comment and it took me to the home page for that, then look at local.

                  However, may have misspoke, upon further digging, it looks pretty mundane. When I visited it was showing me other instances and there were some things about Epstein and the war in Gaza and the Ukraine. I made an unfair judgement.

                  So. Make that what you will. There be crazy folk everywhere tho. Not to say op is crazy, just that I disagree with their take on this.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Lol. A bunch of folks, including Donald Trump, are saying exactly that. It’s part of the reason we’re even having this conversation.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s part of the reason we’re even having this conversation. Technically, not with this one. This claim isn’t about Trump currently being the President. It’s about whether the fact he was President at the time made a difference, and whether his actions that would otherwise be in clear violation of the law, are protected by that fact.

            Effectively he’s asking the Supreme Court to decide whether any illegal actions a President takes while in office cannot be prosecuted after the fact. They could do anything they want while in office, and as long as Congress doesn’t decide to Impeach and remove them from office, it’s all okay. Meaning the President would effectively be above the law.

            THAT’S why Trump doesn’t want them to even think about it, as partisan as the court is, they clearly cannot rule that way. A big part of the Republican messaging is being tough on crime and no one is immune, while making sure those with money are. That means keeping up some appearances.

            However, this is the chance for him to be removed from the board, and by a Court that is clearly not aligned with is political opponent. He can’t just say it’s the Biden DOJ going after him when it’s a clear Republican majority Supreme Court making the decision. If they rule he’s not immune, he gets the full federal charge dicking he is desperately trying to avoid, and he gets to sit in a jail cell complaining to only his most extreme sycophants while the rest of the country moves on to other politicians. The MAGAts will find someone new to latch onto instead, just like they’ve always done, but the guy that constantly says the quiet part out loud without gaining any sort of advantage, fucking up plans the party has been laying for over 40 years gets removed from play. The party can go back to laying their plans in the shadows without a dumbass talking about them all the time trying to brag about something he knows.

            • ripcord@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              That means keeping up some appearances.

              Oh my, it absolutely does not. That went 100% out the window 5 years ago. Republicans absolutely do not live in any part of that world anymore

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            You’re just going to take everything I type literally huh. 1) I’m not saying Trump is the president and 2) the court decision is a lose-lose. Glad I could clear that up for you

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you can’t say what you mean, say nothing at all.

              • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                People being willfully obtuse just to score points in an argument is a bit pathetic. And I mean that.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            You’re strawmanning me pretty hard (hopefully unintentionally). I’m not arguing for the courts to do anything; my point was that there will be negative consequences no matter what they do.

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Maybe they shouldn’t 

              Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.

              • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.

                Edward Teach’s comment:

                Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?

                Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., “why should [they] care”).

                My response:

                Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.

                I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. (“Maybe they shouldn’t [care about the consequences]”.) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.

                Edward Teach’s comment:

                Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?

                Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn’t do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Maybe they shouldn’t

                  ☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.

                  you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.

                  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Now you’re just repeating yourself. You didn’t even read the comment, did you? You’re right, this is a waste of time.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Only if the Supreme Court, whose job it is to actually determine what is lawful according US Constitution (and then other federal law and precedent) decide they are not going to do their jobs anymore.

          The whole reason Supreme Court justices have appointment for life is so that their decisions can’t be used against them by those in power to punish for a ruling those in power don’t like. Supremes have almost “plot armor” in this regard. What do they have to fear from making a ruling that republicans don’t like?

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Allowing our justice system to operate based on perceived political consequences seems like a terrible idea. Republicans will continue to be seditious trash regardless, holding one of them accountable for crimes they committed won’t change that. Their moves should not even factor into what the justice department/courts does or doesn’t do.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Democrats’ guiding principle is “but what might Republicans do?” Context doesn’t change that.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think people are assuming that I’m recommending a course of action when my entire point is that either scenario will have negative consequences. That being said, I agree with everything you said here.

        • ripcord@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          If not that, then people are confused about what your point was other than to generally be negative.

    • Endorkend@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      This whole “don’t hold republicans accountable because they’ll weaponize the courts” is such a meh argument.

      They already weaponize the courts.

      But so far, without any evidence of wrongdoing against Democrats they try to do this against, they have had zero success.

      While there is actual assloads of evidence against people like Trump (and others).

      It’ll spend some time and resources from democrats, but it’ll also put some of the worst republicans in jail.

    • ripcord@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.

      I don’t see this as a special concern. They’re going to do this no matter what.

    • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      So what you’re saying is, they’ll be insufferable assholes no matter what we do, and we should see to it that a criminal repays society for his crimes.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If this goes through, the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.

      This has nothing to do with the state cases, this is Federal & dealing with the Insurrection.

      If a democratic former president incites an Insurrection &/or steals top secret documents & gives them to our enemies I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Isn’t this assuming the republicans are operating in good faith? They aren’t. They care more about what they can get away with than whether it’s justified. I’m sure republican states could find other reasons to take Biden off of the ballet come the next election. There seem to be a lot more legal grey areas than we were aware of. (For example, before January 6th, who knew that the vice president could potentially steal an election?)

        • Jaysyn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m sure republican states could find other reasons to take Biden off of the ballet come the next election.

          Treason & Insurrection are literally the only way a US citizen over the age of 35 can be removed from a federal ballot in the USA.

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            I wouldn’t put it past them to label some Hunter Biden conspiracy theory bs “treason”.

            That said, I concede the point that it may not be as easy as I was implying. Or at least I hope its not that easy. Our democracy is looking fragile these days.

            • Jaysyn@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I wouldn’t put it past them to label some Hunter Biden conspiracy theory bs “treason”.

              This is the exact reason why Treason is defined in the Constitution & has a very, very narrow definition.

              • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m willing to be proven wrong since I’m no expert on constitutional law, but treason is constituted by: “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” You’re right that the first part is very specific, but that second part about helping the enemies of the republic could be abused.