631
Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
631 points (97.9% liked)
politics
31474 readers
2052 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?
It is certainly within the president's and vice president's responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say "no, this should not be certified".
Saying "no" can still be used as evidence of another crime, it's just not a crime in and of itself.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime. The president and the vice president don't get to pick the next president. The electoral college does. The only legitimate reason the VP could say no to the EC count is if for some reason the count itself were wrong, in which case the VP and Senate should correct it and move on.
That, of course, wasn't the basis for the discussion. Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted, or to at least have Pence declare that he couldn't tell which electors were real.
Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.
That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.
The mere act of talking to the VP about it is contemplated and by default (according to this ruling) protected. You can't tell the VP to change the electors without talking to him!
Edit: Obviously the fact that the pres. committed a crime can't be considered as a reason to deny immunity, otherwise it wouldn't be immunity.
Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.
Did you find anywhere in the decision where they make an exception for lying?
The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the "exception" you are looking for.
They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said "No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren't going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass."
"The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act."
Based on what standard? How could a trial court reach such a decision in a way that won't be overturned?
The Supremos have sent this back to the courts with the message that there's only one way to decide and no plausible way to reach another conclusion that will hold up.