277

Special counsel: Trump immunity claim threatens democracy (www.politico.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Special counsel Jack Smith rejected Donald Trump’s contention that the criminal indictment of him is constitutionally invalid.

Donald Trump’s bold claims that he’s immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election “threaten to undermine democracy,” special counsel Jack Smith warned a federal appeals court Saturday.

In a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith rejected Trump’s contention that the criminal indictment of him for trying to reverse his loss at the polls three years ago is constitutionally invalid because he was serving as president at the time and also because he was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached for those actions.

“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote in an 82-page filing. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Flaimbot@lemmy.ml 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Donald Trump’s bold claims that he’s immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election

wait. so is he now admitting to consciously trying to overturn it by force, or is it just coming from the context of the lawsuit?

[-] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

In any case, claiming immunity implies you admit doing what you're accused of doing but you just don't want consequences to apply to you.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Source on that? I've seen it said a lot about accepting a pardon, but not claiming immunity.

IANAL, but from what I understand you always try every option to get a case thrown out on procedural grounds before arguing about guilt or innocence.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

He's trying to say that whether he did it or not, it's moot. Avoids all the fuss of a trial.

He's wrong. But that's his argument.

It's like getting a ticket for chewing gum. The first thing you'd do is point out it's not illegal. Then you'd move to, "I was eating."

Both work, but one puts the ticket on trial, not you.

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023

277 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers

4701 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News