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
18853 readers
4142 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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It's technically treasonous.
Yeah, but that law requires intent and all that evidence you mentioned can be thrown out.
Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There's also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it's not a hearsay case if he's on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.
The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.
His public tweets would be admissible.
It does not state that AT ALL. I've read it twice. Please feel free to link me to my error.
More treasonous than inciting armed insurrection?