×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Notmymain2639 11.1k points11.1k points  (1114 children)

I kind of expect SC to just refuse the case and let this ruling stand. There isn't much of a win for them either way if they do take it.

[–]letsgometros 7909 points7910 points  (906 children)

Right? If they overturn it they are saying that a President is immune to criminal prosecution. Even when they are no longer in office. That is insane, batshit, and there's no way founders intended that.

[–]GODDAMNFOOL 6007 points6008 points  (582 children)

You know who has immunity to prosecution? A king, the very thing the constitution was created to prevent happening in this country.

edit: guys, I get it, Magna Carta. Say those words to Trump if you ever want to see what an empty stare looks like

[–]cantadmittoposting 2722 points2723 points  (452 children)

the weird thing is how much some people just really want authoritarian rule. it's like some people are just hardwired to want someone to have Divine Right over them.

Even at its founding, after literally revolting against monarchy, some in the US turned around and wanted Washington to be King.

It's insane how much Washington's commitment to the ideals of democracy prevented an immediate backslide into monarchy.

And of course we replaced the "nobility" with worship of corporate aristocracy anyways.

 

look i get the that world is a big scary place, and both the genuinely skilled and the simply megalomaniac will represent themselves as people who will Get You Through Life if only you follow them... but man, a lot of people make some really dumbass choices for that role.

[–]Marine_Mustang 973 points974 points  (74 children)

They think they will get an authoritarian that does what they agree with. They are real quick to decry authoritarians when they do things they disagree with. They just want what they want.

[–]reverendsteveii 293 points294 points  (9 children)

This is the pit that every authoritarian eventually gets thrown into: when you give someone unchecked power over your enemies, you end up also giving them unchecked power over you. So when the wind blows in a different direction, as it inevitably will, and you find yourselves at odds over some issue or another, he will have unchecked power over you with which to resolve the disagreement. Ask Cardinal Wolsey, there's no way off that particular tiger.

[–]Slypenslyde 310 points311 points  (11 children)

That's really it. In any form of democratic/republic rule, you can't always get what you want, especially if it hurts other people. It can take a long time to find a compromise and sometimes you find out there just isn't a compromise.

A lot of people see this as "red tape" and think it's a good idea to skip it. Right up until they're in the way of an authoritarian and are confronted with the idea that they're not allowed to have a say in their own destruction.

[–]Equivalent_Bunch_187 63 points64 points  (19 children)

Yep, dictatorships are very efficient and people like efficiency. The efficiency however is only desirable as long as they are doing what you want.

[–]Crowbar_Faith 320 points321 points  (109 children)

Kinda reminds me of Loki’s speech to the German people in the first Avengers movie. “You were made to be ruled.” Amazing how the MAGA crowd are talking about “freedoms” yet many are also cool with Trump being proclaimed King Dictator of America for Life.

[–]VagrantShadow 198 points199 points  (89 children)

Thats the thing some maga heads want to see trump be king of the United States. Hell, I have seen people who are so fixated onto him that they see him like a Christ like figure. They are that obsessed with him, and yet they still don't want to call what they are into a cult.

[–]HomelessHarry 250 points251 points  (63 children)

Then they are shocked to find out that the left doesn't worship Biden. Not everyone is a freak that worships politicians 

[–]SuperExoticShrub 133 points134 points  (7 children)

They'll keep using bullshit arguments like "If Trump doesn't have immunity, then neither does Biden and we can prosecute him!" and I'm over here like, "Okay. Have fun. If you can actually show he committed crimes, then he should be prosecuted."

[–]Jiopaba 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Yeah, some people think that we're out here campaigning for special treatment but we just want it to be fair. I.e., I don't want murder to be punished because a Republican does it but because I think murder is reprehensible.

[–]Captain_Blackbird 174 points175 points  (29 children)

This is one of the reasons why when Biden won, they kept screaming "But I didn't see any Biden flags / stickers / hats! So he must've lost!"

[–]Milleuros 39 points40 points  (2 children)

Even at its founding, after literally revolting against monarchy, some in the US turned around and wanted Washington to be King.

Because the US revolt was not against monarchy by itself, it was against the British crown specifically and having to pay taxes to a power so far away from them.

Many had ideals of democracy, and many others didn't really care.

[–]Ejacksin 171 points172 points  (36 children)

At least in England, kings had to abide by the magna Carta. Even they didn't have total immunity.

[–]Excelius 118 points119 points  (20 children)

It's called Constitutional monarchy, though usually ends up with the monarch being little more than a ceremonial figurehead.

[–]AppleDane 48 points49 points  (1 child)

It's the same with some republics, where the president is someone you never heard of, like Germany and Finland.

[–]BubinatorX 270 points271 points  (48 children)

Dipshits lawyers already agreed with the idea that he can have seal team 6 kill a political rival and he’d be immune unless he got impeached first. What would stop a president from doing that to a justice? There’s no way in fucking hell they’re gonna say a president has full blanket immunity. It’s just not going to happen.

[–]ptwonline 92 points93 points  (5 children)

immune unless he got impeached first.

Which also means he could murder Congressmen until the ones left would not vote to impeach him.

[–]thefixxxer9985 137 points138 points  (23 children)

Also, if this precedent gets set what would stop Biden from doing it while he's still president?

[–]TheDrewDude 151 points152 points  (7 children)

“Well clearly the constitution was only referring to Republican presidents that should be immune. Our founding fathers were only weary of the Democrats.” - Clarence Thomas probably

[–]bpg542 40 points41 points  (1 child)

We joke because it’s so ludicrous, but I suspect they would say he stole the election so it doesn’t count etc etc

[–]Professor-Woo 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Ya, since they interpret the constitution, they would be interpreting it in a way where killing SCOTUS justices would be the easiest constitutional way to replace them. They would be undermining their own institution and the checks and balances that allow it to be relevant.

[–]boot2skull 89 points90 points  (9 children)

That would break the balance of the branches and put the executive branch above all others even the SC. That would not only take power from themselves, but break a lot of other things that have kept America running this long.

[–]ColdIronAegis 48 points49 points  (2 children)

Yes, the SC doesn't want to fell the tree.

But they love giving corporations a turn with the axe.

[–]SuperExoticShrub 15 points16 points  (0 children)

They want to enshrine a system that keeps them in happy corruption land. That's it. Allowing the presidency to get too much power can upset that money spigot.

[–]theganjaoctopus 672 points673 points  (33 children)

They have to play a delicate game to preserve their own power and authority. They fear the American people so much because they know their rulings are massively unpopular. See: them throwing up 12 foot, razor wire topped fences on the day of the Roe ruling.

It's a neat little game they're playing: trying to dismantle the power of the Federal government, while preserving their own power to do so as a Federal institution.

[–]zeCrazyEye 376 points377 points  (18 children)

They're not trying to dismantle the power of the federal government they're trying to transfer power from the other branches to the judiciary where they have lifetime appointments that have been stacked by previous Republicans.

[–]Chucknastical 181 points182 points  (7 children)

They're trying to transfer power to people they ideologically agree with.

Sometimes it's people,

Sometimes it's local government,

Sometimes it's state government,

Sometimes it's the judiciary,

And sometimes it's federal government.

It depends on whether an R or someone endorsed by the right wing dark money backing them is getting the power.

That's why their rulings aren't consistent and seem to go back on their word.

They only rule "fairly" to try to preserve the legitimacy of the Court.

For example, it's widely expected the SC will rule against Trump on this case (either by denying to hear it or taking it and ruling against Trump) as political cover for the eventual ruling on whether Trump can be on the ballot.

They'll find that he did not commit treason/sedition and they'll do it after the election and point to this case to say they are "fair".

[–]ErikMcKetten 185 points186 points  (35 children)

That's the smartest play they can make. Both sides hate them no matter what, so just be neutral.

[–]nofun_nufon 175 points176 points  (14 children)

The side that wanted abortion to be illegal likes them

[–]orbitaldragon 4475 points4476 points  (147 children)

Originally Jack Smith wanted the case to go directly to the Supreme Court since it was always going to go there anyways. The Supreme Court refused to take up the case without it going through the whole process of initial ruling, and appeal.

Many say it's so they can delay as much as possible.

However, I can't help but wonder if they just wanted as many other judges and rulings as possible to be set as pillars before they go ahead and bury Trump.

[–]flash-tractor 1899 points1900 points  (36 children)

This was my thought as well. If all the lower courts have unanimous decisions that he isn't immune to prosecution, then they could even decide not to review the case, and it wouldn't be unusual in the least.

[–]DarkwingDuckHunt 390 points391 points  (14 children)

this is a classic case of the SCOTUS going "no dah" and refusing to take the case as it's so obviously the right ruling

[–]elykl12 335 points336 points  (17 children)

DC gave Trump only six days to appeal iirc so they are well aware he is trying to stall the system out.

And SCOTUS went 9-0 on most of the Trump 2020 cases, they might just deny cert on this so the actual Jan 6 trial can start earlier

[–]Cloaked42m 203 points204 points  (6 children)

I liked that they opened the ruling with, "This is literally the reason the Courts exist."

[–]-rwsr-xr-x 30 points31 points  (5 children)

I liked that they opened the ruling with, "This is literally the reason the Courts exist."

Not only that, this is literally the reason this entire country split off from England ~261 years ago. We wanted Freedom (with a capital "F") from monarchial oppression under a brutish King.

Why in the world would they codify something that would then be used later to return to a single, immune, monarch/Dictator in Chief?

It's ludicrous to even think that they would have put a detailed system of checks and balances into the words of the Constitution, and then let the one chair that holds the President, be able to veto it all down with a single wish.

That's not how it works.

[–]MrWhiteTheWolf 69 points70 points  (3 children)

My guess is they don’t want to hear it at all, and don’t plan to. Let the lower court decide and refuse to take up the appeal

[–]LawNo9454 8106 points8107 points  (607 children)

Hey look they followed the law. So how is he going to respond with the fact even if he won re-election it won't keep him out of prison?

[–]BeltfedOne 1028 points1029 points  (51 children)

He should try that sometime...

[–]gcruzatto 300 points301 points  (47 children)

Nah he could hunker in the White House basement, no feds would find him

[–]Ande64 160 points161 points  (6 children)

Why not his bathroom at mar-a-lago? If that place is good enough to hide nuclear secrets, I would guess it's good enough to hide him.

[–]LostTrisolarin 430 points431 points  (16 children)

You're not wrong. The Feds didn't want to search Mar-a-lago cuz they are mostly MAGAs. When they were finally forced to look for the missing nuclear secrets, they literally "missed" or allowed 2 rooms to go unchecked. This would have went unmentioned if Jack smith didn't find out about it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-mar-a-lago-search-trump-maybe-missed-2-rooms-2024-2

[–]misterid 59 points60 points  (3 children)

what must Jack Smith's personal security detail look like? the guy is living under threat 24/7.

[–]thereverendpuck 130 points131 points  (11 children)

He’s far too stupid to hide. Needs constant attention.

[–]rps215 496 points497 points  (80 children)

Not holding my breath until the Supreme Court rules on it since this is likely to be appealed

[–]Fly_Rodder 381 points382 points  (59 children)

They can appeal, but his defense team needs to show why it needs to be appealed, e.g., what law is being misapplied or how the court misinterpreted statutes, etc.

[–]matt_minderbinder 275 points276 points  (14 children)

I don't believe that the SC wants to take this on and now they have every excuse not to. Donny's hopes could be dashed here.

[–]vbob99 170 points171 points  (15 children)

That's how it should work, but this SC just takes up whatever they want to rule on, ignoring long established conventions.

[–]Squire_II 1468 points1469 points  (392 children)

So how is he going to respond with the fact even if he won re-election it won't keep him out of prison?

If he were convicted and won reelection, he, as POTUS, could pardon himself of all Federal crimes. He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia but if Trump wins in November then all federal cases against him will be dead the second he assumes office and there's a very high chance he orders any still-active J6 cases to be dropped and pardons the already convicted insurrectionists.

And he hasn't been shy about making clear his desire to go after every prosecutor and judge in these cases.

[–]Nebuli2 731 points732 points  (97 children)

He'd still be on the hook for any potential charges in Georgia

Don't forget that he's also under criminal indictment under New York state charges too. He wouldn't be able to pardon either of those.

[–]CSI_Tech_Dept 331 points332 points  (20 children)

This is why if he wins in 2024 we will have the same transformation that Russia had under putin and China under xi jinping.

He isn't even hiding it, the reaction to his "dictator for one day" already shows Republicans stance once these changes will be happening.

This year's election will really be if we still want to have a democracy.

[–]Procyonid 97 points98 points  (11 children)

Don’t worry, if we vote in a wannabe dictator and essentially vote democracy and rule of law away we can just vote them back in the next election, right?

[–]CSI_Tech_Dept 65 points66 points  (0 children)

It will be for a day anyway.

What a fucking stupid quote, like he is testing reaction and gives himself option to back out with "it was a joke, bro".

[–]dude19832 244 points245 points  (61 children)

NY has a Democratic Governor and would absolutely not pardon Trump on any state charges but Georgia has a Republican governor. Any chance the governor of Georgia pardons Trump if he is convicted on state charges?

[–]mandalorian222 515 points516 points  (16 children)

They can’t just pardon in Georgia. Well for 5 years. And through a panel.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/us/georgia-pardons-trump.html

[–]AirIcy3918 157 points158 points  (0 children)

Georgia law prohibits the governor from doing that for 5 years- for now. The state congress is actively working to make all of the state charges go away for Trump.

[–]tycoge 95 points96 points  (21 children)

Kemp hates trump

[–]GrowFreeFood 97 points98 points  (13 children)

Ding ding. Kemp got thrown undrr the bus HARD. but he was a darling before that. He's been suspiciously absent from news lately. Likely to distance himself frim the fray. When trump is gone he will be primed to the a top contender that stood against trump. 

[–]skesisfunk 452 points453 points  (95 children)

A self pardon has never been tested in court and there are some reasons why a even conservative SCOTUS might not green light it. The most obvious being that it effectually makes the POTUS above the law which the SCOTUS by default doesn't like because it nullifies their power.

[–]spastical-mackerel 407 points408 points  (45 children)

Not to mention a fundamental principle over which the Revolution was fought and upon which the Country was founded.

[–]flamedarkfire 161 points162 points  (32 children)

You act like Republicans today wouldn't be monarchist back in 1775.

[–]Nikiaf 86 points87 points  (3 children)

Wasn't the United States founded largely to not be ruled by a king? It would be pretty ironic if they allow the orange poop machine to literally rule over them as he sees fit.

[–]rawker86 90 points91 points  (6 children)

This is a crazy idea I know, but maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to pardon themselves.

[–]euph_22 65 points66 points  (3 children)

Or people who committed crimes on their behalf.

[–]LegalAction 210 points211 points  (43 children)

I can't believe the self-pardon is allowed. It would break every federal law. Anything the President wants to do he could do, and just pardon himself after.

If he wanted to prevent Congress from impeaching him he could occupy the Capitol and detain congress critters from meeting. Illegal, but just self-pardon.

It would break everything.

[–]jacobobb 168 points169 points  (15 children)

All democratic government in the history of humanity has been reliant on good faith actors. Bad faith actors breaking democracies and/ or republics is a tale as old as time. It's been happening since at least the Roman Republic. The only way to stop it is exile/ execution.

[–]Khaldara 87 points88 points  (4 children)

Of course, and it’s especially egregious coming from the frigging Republicans, considering literally all of their judicial appointees claim to possess heaven ordained divination skills that tell them precisely what “the founders” would have wanted, often used as justification for whatever nonsense they feel like selling at any particular point in time.

Somehow these magical skills utterly fail them at determining that the country founded explicitly because they claimed not to want to be lorded over by a tyrant would somehow intend for their own government to grant tyrannical powers to the presidency.

Morons and shameless sycophantic hypocrites, the lot of them.

[–]trogon 36 points37 points  (1 child)

Exactly. And Trump would never have to leave the presidency, because there would be no way to stop him.

[–]flamingoflamenco17 41 points42 points  (2 children)

Well, he’ll throw a really big tantrum and attempt to incite violence against someone; the “who” doesn’t really matter to him. These are his moves: tantrum, public tantrum, take a rage dump, whine A LOT, do some cocaine, snivel, blame a scapegoat and incite violence. He’s not capable of strategizing- that’s what his coterie of circus freaks is for.

[–]hotstepper77777 3372 points3373 points  (157 children)

Another ruling in favor of democracy, but an expected one. 

The real show was always the SCOTUS ruling. Tee it up.

[–]theajharrison 467 points468 points  (35 children)

They quote Justice Kavanaugh. Very slim chance SCOTUS fully overturns this decision.

But as the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."

Page 24 of the judgment

[–]nau5 316 points317 points  (17 children)

SCOTUS overturning this decision would mean that a President could LEGALLY ignore their rulings.

While many of these members desire a theogelostic state, they don't want one they aren't in charge of.

[–]HolyRamenEmperor 90 points91 points  (6 children)

theogelostic

What is this new word intended to convey? Did you mean "theocratic" or "theological" or something?

[–]nau5 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Theocratic. Whoops

[–]livefreeordont 53 points54 points  (3 children)

It’s a perfectly cromulent word

[–]Zaziel 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Ah, Andrew Jackson’s vile corpse will be smiling in his grave if this happens.

[–]a_dogs_mother 1303 points1304 points  (101 children)

If Democrats take the majority in both houses of Congress this year, we need to institute third party oversight of SCOTUS. It's insane that current members are accepting what amount to bribes, and there is no mechanism by which to stop them. Make it make sense.

[–]mlorusso4 819 points820 points  (52 children)

There is a mechanism, but Congress is choosing not to use it. Justices can be impeached.

But I agree, there needs to be some inspector general to investigate possible corruption or impropriety to bring to Congress

[–]Tacitus111 378 points379 points  (36 children)

That mechanism is so incredibly cumbersome that it’s never successfully removed a single official of the level of a Supreme Court justice or president and not for lack of deserving it.

Requiring a 2/3 majority to remove effectively made it a toothless mechanism that makes people feel better on paper while ensuring it’s entirely impractical.

[–]andydude44 217 points218 points  (16 children)

Toothless yeah, but if we made it majority then politicians could use impeachment to remove the opposition whenever they have control. With the current system it ensures it’s only possible to impeach when it is so egregious and beyond doubt to the extent it crosses party lines, which is the intent of that.

[–]id10t_you 1577 points1578 points  (99 children)

The founders explicitly arranged it so that we wouldn't have a King. This ruling wouldn't normally be surprising, but we're not exactly living in normal times.

[–]jaderust 1159 points1160 points  (67 children)

There's a semi-famous case where Ulysses S Grant, while President, was caught speeding (twice!) by a black police officer in Washington DC. The first time the officer just issued him a warning and asked him to slow down. The second time the officer actually arrested the president and his companions for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage.

Grant went down to the police station, paid $20 for his bail, and then failed to show up in court for his arraignment (which meant the courts kept the $20 and I think thought that fair as a fine). But when his companions (also important government officials) tried to get the black officer fired for arresting them, Grant wrote a letter complimenting the officer in his fairness over the arrest and making it clear that he shouldn't be punished for doing his job.

So previous presidents understood that they weren't above the law too. This all happened in 1872 in the heart of Reconstruction. He could have crushed a black police officer for trying to arrest him and instead he made sure the man kept his job.

Presidents are not above the law.

[–]AwesomeBrainPowers 402 points403 points  (35 children)

Holy shit, that's true.

That's fantastic.

[–]K19081985 138 points139 points  (19 children)

Also that there was a black police officer willing to pull a president over. Amazing by that time in Washington.

[–]socialistrob 66 points67 points  (12 children)

Also makes you wonder just how recklessly Grant was driving? Back then there weren't nearly as many minor infractions when driving your team of horses so if you got stopped it was basically because you were racing them on public streets.

[–]K19081985 28 points29 points  (9 children)

Right? Just how fast was this carriage going?!

[–]Taylorenokson 216 points217 points  (4 children)

But see the this whole event hinged on President Grant knowing and understanding that he's not above the law. This is Trump we're talking about.

[–]GottIstTot 142 points143 points  (1 child)

Grant had a vested interest in protecting the idea of the Union.

Trump has a vested interest in destroying the Union.

[–]RedundantSwine 238 points239 points  (12 children)

Even a King isn't above the law, at least in the UK.

The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 made that clear in UK law.

Given the US was previously part of the British Empire, you could make a (albeit shaky) argument that Trump was attempting to change a legal precedent over 800 years old.

[–]smurf-vett 51 points52 points  (0 children)

George III got pretty close to ignoring that w/ puppet PMs

[–]mad_king_soup 99 points100 points  (10 children)

Kings in England havnt been above the law since the Magna Carta in 1215. One king lost his head for overstepping his legal boundaries

[–]Takeoded 59 points60 points  (4 children)

One king lost his head for overstepping his legal boundaries

then his son had the people involved in his father's execution executed, several years later

even crazier, some of the people involved had died by that point, and the son had their corpses exhumed and defiled

[–]way2funni 160 points161 points  (14 children)

and so it begins..... if he's not immune from 1/6, he's not immune in the docs case where he claimed he could just 'think about it' and voila! declassified

That's the REAL drop dead serious 'go directly to Federal Prison (or a converted building on an Air Force Base just for him and his detail) - do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Elsewhere, this article was posted by Marc Elias regarding the US v. DJT in the National Security Documents case.

Marc Elias is a highly regarded Democratic lawyer on election and voter rights who has represented the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association.

He served as general counsel and lead counsel on multiple Democrat campaigns including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken & Kamela Harris.

Following the 2020 presidential election, Elias supervised the response to dozens of lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign seeking to overturn Biden's win.

Out of 65 such court cases, Elias prevailed in 64.

Marc posted this opinion that Trump is probably going to prison before the immunity decision case down. Whatever the probabilities were that Trump COULD possibly go to prison for these offenses WAS, it's jumped now.

tl;dr This is turning into the first of what may be many very bad days for Trump. This isn't a $80MM judgement that he can have his PAC pay, this is him in a romper getting locked in a cell every night and having to sit on a steel commode for savages instead of his gold plated one.

PS: for those not keeping track, this Thursday SCOTUS hears arguments on DJT and the 14th amendment as to whether of not he can and should be kicked off the ballot for 'insurrection'. While you may not hear their opinion for some time, todays ruling of immunity is probably going to play a role.

edit: a letter

[–]DarthBluntSaber 782 points783 points  (31 children)

Presidential immunity should never be a thing.... the whole point of our country and laws was that NO ONE is supposed to be above the law. That was part of what the founding fathers found problematic with the monarchies of Europe, amongst many other issues. Individuals holding office in the US are NOT supposed to be treated like royalty, and it's incredibly disturbing how hard extremists on the right have pushed to treat Trump and his criminal family like they are royalty.

[–]LargeHumanDaeHoLee 370 points371 points  (20 children)

It never was a thing. Trump is literally the only president that's been treated like this and we shouldn't be putting up with it. The people who haven't put him behind bars should be ousted from office, or at the very least not get reelected

[–]Bullyoncube 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Headline should read “Court rules Trump doesn’t have Presidential Immunity because that’s not a Thing”.

[–]DarthBluntSaber 141 points142 points  (3 children)

Those in office who have chosen to support him instead of the constitution they represent should absolutely be removed from office and charge with conspiracy to commit treason and aiding an insurrectionist

[–]cat_prophecy 55 points56 points  (6 children)

It never was a thing.

There is a reason why Bush, and later Obama has scores of lawyers working around the clock to ensure all the shit we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan were legal including drone strikes and spec-ops hits.

[–]EvilAnagram 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Well, the torture was not legal, but no one has bothered to prosecute Bush for it.

[–]sanguigna 506 points507 points  (31 children)

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," [Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung] said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."

Future presidents HATE this ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!

Maybe don't commit crimes if you don't want to be indicted for crimes, you fucking weirdos. Idk.

[–]ChangsManagement 112 points113 points  (2 children)

But if every president has immunity then the next president could just kill the former one immediately after he leaves office. Or send him to guantanamo. He could also just convict without a trial or indictment too. Like even in their fantasy world it doesnt make sense.

[–]pushTheHippo 53 points54 points  (2 children)

So, by their own logic, it's impossible for any president to do their job competently without majorly breaking the laws of THEIR OWN country? Riiiight, gotcha. Seems like it wasn't a huge problem until a particular asshole came around.

[–]ryo4ever 90 points91 points  (12 children)

This guy would instigate civil war just to stay out of prison.

[–]arbutus1440 13 points14 points  (1 child)

This is in no way an exaggeration or hyperbole, and I'm not being sarcastic.

[–]wintersdark 190 points191 points  (11 children)

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."

Man these people are so stupid.

If presidents have full immunity, then Biden can simply stay in power for the rest of his life, because he can break laws with impunity. Hell, he could have Trump shot and be done with it.

Trump supporters should understand any power they are trying to give to Trump they are also giving to Biden, and think about that some.

Checks and balances exist for a reason. The position is president, not Emperor.

[–]loxias44 52 points53 points  (3 children)

I think they're banking on the typical 'when they go low, we go high' Democrat mentality. Just because Biden COULD do that, he never would.

[–]wintersdark 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Yeah, but the fact remains. So Biden doesn't. Trumps old. He dies. He's replaced by some other nutjob. Even if Trump somehow manages to win an election, he's not going to around a lot longer.

Whatever happens, if presidents get full immunity democracy is over and the US is a dictatorship the moment any sitting president decides he wants to do that.

Full immunity literally removes all checks and balances on Presidential power.

[–]tamachan777 606 points607 points  (24 children)

Has he boarded his plane to Moscow yet?

[–]Vallkyrie 597 points598 points  (15 children)

Tucker Carlson certainly did.

[–]HaZard3ur 163 points164 points  (8 children)

Trump’s future „true US President in exile“ Propaganda Minister

[–]Olympichos 68 points69 points  (5 children)

Given that Carlson has made it clear in private that he hates Trump's guts, that would be the most cursed/hilarious outcome. Add Steven Seagal as Minister of the Interior (he did have experience running over dogs as a cop after all) and you're one step closer to the Cabinet of Morbid Curiosities.

[–]big-bootyjewdy 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Tucker Carlson stands for absolutely nothing. Like how he tried to rip Hunter Biden to shreds right after asking him to write a letter of rec for his son to go to Georgetown.

[–]boringhistoryfan 71 points72 points  (11 children)

Oof. Two days or so sooner and Chutkan wouldn't have needed to take the case of her calendar. I wonder if she'll reinstate that now quickly or if the delay is set in stone.

It's the ruling that was expected and of course trump is gonna go screaming up to SCOTUS, but I really hope the trial court can get back on track now. Trump wants delays on this. And the courts need to stop giving him those wins.

[–]Za_Lords_Guard 22 points23 points  (7 children)

He can still appeal for a full court decision (full circuit court) or take it to the SCOTUS. Maybe both... I'm not sure there.

He isn't done rat fucking the process yet.

I also wonder if he can appeal the immunity thing separately in each case or if this will close the look and any other appeal will be decided by the precident set here.

I'm not an attorney, so I'm really curious.

[–]wynnduffyisking 108 points109 points  (15 children)

I doubt the Supreme court is willing to establish that a president is totally immune to criminal prosecution. That would be insane. But I bet they’ll probably drag this out ensuring he can’t be brought on trial before the election and then if he wins election the case will get dropped.

Meanwhile the document case is dying a slow death in Florida and in Georgia Fani Willis may have managed to completely derail any possible trial schedule because she is apparently that fucking stupid.

So yeah, I think whether Trump sees a single day in jail is gonna depend on the election. So to all you Americans: do me and the rest of the world a favor and get your shit together and vote Biden. If Trump gets another presidency it’s gonna affect all of us too!

[–]browster 193 points194 points  (14 children)

About time. I can't believe it took them a month to decide this.

[–]Civil-Dinner 202 points203 points  (8 children)

Apparently, it takes a little while to translate "LOL. No." into legalese.

[–]Effective-Being-849 177 points178 points  (5 children)

Any time a judge knows a decision will be appealed, they put waaaay more effort into the decision so the higher court is more likely to go, "oh, they've considered everything. Affirm." Source: IAAL.

[–]browster 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Good to know. Thanks.

[–]Fly_Rodder 28 points29 points  (0 children)

and dotting i's and crossing t's to make this as airtight as possible.

[–]MandoDoughMan 282 points283 points  (14 children)

No shit, lol. Our leader being just a guy is THE signature feature of our entire government.

[–]donquixote235 40 points41 points  (1 child)

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant."

We should start calling him "Citizen Trump".

[–]log_asm 38 points39 points  (4 children)

How the hell is this guy even still alive. He’s a speed freak who was shitting himself years ago and salts mcdicks.

[–]CishetmaleLesbian 530 points531 points  (36 children)

You got that right. The constitution also says that, as an insurrectionist, he is not eligible to hold office again without a 2/3rds vote of Congress. Let's enforce that!

Edit: It looks like today the effort to bar the insurrectionist in the Supreme Court failed, due primarily to the inability of the attorney to make the oral case competently and to answer the questions of the justices. Too bad. A better lawyer might have prevailed.

[–]YourDogIsMyFriend 32 points33 points  (2 children)

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."

Don’t steal documents. Don’t conspire to overthrow the govt. Don’t rape. Don’t illegally pay off porn stars from the Oval Office. And we’re good.

There’s an army of lawyers that work along side the president at every decision. Making sure he doesn’t break the law is their job. This argument is completely moot.

[–]Bjornlandeto 339 points340 points  (21 children)

Every day this asshole appeals is another day justice is delayed. I wish it were speedier for the sake of us who would prefer not to have a fascist moron in the White House.

[–]PhiladelphiaManeto 183 points184 points  (17 children)

That’s his idea.

Keep delaying, win election, pardon.

[–]samwstew 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Gonna be ketchup on the walls of mar a lardo tonight…

[–]black_flag_4ever 48 points49 points  (5 children)

The argument from Mr Trump's lawyer hinged on the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, they noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments are political. Many of the GOP senators who voted against impeaching Trump acknowledged Trump did wrong. This includes Mitch McConnell who blamed Trump for the Jan. 6 insurrection. They chose party over country, but judges don't have to. https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri

[–]TheDadThatGrills 77 points78 points  (3 children)

"When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all"

Imagine the fallout if the court ruled differently.

[–]spliffs68 59 points60 points  (3 children)

sanity prevails...for now

[–]adrien195 68 points69 points  (1 child)

This is a friendly reminder to register to vote ☺️

Check voter registration status: https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/

Register to vote (Takes estimated 2 minutes according to the site): https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/

[–]Muscleman1122 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Of course he doesn’t. Ridiculous it took longer than a day to get this vote done.

[–]Lefty_22 14 points15 points  (4 children)

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said

Donald Trump wasn’t indicted by the Democratic Party or the POTUS thereof, for his criminal charges. This argument doesn’t hold water. The SCOTUS would have to completely bend over backward to logically turn over this decision if it is appealed.

[–]ChopEee 11 points12 points  (1 child)

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said.

Couldn’t they just, idk, not do crime in office?

[–]xdeltax97 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Hopefully the Supreme Court refuses to take the case. No President should be immune- we do not have a dictatorship.