this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
206 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lawyers say ‘allegedly improper’ behavior by president falls within ‘outer perimeter’ of duties and is protected from prosecution

Lawyers for Donald Trump have urged a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive power that contends that former presidents are immune from prosecution for conduct related to their duties while in office.

The request to throw out the indictment, handed up earlier this year by a federal grand jury in Washington, amounts to the most consequential court filing in the case to date and is almost certain to precipitate a legal battle that could end up before the US supreme court.

In their 52-page submission to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s lawyers essentially argued that Trump enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because the charged conduct fell within the so-called “outer perimeter” of his duties as president.

The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.

Whether Trump’s motion to dismiss succeeds remains uncertain: it raises novel legal issues, such as whether the outer perimeter test applies to criminal cases, and whether Trump’s charged conduct even falls within a president’s duties.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn’t already settled that canidate trump is a different “person” from president trump- and that meadows was operating outside his job duties as chief of staff?

Yeah. It is. It is not the job of the president to overturn the lawful results of an election. It is the job of president to ensure a smooth transition of power according to the dictates of that election.

It’s so hilarious that trump couldn’t take his own advice to Hilary: “you lost. Get over it.”

[–] catfish@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Harry Litman does takes on YT and according to him this is more trying to set the stage for appeal in case some crazy Judge on appeal or the SCOTUS take an interest in saving his horrid ass heres an invidious link https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=OIzttF_w5rU

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Only applies to civil cases. Go pound sand, you 300 lb mass of shit stuffed into an orange tinted skin suit.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago

I love how they’re not denying that he’s a criminal. This should be used against him during his hearing.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if Biden did the same thing, it's A-OK?

I didn't think so fash.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

That's what cracks me up. They're trying to argue that a president can do whatever they want, as if they wouldn't lose their absolute shit (justifiably so) if Biden did a fraction of what Trump did.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lol. so rather than acting as attorneys they are arguing exactly the dumb shit trump is asking them to argue.

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And doesn't this basically admit to the crime?

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

yeah I mean sounds like it.

[–] catfish@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hes done that with all the criminal and civil cases except the rape one, in the documents he says hes allowed to have them under the presidential records act, the Ga call he says he says no one told him in the call he was doing something illegal so id doesn't count, the hush payments he says its too late so it should be dropped and on the civil one in NY he says that's how business is done and hes being persecuted. In short hes gotten away for so long with so much shit that he thinks he can do WHATEVER the fuck he wants and we are all wrong cause hes daddys super special boy. lmao seeing his dumb stupid face on the NY civil case was super satisfying he looks like hes constipated

edit I forgot somehow that in the rape case he did say that 'stars' get away with it 'fortunately or unfortunately' and since hes a star so yea.. there's that

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

They’re wrong but I guess they have to try?

It’s the most dangerously anti-democratic defense so, it fits for them.

[–] user_AW11@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gee, or how criminals can get away in "politics"

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Trump could have gotten away, but the moment he decided to not give back the defense docs the Government was asking for is the moment he decided to that he was going to die in Federal custody.

The DoJ does not spend this much time & effort on a criminal case to drop it, at least I can't think of a single example of them doing so.

Immunity?

Really arguing for monarchical powers while in office. Unassailable kingship where you can do whatever you want and take no blame.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[–] Rawdogg@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I'm loving watching this piece of shit distressed like a fish out of water

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Lawyers for Donald Trump have urged a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive power that contends that former presidents are immune from prosecution for conduct related to their duties while in office.

The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.

The outer perimeter test is widely seen as applying to only civil cases, for instance, and Trump is alleged as having acted not in his capacity as a president, but as a candidate.

The Trump lawyers repeatedly suggested that the outer perimeter test – used by the supreme court in Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982) in which the justices found that presidents have absolute immunity from damages liability for acts related to their presidential duties – should apply to criminal cases.

“To hold otherwise would be to allow the President’s political opponents to usurp his or her constitutional role, fundamentally impairing our system of government,” wrote Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, John Lauro and Gregory Singer.

The Trump lawyers also claimed that all of the conduct in the indictment was protected, notably including the fake electors plot, since it was related to him trying to get Pence to act in a “certain way” on 6 January 2023 – though omitting that “way” was to unlawfully stop the certification.


The original article contains 620 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

did they actually quote Queen Isabella of Spain in their filing.. sounds like something she would have said..