politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
His team claims that the evidence used was gathered during the presidency, when he was immune. It sounds absurd, since concealing private business records is clearly not an official function of the presidency, but its was apparently enough to sway the prosecution who admittedly may know more about the legal system than I do.
If I read the ruling correctly, this is where the problem is. If I interpreted the ruling correctly, any evidence gathered during his presidency is considered privileged and therefore can't be used against Trump. Since at least some of the crime was committed (him signing the checks) and some of the evidence was gathered while he was in office, this ruling makes that evidence inadmissable, and therefore the verdict invalid.
It doesn't make it inadmissible. They have filed a claim that it's inadmissible. Now it needs to be reviewed.
These are clearly not official presidential actions. It won't hold up but it's going to be delayed forever.
And that review will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where they just got finished saying that acts taken in office can't even be used as evidence against him in unrelated cases. By that logic, it's pretty open-and-shut. Trump received documents and signed checks while he was president and taking care of official business. The fact that he signed those checks in office makes him signing them inadmissible evidence, and without that evidence a lot of the case falls apart. His convictions will likely be thrown out.
They didn't say that. They said core acts are immune. These are defined in Article II. Perimeter acts, which will need judicial review to be determined, can be used as evidence.
Back in the late 80's, my dad was a trucker, hauling asphalt. Pulled into the depot on a Friday night expecting to go home (he was already over hours and cooking the log book). Dispatcher told him to take another load out. Dad pointed at the five fresh drivers playing poker around a table, told the dispatcher to send one of them.
Monday morning, they fired him, and told him why, straight to his face and the voice recorder sitting in his pocket.
According to OSHA and Dad's lawyer, it was an open and shut case. While the case was pending, the company blackballed Dad from the trucking industry. Being in St. Lawrence County of Upstate NY, he wasn't able to find a job elsewhere either. They buried us in paperwork, delayed the court case, and starved us out. Two years later, Dad settled. After the lawyer, he got a measely $12k.
Trump and the judiciary are going to do the same damn thing to this country. Doesn't matter whether he's guilty. They're gonna delay and stall and bury us in paperwork until we starve and settle for table scraps.
Only if the prosecutors can successfully prove they weren't official acts, which will be non-trivial since so many things (like talking to advisors) are themselves official acts. It's really unclear how functionally pierceable that outer layer of presumed immunity is. The burden to bypass it is placed with the prosecutors, and any decision can be appealed back to the Supreme Court that wrote a whole nonsense provision to protect him even in this state trial.
I fully agree with you. This is now our reality. That doesn’t mean these hot takes barely based off of the first paragraph of the syllabus or one sentence of a dissenting opinion are more true.
And this is exactly where you would most likely find evidence of "unofficial actions". The president is not personally going out and doing these actions themselves, they're using their administration. All those communications are now inadmissible. They tried to make it seem like they weren't fully siding with Trump, but they absolutely are.