this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
94 points (98.0% liked)

News

31505 readers
2706 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judges also questioned the attorneys about whether they should even render a decision on his claim of immunity and instead allow the case to move forward in the trial court.

Federal appeals court judges on Tuesday questioned former President Donald Trump broad claim of immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that resulted in a chain of events that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The all-woman three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said nothing to suggest they would embrace Trump's immunity argument, although they raised several options on how they could rule.

The court could issue a ruling that decisively resolves the immunity question, allowing the trial to move quickly forward, or alight on a more narrow ruling that could leave some issues unresolved. They could also simply rule that Trump had no right to bring an appeal at this stage of the litigation.

all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Froyn@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If presidents were immune, Nixon would not have needed a pardon.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I've heard that notion posed several times. IANAL, but just because Ford and Nixon both thought he needed a pardon does not necessarily mean that he actually needed a pardon. Those are two different things; it is possible that Ford and Nixon were both wrong on the necessity. (Edit: Of note, I don't think they were wrong, but I'm also not a federal judge, so what I think doesn't matter, in the same way as what Ford and Nixon thought didn't matter.)

[–] RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Judges heard from a lawyer for Donald J. Trump who argued that a president could face criminal charges only if impeached and convicted first, even if the case involved the assassination of a political rival.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/09/us/trump-immunity-hearing?unlocked_article_code=1.MU0.qWR0.dMwC00kgBzRe&smid=nytcore-android-share

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So Trump's lawyer is saying its totally cool and legal for Biden to get a marine with a sniper rifle to pop Trump's head, right? Right?

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All this is moot.

The supreme court will rule in his favour. 100% guaranteed.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If they do than Biden can do the unthinkable. These folks think the Dems are just gonna hand them their dictatorship by transferring power. That will never happen

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Dems are acting helpless to resist the republicans. They won't do a thing. They'll stick to the rule of law even though the judges are corrupt.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What I mean is the only move rule of law can make at this point only ensures that either justice is done or that Biden can use the authority to make the necessary changes

Checkmate assholes ♟️