7 ms·

Regardless of one's beliefs on Trump, it is a good day when presidents are no longer de facto immune from law. We now have case law that presidents can be prose

Regardless of one's beliefs on Trump, it is a good day when presidents are no longer de facto immune from law. We now have case law that presidents can be prosecuted post-office. In terms of Montesquieu checks and balances, this is a good day. In terms of the pragmatic health of America, I'm not nearly as sure.

judgemerchan 2y ago
[flagged]
- HaZeust 2y ago
  "political prosecution in a rigged court is not a good day. Not knowing the exact charges and being unable to defend yourself is not a good day. Being able to convict while disagreeing on the specifics wrongs is not a good day." What are you talking about? His fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendment rights that concern conduction of a criminal trial were all honored. They didn't disagree on specifics, charges were decided and enforced. There's no evidence of rigging the court or that the prosecution was "political", short of the politics of everyday judiciary anyway. If you've got a problem with how this case was conducted, you ought to take it up with the country's 238 year-old precedents for its handling of criminal justice theory (and in some cases, I'd agree with you) - NOT how this specific case was conducted.
  - judgemerchan 2y ago
    [flagged]
- jcranmer 2y ago
  If Trump doesn't understand the charges against him, maybe he should have paid attention when his lawyer explained it to him. The charges are pretty clearly laid out.
  - judgemerchan 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      He paid off a woman whom he had an affair with to not talk about it during the election. That is election tampering. He then falsified business records to cover this up. It’s a classic political coverup and bribery case. I doubt it would have made a difference with his cult but who knows.
leereeves 2y ago
I suspect now that the custom (of pardoning and not prosecuting former and current political opponents) has been broken, we'll see a lot of prosecutions of political opponents in the future, because "lawfare" is now an established tactic. I don't think that's a good thing. Edit: How is it lawfare? The charges are based on a questionable, novel legal theory that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, as nonpartisan legal experts have observed from the beginning: “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-bragg-election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-b... And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late. When the prosecution starts ignoring the rules and inventing new legal theories for political ends, that's lawfare.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  What custom are you talking about?
  - bcrosby95 2y ago
    The one time Nixon was pardoned by a member of his own political party.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Also, for example, Republican special prosecutor Robert Ray granting criminal immunity to Bill Clinton at the end of his term. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin... Or, going waaaaaay back, Andrew ~Jackson~ (I mean Johnson, thank you) granting pardons to all Confederates after the Civil War.
      - 2y ago
h2odragon 2y ago
I'd agree, if "no immunity from law" was applied equally.
- defrost 2y ago
  I'm not from the US. Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution? Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President. Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases. The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care. We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
    - mandeepj 2y ago
      > Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
      - leereeves 2y ago
        No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
    - 2y ago
Rapzid 2y ago
For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger the precedent. A conviction that hasn't even started the appeals process isn't much to go on.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Which of Trump’s rights were violated for SCOTUS to grant cert? Otherwise, this is legal case law today which will be referenced in the future no doubt.
  - Rapzid 2y ago
    I'm going to have to wait and see what his defense comes up with just like everyone else haha.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters. Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
  - Rapzid 2y ago
    Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team. Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcranmer 2y ago
tim333 2y ago
I'm not sure they were de facto immune, it's just most were less criminal.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  No, they were immune. Donald Trump is the first US President to be criminally indicted after leaving office. Mueller himself went before Congress and said nothing could be done about a President's illegal activities because you cannot pursue a President for illegal activity.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
Don't really think it's a good idea to let lawyers pick who the people can vote for. Nor that justice is served when the conviction is obtained on alleged book keeping crime from 2017 in which it was claimed it was to influence an election in 2016, and relied on testimony from a man that perjured himself multiple times. And that it was illegal for a bookkeeper to select "legal expense" for payment of an NDA agreement.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

judgemerchan 2y ago

[flagged]

HaZeust 2y ago
"political prosecution in a rigged court is not a good day. Not knowing the exact charges and being unable to defend yourself is not a good day. Being able to convict while disagreeing on the specifics wrongs is not a good day." What are you talking about? His fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendment rights that concern conduction of a criminal trial were all honored. They didn't disagree on specifics, charges were decided and enforced. There's no evidence of rigging the court or that the prosecution was "political", short of the politics of everyday judiciary anyway. If you've got a problem with how this case was conducted, you ought to take it up with the country's 238 year-old precedents for its handling of criminal justice theory (and in some cases, I'd agree with you) - NOT how this specific case was conducted.
- judgemerchan 2y ago
  [flagged]
jcranmer 2y ago
If Trump doesn't understand the charges against him, maybe he should have paid attention when his lawyer explained it to him. The charges are pretty clearly laid out.
- judgemerchan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    He paid off a woman whom he had an affair with to not talk about it during the election. That is election tampering. He then falsified business records to cover this up. It’s a classic political coverup and bribery case. I doubt it would have made a difference with his cult but who knows.

leereeves 2y ago

I suspect now that the custom (of pardoning and not prosecuting former and current political opponents) has been broken, we'll see a lot of prosecutions of political opponents in the future, because "lawfare" is now an established tactic. I don't think that's a good thing. Edit: How is it lawfare? The charges are based on a questionable, novel legal theory that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, as nonpartisan legal experts have observed from the beginning: “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-bragg-election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-b... And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late. When the prosecution starts ignoring the rules and inventing new legal theories for political ends, that's lawfare.

maxerickson 2y ago
What custom are you talking about?
- bcrosby95 2y ago
  The one time Nixon was pardoned by a member of his own political party.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Also, for example, Republican special prosecutor Robert Ray granting criminal immunity to Bill Clinton at the end of his term. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clinton-accepts-immunity-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/exiting-job-clin... Or, going waaaaaay back, Andrew ~Jackson~ (I mean Johnson, thank you) granting pardons to all Confederates after the Civil War.
    - 2y ago

h2odragon 2y ago

I'd agree, if "no immunity from law" was applied equally.

defrost 2y ago
I'm not from the US. Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution? Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
- leereeves 2y ago
  Why limit it to outside their term of office? Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President. Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases. The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care. We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
  - mandeepj 2y ago
    > Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court. Didn't every Republican senator do the same to save Trump from Impeachment despite clearly calling insurrection?
    - leereeves 2y ago
      No, that's incorrect. But I'm tired of looking up sources for facts that clearly aren't appreciated here, so I'll let you look it up.
  - 2y ago

Rapzid 2y ago

For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger the precedent. A conviction that hasn't even started the appeals process isn't much to go on.

ok_dad 2y ago
Which of Trump’s rights were violated for SCOTUS to grant cert? Otherwise, this is legal case law today which will be referenced in the future no doubt.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  I'm going to have to wait and see what his defense comes up with just like everyone else haha.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters. Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team. Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcranmer 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

I'm not sure they were de facto immune, it's just most were less criminal.

HaZeust 2y ago
No, they were immune. Donald Trump is the first US President to be criminally indicted after leaving office. Mueller himself went before Congress and said nothing could be done about a President's illegal activities because you cannot pursue a President for illegal activity.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

Don't really think it's a good idea to let lawyers pick who the people can vote for. Nor that justice is served when the conviction is obtained on alleged book keeping crime from 2017 in which it was claimed it was to influence an election in 2016, and relied on testimony from a man that perjured himself multiple times. And that it was illegal for a bookkeeper to select "legal expense" for payment of an NDA agreement.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]