#United States v. Donald Trump | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.

174 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 hours

Text

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges. The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune. Kavanaugh even told Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from Smith’s office, that it’s a “serious constitutional question whether a criminal statute can apply to the president’s criminal acts.”

That would be the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the chief executive, rubber stamped by the highest court of the land. It’s worth remembering that Thomas refused to recuse himself from this—and most of the Trump election interference cases—despite the fact that his wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in Trump’s coup attempt. When she testified to the Jan. 6 special congressional committee, she maintained that the election was stolen. His failure to recuse himself comes after a new ethics code has supposedly been enforced, saying that “a Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” So much for that suggestion from Chief Justice John Roberts. His code has no teeth, which is yet another reason why ethics reform—and indeed court reform and expansion—is essential.

Joan McCarter writes in Daily Kos that the Trump v. United States "immunity" case is a good reason to reform and expand SCOTUS.

#Court Reform #SCOTUS #Trump v. United States #Donald Trump #SCOTUS Expansion

50 notes · View notes

cimerran-714 · 5 months

Text

I figured that it would be helpful to call out ten of the most common pro-choice arguments that you might notice online. I'll preface it by saying that I am not a philosopher (or at least not yet), but I am a person with common sense, and you can see through these "arguments" if you have two brain-cells left.

Also, I understand that there are good PC arguments out there (although they are of course not successful, for a strong argument doesn't necessarily have to succeed). I am only arguing some of the most insane and ridiculous ones you'd spot.

If you want to go through some really good claims made by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates, I'd recommend David Boonin's 'A Defense of Abortion'. It'd help you instead of you having to regurgitate whatever you are spoon-fed by the leftist cult. Go check out that book even if you're pro-life, because it's a great one.

Let's get started, shall we?

A human embryo/fetus is not human:

Yes, it's both human and alive. Biologists agree with this (including pro-choice biologists), and even pro-choice philosophers acknowledge this. This is basic empirical reality. And you only have to open an embryology textbook to know how wrong you are. Also, these people can never explain what species the fetus belongs to if not "Homo Sapiens".

2. It's just a "clump of cells".

All of us are made up of cells. Some are "clumpier" than others. And plus, it's not merely a clump of cells: the embryo is a human organism in its earlier stages of development, and very soon is also differentiated as it grows. That's like saying that it's okay to destroy a car because it's just "a bunch of metal thrown together".

3. It's not a person/sentient, yadda yadda:

Irrelevant and it's the same logic that slave-owners used to own people. Human rights is species-based, and the embryo/fetus is human. That's all that matters. These people love to make up ridiculous, arbitrary criteria to justify their bigotry.

4. You cannot force people to donate their organs...

Not the same thing at all. You cannot be forced to save people, but that doesn't mean you can actively kill them. This is the difference between killing someone and letting them die. There is a significant moral difference between deliberately pushing someone off a cliff and not saving someone who's hanging off a branch at a cliff. Abortion is the former.

5. Women would die...

All states have life-threat exceptions built into it, so this is just deflection. And yes, there are doctors who refuse to perform entirely legal abortions, but that is their fault. It IS legal. They're just cowards, and you can't blame the law for this because they already make this exception.

6. You cannot force your views onto others:

If you support democracy (and, you know, voting) you're forcing your views onto others. That's how law works.

7. The child would grow up in poverty, yadda yadda yadda...:

We don't kill born children because of these reasons, so it's a ridiculous claim. You don't solve poverty by killing the poor.

8. They are just pro-birth:

Statistics show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. Also, just because they don't agree with your method of helping people doesn't mean that they don't care about born people. You see, it's like saying "A fire-fighter rescued someone from a fire, but they don't want to pay out of their pockets to look after them throughout their lives. They don't actually care!"

9. Showing pics of fetuses belonging to other species as a gotcha:

Yes, mammals of different species look the same in their earlier stages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them. This is, once again, bigoted slaver logic (to want to kill people based on their looks).

10. Men cannot have a say because:

As men are directly affected by this, they absolutely have a say. They are fathers too, and remember that they're the ones who have to pay child support.

There you go. I am not expecting you to be pro-life yet if you are not, but I hope that I have cleared your head up somewhat.

136 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 9 months

Text

With late night comedy on hiatus because of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, one replacement could be people making vids of themselves reading transcripts of Trump's lawyers and comments of his spokespeople.

We don't have to wait for the actual trial for the craziness of Trump's legal case to show through.

youtube

^^^ recorded on Monday night.

#donald trump #legal case #protective order #donald trump v. the united states of america #gop presidential nomination #election 2024 #mike luckovich #rachel maddow

38 notes · View notes

ivygorgon · 20 days

Text

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Pass a bill to make Trump’s trial viewable by ALL Americans!

1,333 so far! Help us get to 2,000 signers!

I understand that the Senate just passed a bill, S. 3250, to permit victims of crimes associated with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 to access court proceedings in the criminal case against the perpetrators. This new law will mean that affected people who are too old or infirm to travel to Washington, D.C., or those who are too far away to readily make the trip will still be able to observe court proceedings. Prosecutors at the Justice Department supported the move because they thought it was important for people affected by the crime to see justice in action. They are correct. Bearing this precedent in mind, I would like Congress to swiftly pass a similar bill for Trump’s prosecution for interference in the 2020 election. This case, United States v. Donald J. Trump, is of even more singular importance than the Lockerbie case. If such access can be offered for those victims it can be offered to the American people for a trial in which they have a distinct and unparalleled interest. This is one of the most important court cases this country will ever see. It is in the best interests of every US citizen to provide full access to it. There are, furthermore, no compelling reasons not to do so. Please introduce and/or support such a bill right away. People will be able to learn more about the arguments being made and it is more difficult to pass off disinformation about a proceeding that the public has full access to. Thanks.

▶ Created on January 22 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PIYDKC to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

5 notes · View notes

wolfcat-hybrid · 11 months

Text

This was probably the funniest part of the Trump Indictment PDF imo. The person who put this together was a comedy genius.

[Image ID: screenshot of black text on white paper that reads "During the meeting, Trump commented that an ongoing military operation in Country B was not going well. Trump showed the PAC Representative a classified map of Country B and told the PAC Representative that he should not be showing the map to the PAC Representative and to not get too close. The PAC Representative did not have a security clearance or any need-to-know classified information about the military operation." The next section of the document continues "36. On February 16, 2017, four years before Trump's disclosures of classified information set forth above, Trump said at a press conference 'The first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know why? Because it's an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed.'" End of Image ID.]

#trump indictment #us politics #trump #united states of america v. donald j. trump and waltine nauta #june 8 indictment #wolfy speaks #highly suggest reading through the document. its fucking wild #its 49 pages long but you only have to read the first 27 after that it just lists which crimes specifically they broke #just. so many bad decisions being made here

9 notes · View notes

ramblings-of-a-mad-cat · 2 years

Note

Wtaf is going on in America? I swear it’s gone back like 50 years over there with Roe v Wade being overturned. Apparently they’re coming for interracial marriage, same sex marriage, voting rights & a lot more. It’s actually disgusting.

Because even though we got rid of Donald Trump, (for now, anyway. Technically, he can run again in 2024. There's no law that says he can't, and I'd bet my life it's what he's going to do.) the fact is, the damage was done.

I'm not just talking about how many people we lost in 2020, how much Covid was able to spread thanks to his neglect - though that is easily one of the worst examples. No, I'm talking about the influence. It all comes down to his slogan, "Make America great again." That tells you the whole story. Yes, anon, it is like we're going back in time fifty years, because that's exactly what the MAGAs want. They want the "good old days" when women "knew their place." and thanks to the Trump presidency, these bigots have more openly merged with the Republican Party. The fact is, America was never "great" and Trump was never trying to make it "great again." America was a work in progress. Slow progress perhaps, but not as swift as it ought to have been, but it was headed in the right direction. At least we weren't slaughtering the Native Americans anymore. At least we weren't enslaving Black people anymore. At least women were approaching something resembling equal rights, even if it was in baby steps. Again, a work in progress.

But then...Trump happened.

Trump. an unrepentant racist, misogynist, fact-denier...basically every horrible quality you can imagine in a person, he has them all. It would almost seem unrealistic. Like he was some sort of cartoon character. But he is very real, and any stories you might have heard about him...the genuine article is worse, a million times worse. In 2016, he talked his way into the White House...even though Clinton won the Popular Vote. The same thing happened to Al Gore back in the year 2000, which was how we got Bush and Iraq. See, in the United States, getting the most votes doesn't guarantee you the election, as ludicrous as it sounds. You have to win particular states, who, despite having fewer people, get more weight in the election. If you're wondering why, it's a system that was devised to compensate for the existence of slavery, and all of the slaves who were part of the population at the time but, obviously, were not voting. Which has led many people such as myself to recoil in disgust and point out how archaic and pointless that is now, but The Electoral College is still here. There are probably professionals who can explain this system better than me, but long story short, this is how we got Trump. Well, that, and it's also very likely that Russia had something to do with it, as it was confirmed that they interfered with the 2016 election, and we all know who Putin wanted to win.

Once Trump was in office, one of his new powers was that he was the only one who could nominate new members of The Supreme Court. Which is, as the name suggests, the highest level of Court we have. It stands on part with the Legislative (Congress) and Executive (The President) branches of government. Frankly, I've long held the opinion that the Supreme Court is the most powerful entity in this country, full stop. It's supposed to balance with Congress and the President, but assuming a case is brought to them, they can make any decision they want regarding it, and no one else gets a say. They can declare anything constitutional, or unconstitutional. And a Supreme Court Judge sits the job for life, by the way. There is no limit to how many "terms" they can stay. So they remain until they choose to retire (and considering how honored and prestigious the position is, many do not) or they die. This is why we took the loss of RBG so hard. The reason this is happening right now, is because Trump managed to fill three of the eight Supreme Court seats during his time in the White House. (One of which was Obama's to fill, by the way, but don't get me started on Mitch McConnell, we'll be here all day.)

To be clear, it's not as simple as saying that Trump is evil, and corrupted our country. No, it takes a village. In fact, thanks to his incompetence, Trump was almost a figurehead in a number of ways. A public figure who the bigots could rally behind. What it comes down to is that Trump's his has normalized many different types of bigotry, as well as a general denial of facts. Misogynists, homophobes, racists, they all feel comfortable coming out of the shadows now. When neo Nazis marched in Charlottesville, Trump said there were "fine people on both sides." During the 2020 Presidental debates, he refused to condemn the Proud Boys, and told them to "stand back and stand by." His presidency has caused all of these horrible people to come out of hiding - culminating in January 6th, when they were told that Trump would not be re-elected, and they tried to metamorphically throw the gameboard off the table. It's also given them the ammo they need to justify their existence - that being...nothing. This goes back to the whole "alternative facts" nonsense. Trump, and the Republican Party in general, no longer seem to feel the need to defend their decisions logically. They'll approve Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court at the eleventh hour, even though they played keep-away with a seat that rightfully should have gone to Merrick Garland, and that's just one example.

And my party, the Democrats, don't really know how to stop them, because facts don't work anymore. Pointing out the obvious, like how evil some of these stances are...that doesn't work anymore. They've hijacked the system, which was broken to begin with...and now they're breaking it down even more, to control the game. I guess you could say that the elected members of the Democratic Party are failing to win over the people, and I'm sure that's a part of it. But a not insignificant number of people simply are not voting, so that's a problem. The Republicans are also cheating. I realize that may sound kind of "whiny kid on the playground" but they are, in fact, cheating, and getting away with it. I recommend looking up the process of "gerrymandering" and seeing for yourself how they're rigging the elections. So the whole thing feels like we're helpless, but...there is one thing that Biden could do. He could stack the Court. Technically, there's no rule that says the Supreme Court has to be eight judges. He could choose to add more to level it out. I suspect he's hesitant to do this as it could backfire down the road, if and I understand that level of caution...but I'm still one of the people who thinks he should do it.

#Politics #Politics below #Roe V Wade #Donald Trump #The United States #Mitch Mcconnell #Amy Coney Barrett #Merrick Garland #Republican Party #Democratic Party #Proud Boys #Jan 6 Insurrection #2016 Election #2020 Election #The Supreme Court

26 notes · View notes

septictankie · 2 years

Text

“For unless revolution uproots the basic social organisation, the biological family - the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled - the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than - inclusive of - a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.” — Shulamith Firestone

#socialism #communism #marxism #politics #capitalism #us politics #anti capitalism #united states #feminism #donald trump #abortion #roe v wade #roe v Casey #reproductive care #reproductive choice #pro choice

27 notes · View notes

auroraluciferi · 2 years

Text

the height of hypocrisy in this country is when conservatives get on Fox News and foam at the mouth over being “pro-life” and “supporting the rights of the unborn”

people like Gregg Abbott and Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are happy to drape themselves with the US flag and carry the cross like Jesus Christ himself when the cameras are on

but if you’re some random kid that has actually left the womb, or if you’re gay or transgender, then you’re just another worthless fucking scumbag leech on society

if your parents are undocumented living in the deep South, these people will fight you to the end of the earth for every inch of healthcare, education or infrastructure budget in your name

if you’re an unmarried, pregnant teenager then you’re just another fucking slut - it doesn’t matter if thousands of you die from complications every year in red states

right wing politicians understand this contradiction and really don’t care - Christian charity is a political convenience to them

as long as they can rile up their voter base with righteous platitudes, hate and envy, they’re fine with it

they would not give a shit if another poor brown or black kid fucking starved to death, regardless of their “pro-life” positions, if that meant the rich corporations that bankroll them wouldn’t have to pick up slack for some random loser that might grow up and vote democrat

5 notes · View notes

richdadpoor · 8 months

Text

Montana Compares Banned TikTok to 'Cancer-Causing Radio'

Montana’s lawsuit-hungry attorney general Austin Knudsen wants US courts to think of TikTok less like a light-hearted home for viral trends and more akin to the harbinger of a life-threatening disease. In recent court filings defending his state’s unprecedented ban on the short-form video app, Knudsen compared TikTok to a “cancer-causing radio,” something he said lawmakers would likewise have a…

View On WordPress

#App Store #Austin Knudsen #Donald Trump–TikTok controversy #Gianforte #Gizmodo #Internet censorship in India #Likee #Mobile applications #Montana #Montana AG #Montana TikTokers #NetChoice v. Paxton #Nicole Saad Bembridge #Restrictions on TikTok in the United States #Rick Baker #Saad Bembridge #tiktok #Video hosting #Video software

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

Last March, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Donald Trump reportedly told a room full of Republican National Committee donors that the US should “put the Chinese flag” on a bunch of military planes and “bomb the shit” out of Russia—and afterward, “we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, and then they start fighting with each other, and we sit back and watch.” Maybe you remember this, because it was a fucking insane thing to say. Or maybe you don’t, because Trump has said and done fucking insane things on a near-daily basis for many years now. Either way, it seems that this was not a one-off, and that suggesting the US attack another country and blame it on someone else is reportedly very much the 2024 presidential candidate’s thing.

In a new section of his 2020 book on Trump, as obtained by NBC News, New York Times correspondent Michael Schmidt reveals that Trump spent much of 2017 suggesting “behind closed doors in the Oval office” that he wanted to attack North Korea. The then-President, Schmidt writes in the soon-to-be released afterword to Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President, “cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility.”

For his part, John Kelly reportedly attempted to explain to his boss why that probably wouldn’t work, noting that “It’d be tough to not have the finger pointed at us,” but, of course, the then-White House Chief of Staff was using reason and logic, two things that haven’t typically worked on Trump. Still, according to Schmidt, Kelly tried, bringing in “the military’s top leaders to the White House to brief Trump about how war between the US and North Korea could easily break out, as well as the enormous consequences of such a conflict. But the argument about how many people could be killed had ‘no impact on Trump.’” Nor did the threat of economic blowback; according to the book’s update, informed of why all of this would be a very bad idea, the president would still “turn back to the possibility of war, including at one point raising to Kelly the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea.”

Last May, less than two months after the former guy reportedly floated the idea of attacking Russia and blaming it on China, we learned that, according to former-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump asked, on at least two occasions, if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs,” saying, “They don’t have control of their own country.” Told all the various reasons this idea was a no-go, the then-President reportedly insisted that they could do it “quietly,” adding: “no one would know it was us.” Informed that, yes, people would know it was the US, Trump apparently responded that he would simply lie and say the US didn’t do it.

Anyway, all this would maybe be neither here nor there if Trump was simply an ex-president whose patently insane and wildly dangerous notions were in the past, and no longer posed a risk to the United States—but unfortunately, he’s not!

#us politics #news #Bess Levin #vanity fair #2023 #donald trump #nuclear weapons #mexico #russia #china #us foreign policy #russo ukrainian war #north korea #Michael Schmidt #Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President #John Kelly #Mark Esper #us military

17 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 days

Text

Nick Visser at HuffPost:

Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) urged the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of absolute immunity from prosecution when it hears arguments on the matter Thursday, saying his efforts to delay and dodge standing trial risk breaking American institutions of law and order.

Cheney, who served on the House select committee investigating the origins of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times on Sunday. In the piece, she said the Supreme Court should quickly rule against Trump’s efforts to see the federal indictment for his role in the insurrection tossed out. The former president has argued he should be immune from prosecution for anything he did while in office, a broad interpretation that would also imperil the cases against him in Georgia and Florida. “As a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump has long had access to federal grand jury material relating to his Jan. 6 indictment and to all the testimony obtained by our select committee,” Cheney wrote in the op-ed. “He knows what all these witnesses have said under oath and understands the risks he faces at trial.” “That’s why he is doing everything possible to try to delay his Jan. 6 federal criminal trial until after the November election,” she added. The lawmaker stressed the work of the Jan. 6 House select committee, which released in 2022 a scathing report of Trump’s behavior, relied on testimony from dozens of Republicans who worked in the White House.

Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) wrote a scathing op-ed in the New York Times urging SCOTUS to reject Donald Trump's delay tactics in the presidential immunity case Trump v. United States.

#Liz Cheney #OpEds #Opinion #The New York Times #Donald Trump #Total Immunity #Trump Indictment III #House Select Committee on the Capitol Insurrection #Trump v. United States

14 notes · View notes

muddypolitics · 11 months

Text

United States of America v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta

read this

#United States of America v. Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta #document

1 note · View note

bxriles · 2 years

Text

Ranting about Roe v. Wade being overturned.

As much I hate and despise the republicans and as much I hate them for what they’ve done, the democrats are also very much to blame for what happened.

Everyone knew when Roe v. Wade was decided that the republicans were going to put up a fight. Everyone knew that Roe v. Wade remaining simply an opinion of the Supreme Court was a problem because it could be overturned. The only way to guarantee the access to abortion was to codify it into law.

The democrats knew this. They held majorities in the House, Senate, and Presidency multiple times since 1973. You know what the democrats could have done? They could have codified the right to abortion and made it the law of the land.

You know what the democrats DIDN’T do? They didn’t codify it despite having multiple opportunities to do so.

I hope I’m wrong, but mark my words that the democrats will fail us again. Instead of acting now and trying to codify the right to abortion into US law, they won’t. You know what they’ll do? They’ll make it a hot button topic. They’ll use it as their platform for the next presidential election. “Vote blue for your abortion rights!” They won’t act because why act when they could use it to push their political agenda?

For as long as I’ve been a voter, I’ve voted blue. But holy shit does this feel like a kick in the gut. What’s next? Are we going to overturn the right to contraception? Same sex marriage?

I hate the idea of packing the court. I think it causes the court to lose integrity and causes it to be driven solely by politics. But you know what? Fuck it.

Pack the court.

#rant #personal #Roe v. Wade #abortion #abortion rights #fuck the Supreme Court #Fuck this country #pro choice #roe v wade #planned parenthood v casey #pregnancy #donald trump #joe biden #scotus #united states supreme court #pack the court baby

0 notes

anonymous-dentist · 1 year

Text

"It's not that deep"

Yes, yes it is. It is that deep. Buying a Trump flag is that deep. I don't know if most of these Dream fans leftover in their echo chamber of a fanbase remember this, because they were probably kids, but the Trump presidency signaled the end of the world of minorities all across the United States. We're still feeling the repercussions of that today in 2022, almost two full years into Biden's administration. White supremacists are out in louder numbers than they have been in years. Antisemitism is on the rise. Abortion is being threatened in most U.S. states after the conservative-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade this summer, a court packed by Trump and including Christo-fascists, racists, misogynists, homo- and transphobes, and literal alleged rapists and actual cult members. Anti-queer legislation is being pushed in a significant number of U.S. states and in the federal government by members of the legislature who have been emboldened by having a president that agreed with them.

The 2020 presidential election was huge- some of the largest numbers in decades- because people wanted this man out of office. And he's running again in 2024 despite having been impeached twice (the most for any sitting president in the history of the United States) and despite being under investigation for a bajillion federal crimes, including a recent indictment brought against him in response to him instigating, encouraging, and assisting an attempted insurrection and violent takeover of the government in January of last year. (You people might remember it for Doomsday on the smp; many others remember it as one of the most terrifying moments in U.S. political history.) He's running despite the several charges of campaign fraud and election interference brought against him. The Republicans might not be done with him yet, which is a terrifying thought. Even if they are and they're going with DeSantis for 2024, Trump is still planning on running, and he's bankrupt right now. He's broke. His company is broke. He is broke. The only income he gets now are from MAGA supporters buying his merch. Those funny little NFTs from last week? Those support him.

Know what else directly supports Donald Trump and his campaign? Flags. Buying flags.

Does this mean that Dream and Sapnap are Trump supporters for buying a Trump flag as a gag gift for their British friend? No, absolutely not, but the joke of 'lol look at this stupid idiot flag we got you' doesn't land when, A, the person giving the gift is a former Trump supporter himself, and, B, the person that the flag was bought from is a literal white supremacist and fascist who is friends with white supremacists and fascists who all want queer people to die, they want women to be silent or to die, they want civil rights overturned, they want to turn this country back into a shell of itself in the name of white male Christian supremacy

Dream's audience is young and vulnerable. Many members are queer. Many are POC. Most are young. They might not remember how fucking terrifying 2016 through 2020 were. People woke up in tears the day after election day in 2016 for a reason. The polls were flooded in 2020 for a reason. These audience members might not remember that because they were so young, or they might not realize the gravity of the situation. What does it say to them when their hero pulls out a Trump flag and says it's a gift? It's something to laugh at, yeah, but is it really? It shows people that it's okay not to take Trump seriously, and he and his followers are still a threat to America today. It's dangerous not to take him and his followers seriously. And since the Democrats don't seem to have anybody they're pushing for for 2024, it's especially important for potential voters (because that's what these fans are, many will be old enough to vote by 2024) to start to research and understand the opposition.

Oh, and this also alienates members of Dream's audience that do remember the Trump administration. Reminder, thanks to Trump and his buddies, being queer is becoming illegal again. POC are constantly under attack because of the racist remarks encouraged by Trump during his administration. Treating Trump as a joke could, and probably has, alienated a portion of viewers. It shows them just how seriously Dream thinks these issues are. It's all worth it for a funny joke that won't appear for longer than a minute on a several hour long stream train, one viewed by tens of thousands of people live and hundreds of thousands more via vods and clips in the 12+ hours that have passed since.

You'd think that Dream would know better with a platform this size and with a fanbase as unique as what his used to be, but I guess not. Critical thinking is vital in this industry, whether you're a fan or a creator. Do I think he meant any harm in this? No, I think he's just a moron. A terrible man, yeah, but not for this. For this, he's just a fucking idiot, and he needs to get a PR guy, and he needs to fucking think before he does things for once in his life. Because it could've been funny to some people, including himself, but there is a responsibility to be, well, responsible with yourself and your audience when you're a content creator. It's very easy to send the wrong message out. There's a certain level of critical thinking that needs to be put into place, and that clearly is not a skill that Dream has.

#dream situation #sorry this is my last post on the topic #i just feel like some people might not understand why that was such a bad thing #because it was a bad thing!#hi i'm a.d. i'm a history student and i've studied the rise of f@scism for coming up on 10 years now #i'm also old enough to remember All Of This Happening #it was bad and it can't happen again #also to be clear i hate him anyway. he's a piece of garbage and he should be deplatformed immediately

629 notes · View notes

cleolinda · 11 months

Text

Happy Indictmas to all who celebrate

Wikipedia Disambiguation: Prosecution of Donald Trump may refer to:

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, a criminal case following indictment on March 30, 2023

Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, a criminal case filed on June 8, 2023

CourtListener: Direct link to full PDF of unsealed indictment, United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta (r/politics discussion thereof: "I feel like I'm committing a crime just reading the document designations")

VIDEO: CSPAN: Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement on Indictment of President Trump

r/politics: Megathread: Trump Indicted by Federal Prosecutors on Charges Related to Handling of Classified Documents [dozens of linked sources]

BBC News: Trump charged under Espionage Act in secret files case. Here's what is in the indictment:

The indictment reads: "The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and to plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack." Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago club "was not an authorised location" for the "storage, possession, review, display or discussion" of classified documents, the indictment says. Nevertheless, it continues, Mr Trump's boxes of documents were stored in places at the club including "a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room". On two occasions in 2021, the former president showed classified documents to others who did not have security clearance, including a writer and two members of staff. At his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, he showed and described a "plan of attack" that he said had been prepared for him by the Defence Department.

r/law: Trump Indictment thread—this time it's Federal

CBS News: Aileen Cannon, Trump-appointed judge, assigned initially to oversee documents case

Business Insider: Trump was 'personally involved' in packing boxes and moving them to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors say

"As president, I could have declassified, but now I can't."

-- Newsweek: Donald Trump Tape Reveals He Uttered 10 Words That Might Have Doomed Him

#i don't think he knows about second indictment pip #everybody look under your chairs it's JAAAAAAAAIL #us politics #linkspam #donald trump

228 notes · View notes