One month after the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, the judge overseeing former President Trump's Jan. 6 case now has jurisdiction over the case again.
  • Vector@lemmy.worldEnglish
    125·
    3 months ago

    Save you a click:

    In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that a president has absolute immunity for acts within their core constitutional powers and a presumption of immunity for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”

    Judge Chutkan will now be responsible for applying the Supreme Court’s decision to the allegations in Trump’s criminal case, including whether Trump’s actions were “official acts” or private conduct that can be prosecuted.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      118·
      3 months ago

      I’m sure they won’t intervene again after handing down an extremely confused and indecipherable opinion on what does and doesn’t qualify for presidential immunity.

      • adarza@lemmy.caEnglish
        64·
        3 months ago

        well, the president has no role, official or otherwise, in the election process or certification of election results. his only role was to vacate 1600 penn ave and leave the government and peoples’ property behind.

        so i fully expect scRotus to intervene again, once the district judge in dc rules along those lines.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        221·
        3 months ago

        My understanding is that if a prosecutor even wants to bring charges against someone who was president when the alleged offense(s) were committed, the prosecutor has to first demonstrate that the offending acts were not “official acts.”

        Nobody really knows what that looks like, of course, but it definitely opens the door for Judge Chutkan to call for hearings on whether the acts alleged to be criminal were “official” or not. Which would probably look exactly like a trial - presentation of evidence, witnesses, cross examination, defense - just where the only judgment at the end would be “Nope, not official acts.”

        Then that gets appealed, all the way to SCOTUS, then maybe an actual trial happens. Then they complain that there’s no way to get an impartial jury, because everyone already knows all the details of the case, that gets appealed …

        Delay is the point, and SCOTUS is complicit.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          4·
          3 months ago

          Delaying is the point but I think things actually get really interesting as soon as the judge calls for hearings and witnesses show up. If the act is official, and therefore Trump would have immunity, there is no fifth amendment protection for him to avoid answering questions, or to lie about anything. So that means he needs to give a lot of information, some of which might point at people who don’t have absolute immunity, and could possibly be locked up for their actions.

          So then we have this interesting situation where Trump will be called to testify, and if he does so inaccurately, he could be held in criminal contempt. Remember, he has to stand by the claim that his acts are official, so he can’t play fast and loose on the stand and maintain his absolute immunity defense.

          Of course we don’t know. We have no idea how any of this will play out. But we can imagine how it might play out from absolute immunity defenses with judges and prosecutors. No doubt that’s what the judge will rely on as guidelines for this case.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      3 months ago

      “Outer perimeter of official responsibility”?

      WTF is that? How is that enforceable?

      You know what is much easier to enforce?

      “No. One. Is. Above. The. Law.”

      As the Founding Fathers obviously intended.

      It’s like the universe is trying to make it obvious that this is a stupid and nonsensical path but our “supreme” judges keep setting us up for absolute failure as a nation.

      • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        “Outer perimeter of official responsibility”? WTF is that? How is that enforceable?

        Remember when there was that standoff between Texas and the Feds along the border? There was a lot of bloviating about how it was an invasion force, and that Biden was somehow using it to orchestrate an overthrow of the US Government. Of course, the truth was nothing of the sort. Biden, as President, and the Homeland Security department under him, has a lot of leeway in terms of how they execute laws, but Congress still makes the laws, and Republicans in Congress have deliberately let the situation at the border fester to score political points.

        However, if this Supreme Court ruling had gone fully the other way, and the President was ruled to have no particular immunity whatsoever, it would only be a matter of time before some local prosecutor in Texas would decide to prosecute Biden for insurrection, as retribution for Trump’s current situation. Even though there are no facts that actually back up a case against Biden, while we all saw what happened on Jan 6th.

        So, the idea that Presidents can’t be prosecuted for simply doing their jobs has some merit. But the Supreme Court went way too far constructing way too high a burden for prosecutors who need to investigate crimes committed by the President outside that perimeter. Under this guidance, the President could direct the Secretary of State to include a discussion of building a golf course in treaty negotiations, and even if that is found out, prosecutors can’t call the Secretary to testify or use that evidence in court in a bribery investigation

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        We actually had to pass section 1983 of the federal code in 1871 for that exact reason. The founders may have intended it, but they didn’t write it down specifically. Then in 1874 an unnamed secretary illegally revised the law while “copying” it from the Congressional Record to the Federal Register. This led to the Qualified Immunity argument that was the crux of Harlow v Fitzgerald.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      101·
      3 months ago

      Kamala should spend term one fighting this and getting it sorted. Term 2 should be okay im going to maximize the use of this(but like NOT in the evil way, just USE it in a way it shouldnt be available to used) like send people to gitmo or something… openly.

      I dont really know how what to do with it, but if they wont come to reason, stop being reasonable. She seems smart and capable enough to do it.

      I wouldnt trust Hilary as president with this, but Kamala seems like a person who could use this to show just how bad this can be abused, but do good with it

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    22·
    3 months ago

    Because it’s checking for what the author (who is biased) considers biased. There’s another post discussing he might be Zionist. But I didn’t care enough to read it.

  • Bosht@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Why is this the future I’m stuck in God dammit this shit is so stupid. Fucking corruption and greed.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      1·
      3 months ago

      Born too soon to serve and die in a world war

      Born too late to serve and die in a world war

      Born just in time to see the collapse of liberal democracy and human rights

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    2023·
    3 months ago
    ABC News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Name: ABC News Bias: Left-Center
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

    • flying_gel@lemmy.world
      91·
      3 months ago

      People who downvote instead of (or as well as) blocking it. Why the downvotes? You don’t want to see a bias/factual rating of the source or you don’t agree with the rating?

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
        121·
        3 months ago

        I don’t agree with the ratings. Fox News gets a “medium” which puts it on the same ground as a lot of actual news sites. There’s no way that should get anything more than a “low” or something below that.

        I can’t tell how they’re determined other than a singular brief mention of one thing, so to me it looks like they made the call based on one event they cherry picked. But really, it doesn’t matter though to me to investigate any group that rates fox news so highly. I’ve had to suffer through their bullshit lies for years and find them responsible for a lot of the partisan damage we’ve seen over the decades. Medium? What the fuck does it take to get a low rating?

        • flying_gel@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          The bot seems to use the medibiasfactcheck.com’s API which should report ‘mixed’ factual reporting with extreme right bias.

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/

          edit:

          seems like there is more data available, the bot could report the MBFC Credibility Rating as well.

          Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station/Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

          edit2: I was looking for a fox rating by that bot, I wasn’t able to find one “in the wild” but it seems like it does use the MBFC rating for the heading and does indeed classify fox as “Low”

          Example from what I guess is the guys development teating posts: https://lemmy.world/post/18064796

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          22·
          3 months ago

          A lot of people confuse Fox’s talking heads/opinion content with their newsroom. The actual news stuff isn’t that bad, it’s the pundits who are just outright liars.

          It doesn’t help that they don’t do a clear job of distinguishing these, but they are distinct in quality.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            Fox News is an “entertainment network” per their own lawyers, so I will never take them seriously.

            Plus regardless of content, they played a BIG role into the whole “elections were stolen” bullshit.

            • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
              0·
              3 months ago

              Again, I believe that argument was made regarding their opinion content. But feel free to correct me if I’m misremembering.

              The company as a whole is trash but they do some OK reporting at times. If you recall there was a major controversy in 2020 because their newsroom accurately called the election for Biden fairly early and their viewers went apeshit.

      • Grass@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        3 months ago

        I haven’t down voted it, but I have seen people questioning the credibility of the bot’s creator. Maybe has something to do with it. I didn’t care enough to read the details myself though.

        edit: after actually looking at the bot provided info for the first time rather than scrolling past it, I think it should also try to include info like who owns the news outlet and what else they own.