Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[nlogax]

The world's gone to pot since he lost office.

Hopefully there will be something left to salvage by the time he's re-elected.

Oh wait you're being serious?

 

[jon0844]

The world's gone to pot since he lost office.

Hopefully there will be something left to salvage by the time he's re-elected.

Do you believe all the nonsense about the immigrants being actively brought in by Biden to vote Democrat, and the stuff from Trump and Elon about the great replacement theory, and the effect on the bloodlines etc?

Because that's all the stuff being said to claim the world has gone to pot, and it's literal nonsense.

The right is doing the same here, saying the exact same things and scaring people into thinking that we're being overrun by immigrants who want to replace us.

 

[nw1]

Oh wait you're being serious?

I doubt it.

 

[DerekC]

I understand that the US Federal Supreme Court is now considering whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed whilst he was president. Aside from constitutional issues, can anyone explain what the logic for this is?

 

[najaB]

I understand that the US Federal Supreme Court is now considering whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed whilst he was president. Aside from constitutional issues, can anyone explain what the logic for this is?

The logic as to why the Supreme Court is hearing the case? Because the trial court rejected it, so he appealed to the DC Circuit Court which also threw it out, so he appealed to the Supreme Court. They were originally expected to decline to hear the case, but in a bit of a surprise they agreed to hear it. I guess because they want to settle it once and for all. From the justice's questions today it looks like the majority are going to be in favour of sending it back down to the lower court.

 

[jon0844]

Are the seriously unsure how to rule and considering allowing future Presidents to do whatever they want (including trying to overturn elections to become dictators) by giving them outright immunity? As the BBC and others report, this decision could be one of the biggest decisions ever made, as giving anyone outright immunity could destroy democracy.

 

[najaB]

Are the seriously unsure how to rule and considering allowing future Presidents to do whatever they want (including trying to overturn elections to become dictators) by giving them outright immunity?

I would be surprised if they rule that the President is above the law.

 

[jon0844]

I would be surprised if they rule that the President is above the law.

Years ago I'd have thought so, but politics is at a point now where, thanks to the court of public opinion (and influence by social media and the likes of Elon Musk and paid bots), it's quite possible that people will think it right to give them immunity because a President has to contend with the 'liberals' trying to hold them to account.

Throw in the misunderstanding of what free speech means, and include the word 'Constitutional' in a rant, and there's a strong case all of a sudden.

If this was something being decided in its own right, that would be concerning, but this is literally to allow Trump to get away with his crimes. That's what makes it even more crazy. Trump could only ever be a problem for another four years*, but this would be a legacy forever more.

* Unless he decides to use his immunity to stay in power for life, although hopefully given his age and health that won't be much longer than four years.

 

[najaB]

Years ago I'd have thought so, but politics is at a point now where, thanks to the court of public opinion (and influence by social media and the likes of Elon Musk and paid bots), it's quite possible that people will think it right to give them immunity because a President has to contend with the 'liberals' trying to hold them to account.

Doesn't matter what the "court of public opinion" thinks, all that matters is the law. I honestly can't see the Supreme Court arguing that anyone is above the law, if only because what's goes for Republicans also goes for Democrats.

 

[brad465]

Doesn't matter what the "court of public opinion" thinks, all that matters is the law. I honestly can't see the Supreme Court arguing that anyone is above the law, if only because what's goes for Republicans also goes for Democrats.

Yes by that "logic", Biden could assassinate Trump and claim immunity.

 

[JamesT]

I understand that the US Federal Supreme Court is now considering whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed whilst he was president. Aside from constitutional issues, can anyone explain what the logic for this is?

In the UK we have parliamentary privilege, where members of both houses are immune from various legal actions in order that they can carry out their work without having to fend off lawsuits.
Some other countries such as the US have broadened this concept so any actions taken by a member of the legislature or the executive as part of their official duties is protected. Again, the idea is that if you disagree with a law etc. the way to fix it is to get someone elected who will put a different law in place, rather than trying to have a judge doing it.
Trump appears to be trying to stretch this to its limits that anything he did whilst president is therefore covered by immunity.

 

[jon0844]

Yes by that "logic", Biden could assassinate Trump and claim immunity.

And something along these lines has been pointed out. Any decision now could mean Biden being able to do what he wants!

 

[najaB]

In the UK we have parliamentary privilege, where members of both houses are immune from various legal actions in order that they can carry out their work without having to fend off lawsuits.
Some other countries such as the US have broadened this concept so any actions taken by a member of the legislature or the executive as part of their official duties is protected. Again, the idea is that if you disagree with a law etc. the way to fix it is to get someone elected who will put a different law in place, rather than trying to have a judge doing it.
Trump appears to be trying to stretch this to its limits that anything he did whilst president is therefore covered by immunity.

Thing is, that already applies to the presidency as far as civil liability is concerned - you can't sue the President personally for actions that form part of the job. What he is attempting to do is expand this doctrine to cover criminal liability.

 

[Bantamzen]

Years ago I'd have thought so, but politics is at a point now where, thanks to the court of public opinion (and influence by social media and the likes of Elon Musk and paid bots), it's quite possible that people will think it right to give them immunity because a President has to contend with the 'liberals' trying to hold them to account.

Throw in the misunderstanding of what free speech means, and include the word 'Constitutional' in a rant, and there's a strong case all of a sudden.

If this was something being decided in its own right, that would be concerning, but this is literally to allow Trump to get away with his crimes. That's what makes it even more crazy. Trump could only ever be a problem for another four years*, but this would be a legacy forever more.

* Unless he decides to use his immunity to stay in power for life, although hopefully given his age and health that won't be much longer than four years.

If he did win, and decide to hold on forever, he could end up turning the US into a North Korea with his family inheriting the seat of power. Can you imagine his sons taking over.... <shudder>