President Donald Trump acknowledged having called federal prosecutors in California to probe the state’s primary election results, claiming without evidence on Tuesday that his intervention resulted in Republican Steve Hilton advancing to the runoff in the gubernatorial race.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -14 points 2 months ago (25 children)

People don’t get that it’s not an actual crime for him because he cannot be prosecuted as president.

People seem to have inconvenient thought amnesia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    I'm just gonna block you. Your input isn't welcome in my feeds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    It does, yes. Thank you for seeing me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    I did that once upon a time. I look back on those moments with a mix of shame and pity for my younger self. It feels better to engage with people sincerely, especially because of the historical times we're living in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    That's not what that ruling actually says and the government investigating Joe Biden and his family makes it clear that only applies to a sitting president taking part in presidential matters. The ruling effectively says active investigation/prosecution can't happen while in office only after they leave office and presidential duties are only able to be strictly defined after a president leaves office and an investigation takes place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Never leave, never prosecute. That’s the plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    You get that not being charged with a crime ≈ unable to be charged correct?

    He'll probably die before he's charged, his admin though they'll be the ones to end up in prison or finding their way to a long drop with a short fall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    At the end of the day it’s the same thing. Laws are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what words you wrap around it to win an argument online.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    They aren't at all the same thing. The way you phase it they couldn't investigate Biden but they are so clearly it isn't the way you're asserting. Nuance is important in legal matters there is generally not a "close enough" when talking about linguistics in law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You get that not being charged with a crime ≈ unable to be charged correct?

    No, because that's a lie.

    Actually, no, wait: I think you just wrote ≈ when you meant ≠ .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    What's a lie

    And yes does not equal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    "not being charged with a crime [is approximately equal to being] unable to be charged" would've been a lie, if that had been what you meant to write.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Having (temporary) immunity does not cancel out the definition for a crime

    EDIT: I briefly forgot about the Trump versus United States lawsuit. Immunity is not temporary afaik.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    People don’t get that it’s not an actual crime for him because he cannot be prosecuted as president.

    People don't get that because it's simply not true, in multiple ways.

    First, that is not law; that is an opinion written by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Nixon era that said a sitting president could not be prosecuted.

    Even now, after the hideous 2024 Supreme Court decision that says all presidents have absolute criminal immunity for official acts, it says nothing about unofficial acts, nor criminal acts committed prior to or after a presidency, hence Todd Blanche's recent efforts to get blanket immunity for him and his organization for everything they may have done prior. Note the language:

    The release does not stop at the IRS or the Treasury. It sweeps in every executive-branch component—DOJ, FBI, SEC, FinCEN, any agency—for any matter that could be characterized as “Lawfare” or “Weaponization.” The federal government, by contract, has agreed never to pursue Trump, his family, his trusts, or his businesses for anything that meets that definition, forever.

    Why would any of that be necessary if nothing is actually a crime for a president?

    Also, there is no law anywhere in the US that says "this is a crime unless it was undertaken by a president, in which case it's not." That is just asinine.

    "Election interference" is not a crime because it's just a phrase. The crimes have specific names: electoral fraud, voter impersonation, voter fraud, vote buying, etc. and absolutely are crimes, no matter who does them.

    People seem to have inconvenient thought amnesia.

    Yes. You do. These may help:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_interference

  • source
  • parent