406
US accuses Canada of election interference ahead of midterms (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 2 days ago (6 children)

So you're telling me the person who...

  • Recently had his administration hack a voting machine

  • Desperately tried to force the SAVE act which would all but strip away voting rights

  • Tried to meddle with the USPS so much to invalidate mail in ballots...despite himself voting by mail for florida primaries

  • Is actively arresting "suspected" non-citizens in blue states who were born in the US

  • Has openly leaked potential for martial law to suspend elections

  • More leaked information about deploying iSSe to voting locations

...is accusing Canada of interfering in US elections?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v US that anything that the President does while in office as an official act he has absolute immunity from, and that specifically includes insurrection against the government, as long as he believes it's in the best interest of the United States.

    So, under US law (I'm not exaggerating) those things are all legal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    It did not include the insurrection, which is why the case was never dismissed by the Court.

    One of the most damning pieces of evidence that's rarely discussed is that Trump had his personal and campaign lawyers in the meetings surrounding the attempt to change the election, but specifically excluded the official White House counsel. That means he was acting as Candidate Trump and not President Trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I'm not a lawyer, so if you want to point me to a source that would be interesting, but going off just the Wikipedia page it seems to specifically include the insurrection within the scope of this decision

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    The evidence that the White House counsel was excluded from the meetings while his personal and campaign lawyers were is why Smith was able to re-file. It was evidence that Trump was specifically acting as a candidate and not as the President, so it wasn't covered by the official acts immunity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent