This was one of those “they’ll take as long as they take” types of appeals and they got the decision out fast. Which is good.
They said he was going to jail every month since 2016, when can I expect to see it happen?
To say it again and again:
Stealing someones money or hitting someone in the face takes only seconds or minutes. Getting justice takes years or even a decade.
The sandy hooks parents fought for 10 year until they got their justice. In a case like Trump without any previous legal cases in the case of a (obvious) corrupt president, it might take 10-16 years. So 2026-2032. He knows this. His whole corrupt Trump Inc. it’s based on a slow justice system. He actively tries too stretch it out as long as possible to have as many options he can (e.g. Reelection for a dictatormode).
I know how you and everyone feels. It is tiresome and disappointing that there is no swift justice. But there never is swift justice. Because Justice needs indisputable legal standing. Hitting someone or steal money does not. That the J6 Coup Attempt of 2021 saw rulings in 22/23 is alsmost light speed for a federal justice level. But the evidence was there, people were convicted in the past for this in many cases and that thing had congressional hearings. The case for Trump is much more difficult to unfold. He is guilty and a working justice system will confirm it, but it will be unbearable long. Better getting used to it. Swift justice does not exist only lynching justice. That is quick, but has no legal standing.
Everyone who said we will see him in prison in 2016-2020 was just as a dummy as the “Lock her up”-Crowd. They think trump could have thrown her in jailsg personally on his first day. Turns out: he didnt. He never did. He did not even get close. He did not even pursued it (as it was all just lies to his minions). Because justice takes time. The bigger the case the more time it takes. Locking up a (former) president hopefully will always take years to justify. Else you would be on one level with an autocratic system like china/iran/saudiarabia where nothing is real as “justice” is what the current leader defines as such and everything is based on arbitrariness.
Do you really not understand the process here or are you just venting?
This guy has been criming since before he was elected. I’ll be honest, no I don’t understand the process that has kept him out of jail for seven years. I don’t understand how this process can be called justice.
I do not know. In my life time. Clinton happened, GorevBush happened, 9/11 happened, Iraq/Afghanistan happened, 2008 happened, the Tea Party happened, Trump happened, COVID happened.
And people are still unsure what to do and what the right moves are. We need better politicians, where the fuck are they?
Are you familiar with Douglas Adams?
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
They won’t take bribes, so they get blacklisted.
They’ll delay things until he dies of old age, then throw up their hands.
They’ll handcuff his skeleton after that
They should. I mean they dug up a pope then beat him with sticks and hung his corpse. Just prop Trump up on the national Mall for a few days after he dies and let everyone line up with sticks.
Hell, I’d throw some money at a ticket.It’d sure help pay down some debts if they charge for it
This is a civil suit. Jail isn’t involved for this.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal indictment
IMO the Jan 6 stuff should eliminate him off ballot access but what do I know, I just live here.
but what do I know
The fourteenth amendment, and how it applies to this moment in time.
Will this have any bearing whatsoever on Jack Smith’s case?
Not really. This is all theater because they are ignoring the law. As was passed, section 1983 of the federal code doesn’t allow for any immunities whatsoever, not even Qualified Immunity. President Grant called this out in 1872 the year after it passed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
The next time that any sort of immunity case lands in front of SCOTUS they need multiple amicus briefs that point out the full text of the law with the 16 words that were illegally removed in 1874 added back in so that they are unable to claim that they didn’t know, the way the 1982 SCOTUS could with Harlow V Fitzgerald.
I don’t think we should say “illegally removed”, it should be “illegally omitted” from publishing. what a mother fucking huge ass headache that dude caused
Well, since The Federal Register is what is used as “the law as written and passed by Congress,” while that person did commit a lie of ommission, it has effectively become the law of the land, other than in the 1871 Congressional Record. Therefore that person illegally removed the clause from the law.
This is the case where DC police filed suit, not the Jack Smith case everyone is watching where SCOTUS refused to expedite when asked to circumvent the appeals courts.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based its decision on a ruling in a separate case brought by two Capitol Police officers and a group of House Democrats that was handed down earlier this month.
Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that he is shielded from civil liability because his alleged actions in connection to the Jan. 6 attack fell within the official functions of the presidency.
Trump asked the federal District Court in Washington to dismiss the case, arguing he is absolutely immune from being sued for the alleged acts.
Referencing Trump’s speech outside the White House before the Capitol building was breached, Mehta said the remarks were not part of the president’s official duties.
Circuit agreed with the lower court’s finding and rejected Trump’s argument that he was engaging in an official function of the presidency when he spoke outside the White House on Jan. 6.
“When a first-term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” Srinivasan, who was assigned both cases, wrote for the three-judge panel.
The original article contains 737 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
