January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Greedo punched first]

Trump will get absolute immunity. Biden will get no immunity. If Trump wins, Biden will end up behind bars.

That's not what the article says!

I added Biden being prosecuted. Trump gets absolute immunity, where the decision has a footnote that it shall not be precedent for future cases, so that a Republican president can prosecute Biden.

[soundchaser]

Trump will get absolute immunity. Biden will get no immunity. If Trump wins, Biden will end up behind bars.

That's not what the article says!

I added Biden being prosecuted. Trump gets absolute immunity, where the decision has a footnote that it shall not be precedent for future cases, so that a Republican president can prosecute Biden.

Proof that post count is not indicative of quality.

[emailking]

Why would he do it when it wouldn't happen?

Its always been weird to me how Atlas really struggles to understand what a hypothetical is

Are you saying I don't understand what a hypothetical is?

I mean you literally did ask why Biden would abuse full immunity to assassinate political opponents when obviously the SC won't grant full immunity...

Ok well you're wrong in that I do understand what a hypothetical is and talked about them all morning, go back and read the posts. As for the one you quoted, I don't think you understand what I was referring to. The post above that refers to arresting Congress, not assassinating political opponents.

I think I understand what you were getting at now. I wasn't asking why would Biden order Congress to be arrested when SCOTUS won't grant full immunity. I was asking why, after SCOTUS grants full immunity, would Biden order Congress to be arrested when that won't happen, i.e. DOJ following through and arresting Congress after he orders them to. (And also, because he's not a **** **** like trump.)

[SteveRogers]

Trump will get absolute immunity. Biden will get no immunity. If Trump wins, Biden will end up behind bars.

That's not what the article says!

I added Biden being prosecuted. Trump gets absolute immunity, where the decision has a footnote that it shall not be precedent for future cases, so that a Republican president can prosecute Biden.

Do you just being wrong about everything? Why are you like this?

[VBM]

This must be a joke. Right?
Right?

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1783512127455584724

Alito and Thomas are a f**king disgrace. I'm calling on all blue avatars to prove that you're not total hacks by acknowledging that Alito and Thomas are unfit to be Supreme Court Justices.

[Greedo punched first]

When I’m an old man, SCOTUS will probably have a 9-0 reactionary majority.

[Ichabod]

Alito and Thomas genuinely deserve prison. I am tired of being told how intolerant I am for despising the people who want to destroy this country.

Funny that two guys with a master legal mind have struck down Roe v. Wade because abortion doesnt appear in the US Constitution and they are willing to accept a ridiculous and invented idea nowhere in the US Constitution

[VBM]

Alito and Thomas genuinely deserve prison. I am tired of being told how intolerant I am for despising the people who want to destroy this country.

OSR and his fellow Reagan/Bush era conservative peers will find a way to defend these hacks

[Mr. Reactionary]

This must be a joke. Right?
Right?

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1783512127455584724

Alito and Thomas are a f**king disgrace. I'm calling on all blue avatars to prove that you're not total hacks by acknowledging that Alito and Thomas are unfit to be Supreme Court Justices.

[emailking]

Again, it'll be up to the American voters to punish Trump with any sort of consequences. Mueller, Smith, Congress, the Supreme Court-all have failed us.

That characterization seems particularly unfair wrt Smith. I don't know what else he could have done.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just try to fathom the logic of conservative justices: the President doesn't have the power to cancel student debt but has the power to assassinate his political opponents and overturn a free and fair election.

[John Dule]

When Supreme Court justices ask questions, they are often doing so in order to get a handle on where the attorney draws the line regarding the legal rule they're proposing. I have my problems with Alito and Thomas, but the posts in this thread demonstrate an insane lack of understanding of how oral arguments work. If the actual opinion they render is worth criticizing, we can talk about it when the time comes. But for now just stop the demented pearl-clutching and fearmongering.

[Progressive Pessimist]

When Supreme Court justices ask questions, they are often doing so in order to get a handle on where the attorney draws the line regarding the legal rule they're proposing. I have my problems with Alito and Thomas, but the posts in this thread demonstrate an insane lack of understanding of how oral arguments work. If the actual opinion they render is worth criticizing, we can talk about it when the time comes. But for now just stop the demented pearl-clutching and fearmongering.

Can you blame us for expecting the worst, especially out of Alito and Thomas?

[Ferguson97]

When Supreme Court justices ask questions, they are often doing so in order to get a handle on where the attorney draws the line regarding the legal rule they're proposing. I have my problems with Alito and Thomas, but the posts in this thread demonstrate an insane lack of understanding of how oral arguments work. If the actual opinion they render is worth criticizing, we can talk about it when the time comes. But for now just stop the demented pearl-clutching and fearmongering.

In the case of the other four, you might have a point, but Alito and Thomas don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Again, it'll be up to the American voters to punish Trump with any sort of consequences. Mueller, Smith, Congress, the Supreme Court-all have failed us.

That characterization seems particularly unfair wrt Smith. I don't know what else he could have done.

Very little, but that just emphasizes how badly failed our whole system of justice is. A lifelong crook leading a coup ought not take years to fail to put behind bars. But we've got a system that is "optimized" to make it very difficult to hold people from the ruling class accountable for their crimes, giving them endless chances for bad-faith end-runs around the system that are not de facto available to the overwhelming majority of defendants.

Imagine if Donald Trump were a prominent right- or left-wing activist who'd done the same things: organized and led a protest that turned into a violent attack on Congress, or stolen a bunch of top secret documents. He would have been arrested within days and jailed within months.

Even more damning for our society is that he's on track to be the nominee of a major party. I don't know how any society based on rule of law comes back from publicly rejecting it.

[Holmes]

Just try to fathom the logic of conservative justices: the President doesn't have the power to cancel student debt but has the power to assassinate his political opponents and overturn a free and fair election.

It’s clear that Biden needs to cancel student loan debt but in a criminal manner.

[Inmate Trump]

Just try to fathom the logic of conservative justices: the President doesn't have the power to cancel student debt but has the power to assassinate his political opponents and overturn a free and fair election.

Republicans are the enemy of the people.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Takeaways from Supreme Court arguments on Trump's immunity claims
Justices appear ready to reject Trump’s immunity claim but in a way that will delay the Jan. 6 trial

The Supreme Court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case, but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.

After nearly three hours of oral arguments, several of the justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.

The court’s conservatives aggressively questioned the lawyer representing the special counsel, seemingly embracing a central theme that had been raised by Trump that without at least some form of immunity future presidents would over time be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.

Much of the hearing focused on whether there should be a distinction between official acts by Trump pursuant to his presidential duties and his private conduct.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/takeaways-trump-immunity-supreme-court/index.html

So Trump's attorney is admitting that not all the charges have to do with official duties? In other words, he's not actually asking for the whole case to be thrown out?

[emailking]

So Trump's attorney is admitting that not all the charges have to do with official duties? In other words, he's not actually asking for the whole case to be thrown out?

He uses very careful language because he doesn't want to admit that Trump actually did anything wrong. But on questioning he admitted that several items in the indictment that Barrett read off to him sound like private conduct to him, and he also admitted that he agrees that the President does not have immunity for private conduct. However, he wants a process to take place whereby it is litigated what is private vs. official in the indictment, because Barrett offered up as a compromise that Smith could drop the possibly official acts from the indictment so the private acts could go to trial immediately. (I think also that Smith thinks most/all of the conduct was private but he laid out several items that were indisputably private in his filing and Trump's attorney agreed when Barrett brought them up.) If that process takes place it would very likely push the trial past the election. Really the only way it happens before the election is if they rule cleanly that Trump does not have immunity for any of these acts regardless of official/private and do so by June and then Chutkan gives Trump's lawyers the 88 days she promised and doesn't get spooked by the prospect of a trial still going in October. Based on the arguments that seems dubious though that we get a nice clean ruling with no further litigation needed  on this issue.

[VBM]

When Supreme Court justices ask questions, they are often doing so in order to get a handle on where the attorney draws the line regarding the legal rule they're proposing. I have my problems with Alito and Thomas, but the posts in this thread demonstrate an insane lack of understanding of how oral arguments work. If the actual opinion they render is worth criticizing, we can talk about it when the time comes. But for now just stop the demented pearl-clutching and fearmongering.

You do have to agree though that it’s ridiculous that the SC even agreed to hear this case. That alone tarnishes their legitimacy

[emailking]

It's also belied by the fact that the questions from the liberals and Barrett were of a completely different character than those from the men. Like they weren't all grilling Dreeben about how this would hamper future Presidents.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hmmmm...

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1784269368878154141

[Progressive Pessimist]

Hmmmm...

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1784269368878154141

It's almost like being a Justice, especially a Federalist Society one, doesn't value consistency or actual jurisprudence. Just impose your political views on the country. Who's going to stop you? You're a lifetime appointment!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Just try to fathom the logic of conservative justices: the President doesn't have the power to cancel student debt but has the power to assassinate his political opponents and overturn a free and fair election.

Their "logic" is as simple as it is treacherous: a President with a (D) after his name doesn't have the power to cancel student debt, while a President with an (R) after his name can assassinate his political opponents and overturn a free and fair election. The only question is how they will attempt to disguise their intent. My bet is by delaying the DC trial (and the FL one too, if they can) until after the election.

[xavier110]

Hmmmm...

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1784269368878154141

It's almost like being a Justice, especially a Federalist Society one, doesn't value consistency or actual jurisprudence. Just impose your political views on the country. Who's going to stop you? You're a lifetime appointment!

Follow the money. He had hundreds of thousands in debt that magically disappeared.