• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • doc@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    January 6th should have earned him a spot against the wall in front of a firing squad. Anyone trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic government with both fraud and violence should be shot.

    That also goes for those that plotted and executed the overthrow of democratic governments in Iran, Chile, etc etc etc so take that as you wish…

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!