News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by afavour on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:45PM (#40848233)
But isn't that the status quo? Why didn't that happen when Obama left office? It's not like the Republicans were lacking a desire for retribution against him.

"there are probably 10s of 1000s of them" also feels a little lacking to me. Do we have concrete examples?

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by throw0101b on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:02PM (#40848458)
> Why didn't that happen when Obama left office?

What illegal acts did Obama do, while POTUS, yet outside of his 'official duties', what would warrant prosecution?

Remember the context for this decision: Trump's participation in the events of January 6:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...

You know, the insurrection in which people have been found guilty of seditious action:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_Ja...

Were his January 6 actions part of his official duties?

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by shadowtree on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:27PM (#40850899)
He droned and killed a US citizen without due process. Literal murder.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by oblio on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:07PM (#40851318)
Based on other comments, that was unintentional. So manslaughter, at worst.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by WillPostForFood on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:44PM (#40851626)
Obama killed 4 Americans in drone attacks. 3 unintentionally, but Anwar Awlaki was targeted.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by tonynator on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:29PM (#40852713)
>Anwar Awlaki

Sounds very American

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by galactus on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:33PM (#40852738)
As american as Barak Obama, right?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by tonynator on Monday July 01, 2024 @09:43PM (#40852788)
Yeah, that guy was a mistake
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by chasd00 on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:55PM (#40848357)
i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals. I remember in the 2016 debates when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary her eyes got real big about how ignorant Trump was to the way things are and have been. That's one of the downsides to a political outsider a lot of formally unasked questions start needing answers.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by throw0101b on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:06PM (#40848501)
> i think it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to not prosecute former presidents or rivals.

How many former presidents or rivals tried to prevent the transfer of power?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

There's a specific reason why Trump is being investigated. We're not talking about jay-walking here.

And there's also intent with action, using yet another case: Biden had classified documents in his home residence, but he handed them back to the government with minimal fuss. Trump had classified documents and moved them around even after being subpoenaed to return them:

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/donald-trump...

* https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictme...

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Ancapistani on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:10PM (#40851342)
> when Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary

As best I can tell, most who voted for him didn't actually believe he would do that - and he didn't. The whole "because you'd be in jail" was Trump being Trump, not a campaign promise.

When Trump says something like that, knowing whether he's in earnest or being bombastic is like knowing what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are figurative - it's very much open to individual interpretation.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ModernMech on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @09:02AM (#40856235)
> and he didn't.

Not for lack of trying.

  The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-tru...

We now live in a world where in a future Trump administration:

- Trump knows even if he's impeached he will not be removed because his party will protect him, since he was impeached and not removed for far more serious matters.

- SCOTUS just told Trump that any conversations he has with his DOJ are under the umbrella of core authority and cannot be reviewed.

- The current purity tests being employed at the RNC by his kin show a future Trump administration will not hire someone like Don McGahn who will tell him "no" about anything.

Why are you so sure a future President Trump would not try again and be successful?

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by lupusreal on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:10PM (#40848550)
Obama didn't prosecute Bush, so the Republicans didn't try to prosecute Obama. Professional courtesy.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by sickofparadox on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:55PM (#40848358)
I would imagine that Obama is quite happy with his presidential immunity for ordering the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen via drone strike[1].

[1] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-kill...

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by afavour on Monday July 01, 2024 @01:56PM (#40848376)
Yes I'm quite sure Obama is happy with it. Should the rest of us be? Would a court case over the legality of such an action not be a positive thing?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ceejayoz on Monday July 01, 2024 @02:08PM (#40848526)
I mean, is that the out for Biden? A drone strike on Mar-a-Lago as an "official act" for which he enjoys absolute immunity?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by newfriend on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:06PM (#40849307)
If he wants a civil war, sure.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ceejayoz on Monday July 01, 2024 @03:11PM (#40849374)
Obviously, but we're to believe it'd be entirely legal to do so?
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Ancapistani on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:12PM (#40851359)
No, because of the use of the military within the borders of the country is separately and explicitly illegal under US law.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ceejayoz on Monday July 01, 2024 @07:43PM (#40852037)
So's drone striking a US citizen without a trial. We do it anyways. Now it's even explicitly protected by absolute immunity as an "official act" instead of just apathy.

(Or you have the Coast Guard lead the mission with the SEALs as "advisors".)

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by gaganyaan on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:35PM (#40851572)
But now that doesn't matter. The president is immune as long as there's the defense of it being an official act
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by friend_and_foe on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:22PM (#40850838)
3. 3 american citizens. He ordered operations that killed both that guys kids also, the latter of which was carried out in the first month of Trump's presidency. They were 12 and 8. Both were supposedly accidents.