News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by insane_dreamer on Monday July 01, 2024 @04:39PM (#40850397)
> You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions.

No, we do not. That's the whole point of the checks and balances. If his political opponents are able to prove their case before the courts, showing that the president broke the law, then they should be able to.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by claytongulick on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:32PM (#40850958)
Are you willing to see Biden go to jail because an activist DA in TX used an obscure law that no one had ever been prosecuted under, in a 90+% "red" venue, with a complicit judge and jury?

This ruling is meant to protect the office from precisely these types of politically motivated attacks.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by HaZeust on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:11PM (#40851351)
Sure. One-off's of loose checks and balances are better than codified law(s) and ruling(s) that we don't have any at all.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Hikikomori on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:49PM (#40851680)
Bribing a porn star to keep quiet about your extramarital sex and breaking accounting/campaign financing laws by trying to disguise the payments before you are president should be considered an official act by the president? Weird argument to make.
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by mrkeen on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @06:49AM (#40855312)
It's such a weird timeline.

Trying to blackmail Ukraine into providing dirt on his political rival by withholding congressional funding, getting rid of Comey, and requesting that some additional votes for him should be found are the top 3 that come to my mind.

I couldn't give two shits about extramarital sex, and I honestly would have expected him to write about said sex on twitter sooner than cover it up. I don't think the campaign donors would have been too steamed about where that money went either. It's not like him dipping into his other charities (which I find more despicable than hush money.)

I wonder why this was the charge that stuck.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Hikikomori on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @08:36AM (#40856025)
The only ones that should care are the evangelical christians, but it seems they would even vote for satan if he was a republican.

The hush payment would not even have been an issue if they didn't use campaign money or Cohen as middle man, that's the illegal part. If Trump just wrote a check directly it would not have been an issue and we would likely never know about it unless NDAs were broken.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Zak on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @11:40AM (#40857716)
> I wonder why this was the charge that stuck.

It was first. It was also relatively simple in both law and fact, so there were fewer opportunities for delay. Even so, it was more than a year from indictment to conviction.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by camgunz on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:52PM (#40851156)
> Are you willing to see Biden go to jail because an activist DA in TX used an obscure law that no one had ever been prosecuted under, in a 90+% "red" venue, with a complicit judge and jury?

This has always been possible (Nixon v. Fitzgerald) but has never happened. Choose whatever reason you want: any amount of decency, any sense of shame, low odds of winning, likelihood of terrible retribution from generally good people.

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by insane_dreamer on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:41PM (#40851045)
Better than the alternative. I would imagine that such a case would be appealed anyway (just as Trump has appealed his cases).