• oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    acts taken in office can’t even be used as evidence against him

    They didn’t say that. They said core acts are immune. These are defined in Article II. Perimeter acts, which will need judicial review to be determined, can be used as evidence.

    • theluckyone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Back in the late 80’s, my dad was a trucker, hauling asphalt. Pulled into the depot on a Friday night expecting to go home (he was already over hours and cooking the log book). Dispatcher told him to take another load out. Dad pointed at the five fresh drivers playing poker around a table, told the dispatcher to send one of them.

      Monday morning, they fired him, and told him why, straight to his face and the voice recorder sitting in his pocket.

      According to OSHA and Dad’s lawyer, it was an open and shut case. While the case was pending, the company blackballed Dad from the trucking industry. Being in St. Lawrence County of Upstate NY, he wasn’t able to find a job elsewhere either. They buried us in paperwork, delayed the court case, and starved us out. Two years later, Dad settled. After the lawyer, he got a measely $12k.

      Trump and the judiciary are going to do the same damn thing to this country. Doesn’t matter whether he’s guilty. They’re gonna delay and stall and bury us in paperwork until we starve and settle for table scraps.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Only if the prosecutors can successfully prove they weren’t official acts, which will be non-trivial since so many things (like talking to advisors) are themselves official acts. It’s really unclear how functionally pierceable that outer layer of presumed immunity is. The burden to bypass it is placed with the prosecutors, and any decision can be appealed back to the Supreme Court that wrote a whole nonsense provision to protect him even in this state trial.

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I fully agree with you. This is now our reality. That doesn’t mean these hot takes barely based off of the first paragraph of the syllabus or one sentence of a dissenting opinion are more true.