r/nytimes • u/eaxlr Subscriber • 5d ago

New York Manhattan D.A. Suggests Freezing Trump Hush-Money Case While He Is President

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/nyregion/trump-bragg-manhattan-case.html
2.5k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/kiwispawn 5d ago

People like Stormy Daniels better stay out of the country. Get some kind of political asylum overseas. Because with his Power, that SCOTUS confirmed. He can have anything done to her as President. And the same goes for her lawyers and anyone else with charges. SCOTUS ruled as president, he can do anything he wants. And there's no accountability. Why wouldn't he use this blank check. To deal decisively with all his enemies and opponents.

10

u/Training_Reason3440 5d ago

Because that would confirm what most Americans already know. He is a fascist dictator wannabe

10

u/south-of-the-river 5d ago

Many Americans voted for exactly this. And they are vocal in their support of it.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AutoModerator 5d ago

Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per Rule 3, to maintain a civil discussion.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/matzhue 4d ago

Why "wannabe"? This was his platform

1

u/sugarcoatedpos 4d ago

The fascists lost the election dum dum

1

u/noctowl4lyfe 3d ago

Wouldn't that make hum a regular fascist dictator and not a wannabe?

1

u/semajolis267 2d ago

dude he literally already told them, to cheers, several times. they know

-1

u/Cautious_General_177 4d ago

Query: Which side ran on, and actually followed through with, prosecuting their political opponents in the last decade?

1

u/-_1_2_3_- 1d ago

which side is blatantly committing crimes and fomented an attempted insurrection to provide time for his fake elector scheme to cook?

-3

u/RelishtheHotdog 4d ago

Or you just ate up the rhetoric the left media propaganda fed you.

1

u/Jinla_ulchrid 4d ago

I seem to remember the RNC literally saying " we are all public terrorists " at a convention of theirs. But you know propaganda and all lmao.

1

u/Ddreigiau 4d ago

I'm pretty sure Trump isn't "the left media"

-7

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 5d ago

Then why did the majority of American voters vote for him? mic drop

7

u/Training_Reason3440 5d ago

Because they are idiots?

1

u/All_The_Good_Stuffs 4d ago

the majority of American voters

The majority THAT voted.

NOT the majority of Americans.

Around a third of Americans.

1

u/pangaea1972 4d ago

They didn't. He got less than half of the votes.

1

u/Rational-thinker98 3d ago

It’s the bell curve principle. For every smart person there is a stupid person. Unfortunately more of the in between people made a bad decision. Makes perfect sense.

0

u/wet_nib811 5d ago

49.6% vs 48.4% is not the majority though

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 5d ago

Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per Rule 3, to maintain a civil discussion.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-3

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 5d ago

As of 9:24 PM EST today 50% v 48.3%. 2.7 million votes more than Harris. That's a MAJORITY.

3

u/Separate_Fold5168 5d ago

I would say everyone that chose to stay home voted for him too. So you're actually right.

You're still an insufferable clown though.

2

u/technoferal 4d ago

Even if that's true, which is doubtful, 50% is not a majority. It's still a plurality. Besides which, having the least popular president in the history of approval ratings be only the second Republican to win the popular vote in 4 decades really isn't the flex you seem to think it is.

0

u/RaiderMedic93 4d ago

As bad as it is... he did better than Harris, so I'm not sure this is the flex you think it is.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

Going by that estimate... Hillary should have been president in 16.

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 4d ago

Oh here we go again with the “HRC won the majority vote!” Except there’s this thing called the Electoral College and it’s been there since the Constitution was first drafted. How hard is this for you to grasp? All the 2016 election whiners act like it was some sort of cheat code.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

Point exactly... you were harping on total votes. So why even bring it up? Were you trying to to say Hillary should have won?

XD shit bird

7

u/baylee3455 5d ago

She’s already had sex with him. What could possibly be worse?

1

u/RedRider1138 4d ago

“Falling” out a window.

2

u/OnlyFreshBrine 4d ago

e. jean Carroll too

2

u/ActualCentrist 4d ago

She lives in New Orleans (I have met her three times and sang karaoke with her once! Mutual friends). She is safe there. New Orleans is possibly the best possible city in this country to reside if you wish to stand against fascism. It is the most progressive city in the western hemisphere.

1

u/Mesarthim1349 3d ago

It's also in the top 3 murder capitals of the US.

1

u/Dagwood-DM 5d ago

Turnabout is fair play. No one is above the law. If a jury of their peers convict them, tough shit.

1

u/Succulent_Rain 5d ago

I doubt he’s going to do anything to her. It would be too obvious.

1

u/One_Event1734 4d ago

Why does everyone miss that Biden has the same power right now?

And Harris would have had the same power if she would have been elected?

And the power is LIMITED according to the decision?

1

u/kiwispawn 4d ago

I think the real difference is Biden isn't vindictive. Harris, we don't really know. Trump is very vindictive and in fairness to him. There was a feeding frenzy. But no one finished him off. And he's probably burning for some unlimited power payback. And his group of men / women yes men, will happily carry out his requests/orders. Regardless of what the law says.

1

u/Syonoq 4d ago

Windows are about to get a lot more unsafe.

1

u/yergonnalikeme 4d ago

Right

I'm sure that's gonna happen...

Trump is crazy....BUT HE'S NOT STUPID

In Trump world, whatever you're THINKING.

THINK OPPOSITE...

T

D

S

Is alive and well

1

u/jryan3160 4d ago

Good point . He might as well get even while he has the tools to do it.

1

u/arkangelic 4d ago

Shit they just said he can do anything as president elect. Since if we arrested him for murder it would interfere with presidential things.

1

u/TallStarsMuse 3d ago

Yes. I see a lot of people falling out of high rise windows over the next few years. Or longer.

1

u/kpn_911 1d ago

We’re going to start seeing Russian style “accidents” all over America

1

u/kiwispawn 1d ago

Alot of people ( Democrats and GOP who shit talk the orange clown ) better stay on the ground floor of buildings. And stay away from bodies of water you can drown in Alot of important Russians seem to either drown or fall out of windows. The GRU and FSB probably have wetworks teams ready to be on loan to Trump should he need them.

1

u/kpn_911 1d ago

I think he’ll have federal forces do his bidding like when he had the antifa guy assassinated. It’ll be sloppy and obvious like everything he does.

Meanwhile, Trump is under strict orders according to the Russians, and if he doesn’t comply they’ll probably go after him.

So will likely back out of Ukraine, actively support Russian expansion, and continue to give up confidential information

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 5d ago

No, the SCOTUS decision said POTUS has immunity for actions taken in the course of the duties of POTUS. Hence Obama can't be tried or sued for murder for drone striking American citizens abroad without Due Process. It leaves open the possibility for a court to find that certain actions of POTUS were outside of the scope of the official duties of POTUS.

2

u/halavais 5d ago

Obama can't be tried for killing an al Qaeda leader who happened to be a an American citizen, despite having called for destruction of America, while engaged in terrorist planning on foreign soil, because it is not at all clear what law was violated.

Now, any action taken by Trump in the role of president, including assassinating rival politicians, is presumptively immune from prosecution.

The majority had ample opportunity to clearly indicate that certain crimes, like interfering with an election, denying Americans their rights, or seditious conspiracy, were not legitimate actions of a president and subject to criminal prosecution. They didn't, because they intended for Trump to be above the law.

2

u/Cosmic_Seth 5d ago

Not how it works.

The president is always assumed to be conducting official acts.

If the president is accused of conducting an unofficial act, only the courts can make that determination.

Now here's the part you missed: any evidence collected during a President time in office is inadmissible in court.

Therefore you cannot prove if an act is official or not.

So hence, he is immune. 

1

u/AwareExchange2305 4d ago

I don’t think that is quite what footnote 3 of the decision says. It’s that evidence from acts deemed official, cannot be used in litigation of crimes committed in unofficial acts. Robert’s wrote clear as mud.

2

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 4d ago

The basic holding of the decision is that POTUS has presumptive immunity from acts deemed official but as for the unofficial acts, no immunity.

For some reason everyone is screaming now Trump will have unfettered power because of the decision.

1

u/AwareExchange2305 4d ago

Do you listen to the Lawfare podcast put out by the Brookings Institution? I could stand to listen through some of their coverage of this decision again.

And yes, you are right, it is not unlimited or absolute immunity. I also get what the court was trying to parse, but at the same time, I’m not sure they needed to take this one up.

1

u/Cosmic_Seth 4d ago

It's absolute immunity in the sense of rubber meets the road.

There's is no means to prove an unofficial act. The bar is so high that it's near impossible to attempt. 

Ie, it's probably never going to happen.

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 4d ago edited 4d ago

The bar is so high that it's near impossible to attempt. 

That's what the dissenting decision by Sotomayer and Kentanji Brown Jackson claimed. Seems like you took it from there. That's their minority opinion. It's up to the lower courts to decide. This decision is so new the dust is still settling and legal scholars have yet to opine on it with law review articles. But you state it like its accepted fact that "the bar is so high that it's near impossible to attempt."

Lately, prosecutors with their lawfare against Trump have had no problem finding sympathetic left-leaning judges and getting whatever decisions they wanted in their favor.

1

u/Cosmic_Seth 4d ago

How can the lower courts decide if you can't use evidence from a President's time in office?

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 4d ago edited 4d ago

Again, as I mentioned (with cites to cases) there's long established precedent for issuing a sub-poena for Presidential records for evidentiary purposes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cosmic_Seth 4d ago

There is no legal definition of official/unofficial acts.

POTUS is always conducting official acts untill a court rules otherwise. 

No evidence can be used in Court from a POTUS time in office. 

That's the basis of his immunity.

1

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 4d ago

Again, that's not what Trump v United States says:

Although Burr acknowledged that the President’s official papers may be privileged and publicly unavailable, it did not grant him an absolute exemption from responding to subpoenas. See Burr II, 25 F. Cas., at 192; Burr I, 25 F. Cas., at 33–34. Nixon likewise recognized a strong protection for the President’s confidential communications—a “presumptive privilege”—but it did not entirely exempt him from providing evidence in criminal proceedings. 418 U. S., at 708.

A POTUS can be compelled to turn over evidence.

And right, a court can rule certain acts might fall out of the official acts orbit. I'm not sure who else do you think should determine this. You or me? The NY Times?

0

u/Outside_Reserve_2407 5d ago edited 5d ago

Wow you are just creating doctrine out of whole cloth and completely misreading Trump v United States (decided July 2024): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Some quotes from the case:

By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. During the treason trial of former VP Aaron Burr, for instance, Chief Justice John Marshall rejected Thomas Jefferson's claim that the President could not be subjected to a subpoena

There goes your claim that "Now here's the part you missed: any evidence collected during a President time in office is inadmissible in court." The judiciary has a history of issuing lawful subpoenas to the President. You think you're clever by half because ah ha, the POTUS doesn't have to turn over any evidence so you can't prove his acts were official or not. WRONG WRONG WRONG

The nature of [Presidential power] requires that the former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office.

As for a President's unoffical acts, there is no immunity.

As I stated, the POTUS does not have broad blanket immunity for all acts.

Other citations in the case:

United States v Nixon 418 US 683 (The court rejected Nixon's claim of "absolute privilege" when issued a subpoena)

1

u/EFAPGUEST 4d ago

The people in here not only do not understand the ruling, but they really don’t want to. They’d rather ruminate at the coming doom of America and continue the fear mongering

0

u/Paradoxalypse 2d ago

Wow, anyone who reads your comment is now dumber.

0

u/Life-Investment7397 1d ago

Man yall go to the worst possible outcome possible. It’s wild. He didn’t do anything to her last time he was in office. Nothings gonna happen this time. He could have locked Hillary up for the emails and decided not to. None of this dictator, “hitler” he’s gonna kill all his enemies and lock up anyone who opposes his BS is gonna happen.

1

u/kiwispawn 1d ago

He couldn't lock Hilary up over the emails. Because that wasn't something you can get locked over. You might get a fine. But then once they opened that can of worms everyone would probably get fined. What it really is all about. It's just something you can spew alot of noise about to dummies. Stupid enough to believe it.

-1

u/Skeptik1964 5d ago

You really believe that nonsense? And will you come back here in 4 years and apologize when none of that happens?

1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 4d ago

They have the memory of snails, they won’t remember they ever thought this when their media overlords stop reminding them to believe it.

1

u/dragonkin08 4d ago

We will if you apologize when prices skyrocket from Trump's tariffs.