Trump and Vance face criminal charges over Springfield hoax
Trump and Vance face criminal charges over Springfield hoax
An Ohio law allowing citizens to file criminal charges is being used to target former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) over their comments about Haitians in Springfield.According to Fox 8, the Haitian Bridge Alliance filed criminal charges against the two Republican candidates at Cl...
You're viewing a single thread.
"There's nothing special about Trump and Vance that entitles them to get away with what they've done and are doing," the attorney added. "They think they're above the law. They're not."
Except for the Senate Republicans who would not hold their own accountable for crimes they committed or the federal supreme Court Justice feeding Trump's attorney legal advice to use in the lower courts. And the billions in PAC funds and trinket grifts used to campaign for politicians and appoint judges who are loyal to them above the Constitution and citizens. And anything Trump did as president is legal if he says it was part of the job. Except for those facts sure they're just like you or me in the eyes of the law.
Yeah, you can't even pretend that Trump isn't above the law when the Supreme Court has literally ruled that he is at their discretion.
Technically the ruling was for
crimesofficial acts he committed while in office.He's no longer president and holds no privilege, except being the Republican nominatee for President. Which apparently is a protected class.
Correct. Regardless, it has been codified that he IS above the law in some cases. Slippery slope is not a fallacy in this instance.
even as a president, this wouldn't be protected under the immunity act, only presidential actions. Speaking to the public, as far as i am concerned is not considered to be a core "presidential action" in the government.
SCOTUS has decreed that SCOTUS alone can determine what is an official act.
while this is true, they still have a basis to operate under. There are certain things that aren't official acts. Posting on social media wouldn't be one. There are things that are, and those have absolute immunity (bad) there are also things that have presumptive immunity (which means you have to rule on whether or not these are admissible evidence) and this has had a direct effect on the jan 6th hearing, removing like 9 pages of communication between government officials, which is about all they could remove from the hundreds of pages that were there already.
I believe this would be a state issue though, so some of that doesn't apply.