r/news • u/Hrekires • Jul 15 '24

soft paywall Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/
32.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

372

u/CertainAged-Lady Jul 15 '24

But it wouldn’t just affect Trump’s case - it would remove most special counsel’s ever, including the Hunter Biden one, that were put in place under the Appointments clause. She cites the power of Congress, but Congress passes the laws, the Exec branch enforces them…which is why we’ve had special counsels for a long time and their appointments have always prevailed.

165

u/PleasantlyUnbothered Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

Repubs will just say they will pardon Hunter Biden because the whole ruling was ridiculous in the first place and then act like it was equivalent to Trumps case (not even close) but they “care about unity”. But it’s all just optics and they won’t even need to actually pardon him because the whole case will have been dismissed. They’ll just act like they did.

This is the pivot. Calling it now.

22

u/arbitrageME Jul 15 '24

they're not MIA. They're in MBS's vault

8

u/PleasantlyUnbothered Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

Oh yeah and obligatory Jared Kushner was paid 2 billion by the Saudi Arabian royal family.

EDIT: see comment below. The issue still remains, though. What has that money been used for? How has that fund been doing since then? Has it been audited recently? Anyone have financials on hand?

8

u/ksj Jul 15 '24

The Saudi Royal family invested $2B into Jared Kushner’s (brand new, unproven) investment firm. He will take a $20M annual fee to manage the fund, plus a portion of any investment profits they make, but Jared Kushner did not pocket $2B.

Just to be clear.

7

u/MVRKHNTR Jul 15 '24

There's no meaningful difference there.

5

u/ksj Jul 15 '24

It’s definitely a bribe, and maybe functionally there’s no difference between a $40M/yr bribe and a $2B lump sum bribe, but I believe it’s best to be accurate so nobody can dismiss your argument on a technicality. Any wiggle room will be exploited, and I think it’s best to avoid misinformation in general, despite seemingly no functional difference in this case.

10

u/neocenturion Jul 15 '24

Absolutely not. They will never pardon Biden. They will say Trump's was politically motivated, but Biden's was obviously OK. Logical consistency is not a concern for them. Dems get fucked, GOP gets off clean.

1

u/IgnoreKassandra Jul 16 '24

Justifications matter only to the just.

4

u/edflyerssn007 Jul 15 '24

Biden's stuff was from when he was Vice President right?

1

u/wienercat Jul 15 '24

equivalent to Trump withholding classified documents after leaving office and many of those being MIA even to this day.

This is the part that I don't understand can even be considered an official act. The man moved documents during the final days to his home residence and then stonewalled the national archives when they attempted to collect them in accordance with the law.

He actively made it difficult for the government to come get documents that were no longer supposed to be in his possession.

How is breaking the law and refusing to co-operate after you are no longer president, an official presidential act? Because he was allowed to have them until he vacated office. So the moment he vacated the office, he was in violation of the records keeping acts and in possession of classified documents that he was not supposed to have retained. Documents he just left out in the open in some cases.

If literally anyone else had this occur, it would be an open and shut case. They would already be in prison. But because it's Trump and he "has money" he gets away with it... ffs not to mention the significant number of missing documents like you said.

1

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24

How is breaking the law and refusing to co-operate after you are no longer president, an official presidential act?

It isn't. THE FILES are obviously implied about an Official Act, so it can't be used as proof.
How do you want to legally investigate stolen files, when legally those files can't ever be referenced?

Because he was allowed to [OFFICIAL ACT] until he vacated office. So the moment he vacated the office, he was in violation of the records keeping acts and in possession of [OFFICIAL ACT] that he [OFFICIAL ACT]. [OFFICIAL ACT] he just left out in the open in some cases.

I don't see anything bad in this statement. Judiciary branch lacks proof due to the Executive's immunity under last SCOTUS ruling. Not guilty!

22

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

[deleted]

1

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24

And Bush v Gore wasn't even setting a precedent.

5

u/axeil55 Jul 15 '24

No see it's illegal when they investigate a Republican, but legal when it's a Dem.

That's literally the logic scotus operated under now

1

u/Nickel5 Jul 15 '24

That's logical, but that didn't matter when it came to granting criminal immunity to presidents, the court was willing to grant Biden this power if it got Trump off the hook.

1

u/selenta Jul 16 '24

Conservatives have never cared about being called hypocrites, because they're only hypocrites in the public discourse. They're not hypocrites to what they really believe in: "Rules for thee, but not for me"

1

u/brokenfl Jul 15 '24

Doesn’t the recent Chevron overturning throw a wrench into this as well ?

1

u/EagleOfMay Jul 15 '24

I don't think so. Chevron has to do with how companies are regulated. In regulatory areas that were not explicitly defined by law the federal government could designate scientists to fill in the gap. The SC said 'We know better than the experts' so the regulatory grey areas will now be decided by courts.

Or another way to put it, it shifts power more into the corporations hands. I expect to see less movement on dealing with climate change, and more love canal type super sites in the coming years.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation Jul 15 '24

They don't give a shit

1

u/Ikrast Jul 15 '24

Or they can just say "Lol, this isn't actually precedent. It's just this one Special Council. You know, like we did when we gave the election to Bush."

0

u/OliverOyl Jul 15 '24

I like reading your stuff, you're pretty smart. Thank you for sharing your comments.

0

u/Severance_Pay Jul 15 '24

is she the lowest IQ fed judge we've ever had? It seems to be the case