psychothumbs@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前Trump Is Already Low-Key Defying A Judge’s Ordertalkingpointsmemo.comexternal-linkmessage-square33linkfedilinkarrow-up1178arrow-down16
arrow-up1172arrow-down1external-linkTrump Is Already Low-Key Defying A Judge’s Ordertalkingpointsmemo.compsychothumbs@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前message-square33linkfedilink
minus-squarePlacebonickname@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·1 年前Official act would be complying with the Judge…but potatoe, patatoe…or whatever. And yes, I spelled potatoe wrong both times on purpose.
minus-squareNougat@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down2·1 年前SCOTUS ruled that a president cannot be criminally charged for any “official acts” taken while in office.
minus-squareDokPsy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·1 年前“when the president does it, it isn’t illegal”
minus-squareBaron Von J@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 年前Did that ruling not also leave it up to the courts to determine what constitutes an official act?
minus-squareNougat@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·1 年前So that it can go up to SCOTUS again, yes.
minus-squarenondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 年前Contempt is a civil charge no? So can’t they still throw him in a cell?
minus-squareNougat@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前There are both civil and criminal contempt. Doesn’t matter though, since then we get back to “official acts,” which would end up at SCOTUS, who would just wave it off no matter what it was about.
minus-squaresteal_your_face@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 年前Did you misspell it the third time on purpose?
minus-squaresteal_your_face@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 年前Just asking because you only specified the first two. Thanks for clarifying.
Official act would be complying with the Judge…but potatoe, patatoe…or whatever.
And yes, I spelled potatoe wrong both times on purpose.
SCOTUS ruled that a president cannot be criminally charged for any “official acts” taken while in office.
“when the president does it, it isn’t illegal”
“They just let you do it”
Did that ruling not also leave it up to the courts to determine what constitutes an official act?
So that it can go up to SCOTUS again, yes.
Contempt is a civil charge no? So can’t they still throw him in a cell?
There are both civil and criminal contempt. Doesn’t matter though, since then we get back to “official acts,” which would end up at SCOTUS, who would just wave it off no matter what it was about.
Did you misspell it the third time on purpose?
Yes. Why not.
Just asking because you only specified the first two. Thanks for clarifying.