#jury president

[stephstans]

Miss Effortlessly Cool 🖤

Jury President Kristen Stewart at CHANEL’s Pre-Berlinale dinner

[gdn019283]

Oh, oh.

Yes.

My favourite “Merlin?” Very underrated moment, in my opinion.

[sher-ee]

That part.

Both parties are not the same.

[hbdttg]

not Ronald JOURNALING every day of the trial!!!

J destroys toilet, [...] Noah interrupts us [...] for help w/ soaking.

what an absolute sweetheart nerd. oh my god I’m obsessed with him

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

notes from the jury and a very important PSA

anyway

IT’S FINAL DRESS BABY

[ksd3us]

Kristen Stewart, President of International Jury, at #Berlinale2023

Kristen is the the youngest president of the International Jury at the Berlinale Film Festival in history

[troythecatfish]

I absolutely agree, trump does not deserve bail.

[isawthismeme]

The Republican Party supports a Criminal

They can no longer be taken seriously as being the party of law and order.

Talk about “soft on crime!”

[festeringfae]

Me and the other non-cishets of taste, keeping vigil in the last hours before the Riverdale finale

[william-r-melich]

If Nefarious Breach, You Must Impeach - 04/26/2024

Presidential immunity is something that I haven't previously given much thought to, probably because it's something that hasn't surfaced much as an issue until recently. Yesterday at Trump's hearing on presidential immunity, US Supreme court justice Samuel Alito questioned whether prosecuting former presidents would harm the country's governance. Trump's lawyers argued that former presidents should have absolute immunity for official acts they made during their tenure as president. They said if they didn't, then prosecuting former presidents would become routine and would undermine future presidents from being able to execute difficult decisions without worrying about future legal repercussions. After all, our country's presidents are commonly put in difficult positions wherein the right thing to do would be considered illegal if performed by any other citizen outside of the executive office.

While speaking to Michael Dreeban, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith's team who are persecuting Trump in two other cases, the Bush-appointed justice (Samuel Alito) asked him this. “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully, if that candidate is the incumbent?” “Of course,” replied Dreeban. Alito further posited this, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Dreeban replied that he believes there are “lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record” but claimed that President Trump and others “filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is they lost all but one” in the courts following the 2020 election. He continued, “There was an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, if you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience. I think the court is well familiar with that.”

Alito rebutted those assertions on whether there are enough legal safeguards to handle prosecutors acting politically. Dreeban and Jack Smith's team have said that prosecutors must go to grand juries for securing indictments as a check against prosecutions that are politically motivated. The justice responded by saying, "prosecutors could convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich."

Trump's lawyers also argued that their client was merely performing his duties as president while looking to uncover voting fraud during the 2020 election.

This week in New York, the former President, in reference to the Supreme Court case, told reporters the following. “If you don’t have immunity, you’re not going to do anything. You’re going to become a ceremonial president, you’re not going to be taking any of the risks, both good and bad.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with at least four other justices didn't seem to support the claim that absolute immunity would stop Trump from being prosecuted on charges of supposedly conspiring to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Roberts was also with several of the other justices who indicated that the case might need to go back to the lower courts previous to the start date of any trial.

Roberts also showed his dismay with the reasoning brought by the Washington appeals court who gave the ruling against President Trump. During the hearing, the chief justice said this. “You know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.”

So, it appears to me that it's likely they will uphold limited presidential immunity, not absolute immunity. As such there's a good chance that it will go back to the lower courts to determine if he was actually performing his official duties while he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. If it's determined that he was, then immunity would apply, if not then it won't.

Oh, and by the way, there's something I forgot to mention. In the framer's wisdom they installed an important mechanism should the POTUS (President of the United States) engage in severely unlawful, egregious acts; Impeachment, - Duh! (I can't believe I forgot that and it's so important that I had to change the title of this post from, SCOTUS Hearing on Presidential Immunity.) Under impeachment it would require a 2/3rds majority vote in the senate to convict the President or one of his office holders. So, in deference to a famous Johnnie Cochran line, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit;" although with the opposite intention: "If nefarious breach, you must impeach."

[deus-ex-mona]

i j u st. want my funny idols jrpg back p ls—

[stephstans]

Berlinale jury led by Kristen Stewart showing solidarity with Ukraine along with the Ukrainian ambassador and German Minister of State Claudia Roth

[apopcornkernel]

.

[airwavesdotblog]

Trump Verdict Announced

June 1, 2024 Summary: Former President Donald Trump and his allies were anticipating a guilty verdict in a high-profile case. When the verdict was announced, it was indeed guilty, which was described as a “bombshell” moment. The conviction is historic as it marks the first criminal conviction of a former U.S. president. The case has been a focal point of political discussions, with Trump’s…

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

juror 8 has been writing notes about the other jurors. i asked him what he would write about me.

evidently, this was his response to that.