A group of retired four-star generals have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging justices to agree that Donald Trump is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.

A distinguished group of retired four-star generals and admirals from the U.S. military have argued in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that Donald Trump’s claims of absolute “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution tied to Jan. 6 is an “assault” on the “foundational commitments” underpinning democracy and if his argument is allowed to succeed before them later this month, it threatens “to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution.”

The 38-page amicus brief features 19 authors, all of them decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. On April 25, the high court is poised to hear Trump’s question of immunity against prosecution for his alleged criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. and according to the brief, these are arguments that should be approached with extreme caution.

  • CableMonster
    761·
    8 months ago

    Do you guys remember when a huge group of retired intelligence people told us the Hunter laptop had “all the hallmarks or russian disinformation”? Yeah, I dont care or trust what politically motivated people have to say about issues and neither should you.

    • Enkrod@feddit.de
      261·
      8 months ago

      The word “disinfornation” came from the press. The authors stated it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”, adding:

      We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement—just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

      Politico (owned btw. by german far right Axel Springer LLC, Germanys Fox News) distorted the meaning of the letter:

      There was message distortion. All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five

      • CableMonster
        144·
        8 months ago

        Sure, but to anyone that was looking at it knew from the first week it was real, and so they needed to try to pretend it was not.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      12·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, I dont care or trust what politically motivated people have to say about issues and neither should you.

      So we should ignore what you have to say? You should have lead with that.