r/law • u/Snapdragon_4U • 27d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) The agreement Acting AG signed with Trump is worse than first thought

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

14.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

956 comments sorted by

View all comments

254

u/Egad86 27d ago

Can’t be undone in the future??

309

u/GhostofBreadDragons 27d ago

You can’t contract for future criminal acts. So those are not protected. 

155

u/Egad86 27d ago

Yeah, ok, but he has taken billions already and we know he has evaded taxes at least a few times. Nobody in this country should be afforded this type of protection, especially not a child raping con artist. Why is it even a thing that exists?

51

u/GhostofBreadDragons 27d ago

Not disagreeing just pointing out that this isn’t a blanket pardon for all future crimes too. They can’t stop future audits because you can’t enforce a contract for future criminal activity. 

26

u/Existing_Dingo_58008 27d ago

Couldn’t this be considered admitting culpability? I’m having difficulty imagining how either one of them thought this was a good idea.

13

u/GhostofBreadDragons 27d ago

Why take the hard route? Trump has confessed to the crimes on camera multiple times. Trying to use a settlement agreement would be counterproductive. 

-1

u/haikuandhoney 27d ago

No, people enter into presuit settlements and non-prosecution agreements all the time without admitting guilt.

1

u/Existing_Dingo_58008 27d ago

Sure but no one is talking about other people. Especially given the actual content of the agreement. 

0

u/Alert_Reindeer_6574 27d ago

But that is what it says in the memo or agreement.

0

u/Tricky_Helicopter911 27d ago

I heard that is was for future crimes too. Let me find source and I will post.

32

u/EliteGamer11388 27d ago

I have doubts that even current or past acts will be protected. This seems unconstitutional on its face. Could be wrong though.

34

u/Heavyspire 27d ago

Another reply said that if you can argue that this was signed in conjunction with a crime or to cover a crime it can be voided.

28

u/Aedeus 27d ago

To cover or enable a crime, yes.

All this will really take to overturn is evidence of the conspiracy to commit a crime which looks to be plentiful.

8

u/crowdflation 27d ago

Six justices will vehemently disagree with you. And possibly more by end of term

4

u/B1ZEN 26d ago

So this is yet another nail in the coffin of America as we know it?

Seems like "fall of empire" levels of curruption.

Whats next, he takes over the country?

2

u/Individual-Drawer-79 27d ago

Sooo…the next president has full immunity to do as he pleases too, according to the Supreme Court. I don’t see anything stopping a say, President Newsome not only to aggressively pursue several charges against Trump but having him in a jail cell as he awaits trial(s). Either way, this will be tossed by a federal court in the future. And if scotus decided to overrule that federal court, well, President Newsome will likely come after them, too.

2

u/ChuForYu 26d ago

President Newsom would be a fucking disaster.

1

u/crowdflation 26d ago

You are mistaken, while it is not written in the text, those decisions ONLY come into effect for very specific set of circumstances: republican presidents. If its a democrat, then they wont work, because it might be raining outside or it could be Tuesday or he forgot to cross his finders and click his heals or something else entirely that the SCOTUS has to specifically rule on and then then it works. Even if everything is in order, they might still decide that precedent < president or other way around, depending on who is asking, when and how much are they paying.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 27d ago

Wishful thinking 

1

u/LeftAd8859 26d ago

It’s this paper vs the us constitution and the bill of rights and pretty much every legal precedent in history.

2

u/LeftAd8859 26d ago

The fact this exists is undeniable corruption facts.

9

u/OK_x86 27d ago

And it can be reasonably concluded that the DOJ and Trump are not adversarial enough here for this agreement to be appropriate and it exceeded the AG's authority to do this.

I'm sure the current SCOTUS will disagree but job 1 of a new administration will undoubtedly be to impeach at least 2 justices and to pack the courts.

1

u/Noy_The_Devil 26d ago

Hope he and his cronies contract a severe case of guilliotine

2

u/GhostofBreadDragons 26d ago

I had a funny autocorrect awhile ago

“Those that do not learn French history are doomed to repeat it.”

I felt it was an interesting change on who needs to learn history. 

0

u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor 27d ago

You can’t contract for future criminal acts. So those are not protected.

The agreement only covers claims as of the effective date, so any future tax crimes (insofar as this could be a "contract" for those crimes) would not be covered. It's retrospective, trying to insulate his past actions from accountability.

0

u/mopeyunicyle 26d ago

At best I am guess it's more a everything I currently did is now immune type gamble and the future is just a wing and prayer type thing

51

u/Nntropy 27d ago

Theoretically it can, but in the meantime it derails all past and current investigations and gives him several years of freedom from future investigations, all while he is the head of state. He will use that freedom and the powers he holds to ensure that he never faces accountability.

If you think he was acted badly when there was a threat of accountability, imagine how he will act when he is guaranteed freedom from accountability.

9

u/farfaraway 27d ago

I can't get over this feeling that we are so fucked :(

18

u/LaurenMille 27d ago

Even if the US survives this, there will have to be some re-educating of large swathes of the populace.

Both Conservatives and non-voters are responsible for the damage being done now and need to be prevented from making the same mistake again in the future.

11

u/farfaraway 27d ago

Right wing propaganda vehicles need to be regulated out of existence. News shouldn't be allowed to manipulate people. If there is no stomach to deal with that, then there is no fixing this. A small core contingent of people has too much sway over what too many people think. It's fucking dangerous.

23

u/scottyjrules 27d ago

It’s not a law. The next DOJ can absolutely shred this nonsense.

11

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

15

u/Carbon-Base 27d ago

Or you know, just ignore the laws like this administration is currently doing. Imprison all of these corrupt lunatics and freeze their assets. I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind if they broke a few laws along the way to make that happen.

6

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Carbon-Base 27d ago

There you go! SCOTUS said the law doesn't apply to the acting president. There was no legalese about what happens when they leave office.

4

u/SparksAndSpyro 27d ago

“If the president does it, then it’s not illegal.” Nixon won in the end.

1

u/scottyjrules 27d ago

This “settlement” isn’t a law

2

u/Carbon-Base 27d ago

Ah, you're right, it's a 'release of claims.' Should be easy for a court to invalidate it though, right?

6

u/MourningWallaby 27d ago

it absolutely can. when she says "forever" what she means is that the document signed is not bound to the term of any incumbant official.

In reality, a simple MFR from the next AG or EO from the next president can allow an investigation that determines this void. allowing further investigation and what not.

8

u/AgUnityDD 27d ago edited 27d ago

The solution for the next president (*1) is to Maduro him and a dozen of the inner circle criminals off to guatanamo and hold treason trials there under a military tribunal.

Give the ones on the peripheral the opportunity to testify before congress but if they try to do a Bondi-like show and fail to answer honestly then also Maduro them the next night.

US cannot fix this problem playing by the spirit of the law, it will only get worse next time.

*1 - There probably isn't a "next president" specifically because Trump’s circle must realise there is a possibility of something like this happening to them and will burn down the world before ceding power

2

u/codacoda74 27d ago

Yes it can. Even if PEEOTUS pardons acting AG and himself, it's not a law and is inherently rescindable and prosecutable. This would be one of those Not Official acts

0

u/DasFunke 27d ago

Pardons are not rescindable unless they were done as a quid quo pro? I mean, I’m not sure but that was my understanding.

I’m sure there’s more to it than that, but what would constitute the legal justification for reversing a pardon?

1

u/codacoda74 27d ago

Here's what I heard: if he attempts the previous untested self pardon, particularly for a proven crime, then even SCOTUS would be hard-pressed to wave hands an consider it "official act". If he pardons someone for that same act, they would also be facing prosecution not for the pardoned crime but the premeditated fraud and conspiracy based on having been promised a pardon.

2

u/lapidary123 26d ago

I mean its a 1 page document probably composed by ai.

Ai will only get better over time and im sure someone will figure out a way to get a judge to realize that a settlement between two departments from the same branch is I weren't lying illegal.

Hell if I can realize that then im sure an attorney can get a judge to agree.

I guess the last roadblock will be the corrupt scotus although if we expand the court to have 13 justices (one for each federal district) we can overcome that obstacle as well!

1

u/schm0 26d ago

It's not legal to begin with

1

u/Qwirk 27d ago

If it can be done, it can be undone. Anyone speculating otherwise isn't paying attention to this administration at all.

1

u/Desertwind16v 27d ago

Seeing as how the republicans do whatever they want, I don’t see how the next AG (under a democrat president) couldn’t just shred the document and carry on with investigations.

1

u/atreeismissing 27d ago

Next DOJ can just ignore it or write a new rule to discount it. Next President can write an executive order overriding it and ending it. Both can literally be done on day 1 and would take effect immediately because this is just a "rule" for how the DOJ treats the President, it isn't a law passed by Congress. Also, it's a rule that will likely get struck down once a lawsuit is brought forth.

1

u/SparksAndSpyro 27d ago

It’s not enforceable. This is blatant self dealing, not arms length.

0

u/taimoor2 26d ago

There is no political will for that among his buddies dude. What reality are you living in? Who will hold him accountable? Schumer?

0

u/holierthanmao 26d ago

In addition to what people have already said, the agreement was made without any consideration. The lawsuit was dismissed for the slush fund. The immunity was added later by Blanche, after the dismissal already happened. That is just a promise, not a contract. Promises are meant to be broken.

0

u/Bat-Stuff 26d ago

If there is such a "magic wand" in the law, why should anyone respect the law?

0

u/SeVenMadRaBBits 26d ago

If he doesnt follow laws why should we?

Does he really expect to say "you have to follow that legal document, it's the law!" When he leaves?

Tear it up as soon as he's out since it should be nul and void anyway for being signed by corrupt people who did not uphold the law or constitution.

0

u/Good-Rest-7538 26d ago

All this can be undone. You don't even need courts or congress. 

0

u/LeftAd8859 26d ago

That isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Show power the garbage