US Appeals Court Ruling - Trump not Immune from Prosecution

[Stewy]

The US Federal Appeals Court gave a 3-0 decision with a scathing rebuke of Trump's claims of global immunity.  In fact they even went as far as to categorize his actions and involvement in the Election subversion as being outside of his role as President.

Read the 57 page ruling here - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24409134-read-trump-immunity-ruling

Trump has till Feb 12th to appeal to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court will not hear the appeal, the Appeals Court ruling would then stand.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-court-ruling-immunity-election-subversion-prosecution/index.html

[Belsnickel]

I cannot wait for the legal folks I follow to drop their analyses.

Also, that is quite the expedited process for the appeals timeline.

[*Nately120*]

(02-06-2024, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I cannot wait for the legal folks I follow to drop their analyses.

[Stewy]

(02-06-2024, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I cannot wait for the legal folks I follow to drop their analyses.

Also, that is quite the expedited process for the appeals timeline.

I've been reading some reactions to specific parts of the decision, and the appeals court has essentially, vehemently and wholly rejected almost every point Trump made, summarizing over and over the that the President is not above the law.  It is quite damning.

[*Nately120*]

(02-06-2024, 05:06 PM)Stewy Wrote: I've been reading some reactions to specific parts of the decision, and the appeals court has essentially, vehemently and wholly rejected almost every point Trump made, summarizing over and over the that the President is not above the law.  It is quite damning.

The SC needs to do the right thing and vote 9-0 that the head of 1 branch of government can have them assassinated.  Hell, I can almost see a reality where candidates have to be secret that way you can vote for the current president or a mystery person from the other party who will only be revealed once the president has no legal right to have him/her assassinated.

I also wonder how it would affect Biden's approval rating if after the SC declares the president immune he calls for an air strike on Mar A Lago.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(02-06-2024, 05:06 PM)Stewy Wrote: I've been reading some reactions to specific parts of the decision, and the appeals court has essentially, vehemently and wholly rejected almost every point Trump made, summarizing over and over the that the President is not above the law.  It is quite damning.

But Trump did nothing wrong, so why didn't they grant him full immunity?

Notice that Trump didn't argue his innocence, he argued his right to be a criminal and an insurrectionist. 

[SunsetBengal]

Just saw this and thought that some of you might find it interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-the-supreme-court-will-likely-rule-that-trump-has-immunity-opinion/ar-BB1hZTwa?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f8e6bb35e773499baae54ab6055fe28f&ei=25

Quote:The D.C. Circuit's opinion on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution based on official acts was wrong. It should, and likely will, be reversed.

First, the D.C. Circuit opinion is almost impossible to square with the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity from civil lawsuits based on official acts, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That case granted former presidents absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts within the "outer perimeter" of their duties of office.

The D.C. Circuit didn't hold that the former President's alleged criminal acts were beyond that "outer perimeter." They held that there is no such immunity from criminal prosecution, period.

That creates an enormous amount of tension between civil and criminal immunity. For example, under the rule in Fitzgerald, former President Obama cannot be sued by the family of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old American citizen Obama killed with a drone strike in 2011, for wrongful death. But under the logic of the D.C. Circuit, he could be criminally prosecuted for that same act, even absent impeachment and conviction by the Senate. The fact that Obama was acting as the President and commander-in-chief wouldn't matter: His official acts as commander-in-chief would be "constrained by and subject to 'criminal statutes of general application," and he could be prosecuted.

It also rejects most of the logic of the Fitzgerald opinion, which spends ample time discussing the unique nature of the presidency and how important it is in our constitutional structure. It also explains how liability can jeopardize the functioning of a President who both is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and has the responsibility to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed. The D.C. Circuit tries to analogize immunity for the President to immunity for judges, jurors, Presidential advisors, and prosecutors. But Fitzgerald holds that the Presidency deserves unique solicitude when it comes to civil immunity. It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court wouldn't extend that solicitude to criminal immunity.

The D.C. Circuit tries to distinguish criminal from civil liability on two further fronts. First, they suggest that the criminal justice system can't so easily be used to harass a former president due to the need for the Department of Justice to seek an indictment and for a grand jury to issue one. But given how politicized DOJ has become, and how trivial it is to get a D.C. grand jury to indict a Republican, this is hardly persuasive.

Second, they suggest that because this is the first time that a former president has been criminally indicted in our nation's history, there is little likelihood of future partisan prosecutions of former presidents. There are two obvious answers to this point: First, that the lack of such a history suggests there is a settled understanding that presidents have immunity from prosecution for their official acts. Second, the unprecedented bout of lawfare against former President Trump—four criminal indictments in four different jurisdictions in a little over four months—augurs a future that will be full of partisan presidential indictments.

If anything, this barrage of criminal prosecutions on unrelated matters highlights why it's so important that presidents do have immunity for their official acts. Our politics is now extraordinarily polarized and cutthroat. If the D.C. Circuit's opinion stands, President Biden can certainly expect to be prosecuted once he's left office for aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

The position of the Trump legal team makes more sense, both as a matter of precedent and of public policy. Former Presidents ought to have immunity for their official acts that they have not been impeached and convicted for. This does not place the president above the law, as the D.C. Circuit and so many liberal pundits claim. President Trump could still be criminally liable for his private actions, and future presidents would be liable for those official acts that they are impeached and convicted for.

I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to agree with President Trump's lawyers and ultimately hold that a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, save those for which he is impeached and convicted by the Senate. The lawfare against President Trump should stop, and it very likely will be stopped.

Will Chamberlain is Senior Counsel at The Internet Accountability Project and The Article III Project.

[Luvnit2]

This is a case heading for the Supreme Court. If Trump loses, the DOJ still has to win conviction and then likely many appeals.

It is a bad look for the DOJ not going after Biden with the same vigor they went after Trump on the documents. the POTUS has a lot more right to classified documents than a senator or VP. We will never know, but who believes Biden's attorneys did not go. through every classified document removing anything bad for Joe prior to cooperating with the DOJ.

[*Nately120*]

(02-09-2024, 02:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This is a case heading for the Supreme Court. If Trump loses, the DOJ still has to win conviction and then likely many appeals.

It is a bad look for the DOJ not going after Biden with the same vigor they went after Trump on the documents. the POTUS has a lot more right to classified documents than a senator or VP. We will never know, but who believes Biden's attorneys did not go. through every classified document removing anything bad for Joe prior to cooperating with the DOJ.

Willful retention is a huge issue here and you have to know it.  Biden and Pence didn't respond in the same way Trump did.  Pretend all 3 of them are black guys being choked by the police and 2 of them stop resisting and 1 doesn't.

[Belsnickel]

(02-09-2024, 03:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Willful retention is a huge issue here and you have to know it.  Biden and Pence didn't respond in the same way Trump did.  Pretend all 3 of them are black guys being choked by the police and 2 of them stop resisting and 1 doesn't.

There is the reason he is the sole inhabitant of my ignore list. Either he is a giant troll or the most blinder-wearing, least self-aware person I have ever seen.

[Foolishpride]

(02-09-2024, 03:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is the reason he is the sole inhabitant of my ignore list. Either he is a giant troll or the most blinder-wearing, least self-aware person I have ever seen.

Nailed It!  But I have to ask Luvnit, What does the Fox say?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

If I'm Biden, starting April 21st . . . I have multiple military helicopters hovering outside of the Supreme Court, right outside of Mar A Lago and right above Merrick Garland's house. Special Training exercises or something like that. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-29-2024, 05:03 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If I'm Biden, starting April 21st . . . I have multiple military helicopters hovering outside of the Supreme Court, right outside of Mar A Lago and right above Merrick Garland's house. Special Training exercises or something like that. 

Genius

[*Nately120*]

(02-29-2024, 05:03 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If I'm Biden, starting April 21st . . . I have multiple military helicopters hovering outside of the Supreme Court, right outside of Mar A Lago and right above Merrick Garland's house. Special Training exercises or something like that. 

Biden could have the SC and Mar A Lago bombed and people would be all like "Ehh....better wait until after the election and let THE PEOPLE decide if they give a damn about this."

[*pally*]

The conservative members of the Supreme Court know they can't give the President (any) total immunity so delaying the trial by taking up the case and putting the hearing date months away is the best they can do. I'm betting the decision will come down on the last release day in June.

[Belsnickel]

(02-29-2024, 01:22 PM)pally Wrote: The conservative members of the Supreme Court know they can't give the President (any) total immunity so delaying the trial by taking up the case and putting the hearing date months away is the best they can do. I'm betting the decision will come down on the last release day in June.

That will just mean that we will be seeing the trial happen at the peak of the election time.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2024, 07:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That will just mean that we will be seeing the trial happen at the peak of the election time.

Knowing that there has to be some kind of "politics" at play here...why?

They could have wrapped this up in a day or two.

The only hold out I can see might be Thomas (half joking) since his wife was part of a lot of these plans to overturn the election.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2024, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Knowing that there has to be some kind of "politics" at play here...why?

They could have wrapped this up in a day or two.

The only hold out I can see might be Thomas (half joking) since his wife was part of a lot of these plans to overturn the election.

Honestly, I was half-joking. I actually do not see this trial happening before the election at this point. Here is where my cynicism from the courts comes out. I expect the SCOTUS to rule that the president is immune from prosecution in part and only for specifically official actions. They will not issue this ruling until the end of June. Now, Chutkin issued her stay with 88 days left of prep time for trial, which means that, in theory, she will grant them at least that much time after the ruling to prep. So that puts it into September/October. As much as I think they should just go for it, Chutkin likely won't think it is appropriate to go to trial at that time, which I can understand.

Now, for my real cynicism. SCOTUS will make their ruling, and instead of kicking it to trial, they will then kick it back to Chutkin for fact finding on what is and is not official. Neither the district nor circuit courts ruled on that, so normally speaking SCOTUS would not, either. They certainly can, but instead the MAGA justices will use this opportunity to further delay the proceedings while having the ability to claim they were not doing anything to stand in the way of justice, which is wrong because they will be making it that Biden's reelection would be required in order to hold Trump accountable, this making the election even more contentious.

[Luvnit2]

As of now, Trump is off the ballot in 3 states pending SC ruling.

As for any cases to be heard and jury decisions, unlikely any will be done in 2024. A couple hinge on the SC hearing and then ruling upon Presidential Immunity. If They overrule the DC ruling, then major issues for Jack Smith getting to trial in 2024.

[*Nately120*]

Does Trump being able to directly petition the SC to directly consider his case and/or be declare completely immune to laws lose him a significant portion of all that street cred he got with black people since he's unfairly targeted by the popo like he is?