Image 01 Image 03

Appeals Court Affirms the Denial of Trump’s Presidential Immunity Claim in D.C. Election Interference Case

Appeals Court Affirms the Denial of Trump’s Presidential Immunity Claim in D.C. Election Interference Case

Not a surprise. It will likely head to the Supreme Court now.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected former President Donald Trump’s claim that he has presidential immunity in the D.C. election interference case.

As Professor Jacobson has stressed many times: “Attempting to overturn an election, in and of itself, is not a crime. The way in which it is done could be a crime, but the crime alleged is the end result of overturning the election.”

The vote was 3-0. Not shocking at all:

Former President Trump moved to dismiss the Indictment and the district court denied his motion. Today, we affirm the denial. For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

A federal grand jury indicted Trump on four counts for allegedly interfering with the election and inciting the Capitol Hill riot:

  • (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States by overturning the election results, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
  • (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding — i.e., the Congress’s certification of the electoral vote — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k);
  • (3) obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, the certification of the electoral vote, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2; and
  • (4) conspiracy against the rights of one or more persons to vote and to have their votes counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Trump filed a motion to dismiss because he has presidential immunity in October. At the time, Trump claimed:

To ensure the President may serve unhesitatingly, without fear that his political opponents may one day prosecute him for decisions they dislike, the law provides absolute immunity “for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of [the President’s] official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959) (plurality opinion)).

Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the “outer perimeter,” but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President. In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump’s efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties. Instead, the prosecution falsely claims that President Trump’s motives were impure— that he purportedly “knew” that the widespread reports of fraud and election irregularities were untrue but sought to address them anyway. But as the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide. Rather, where, as here, the President’s actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution…. Therefore, the Court should dismiss the indictment, with prejudice.

The district court wrote that Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

But the judges argued that giving Trump immunity would undermine the Constitution:

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress. To immunize former President Trump’s actions would “further . . . aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.”

No one probably wants my opinion, but I will give it anyway because I don’t like holding back.

I’ll go back to what Professor Jacobson said about attempting to overturn an election: “The way in which it is done could be a crime, but the crime alleged is the end result of overturning the election.”

Maybe the district court could not find any case law or support in the Constitution because Trump didn’t do anything criminally or unconstitutional.

These courts are setting dangerous precedents with many of these cases against Trump.

I also do not blame Justice Sotomayor for complaining about the workload thrown at SCOTUS. People are relying on them for everything.

Anyway.

The mandate will not be issued through February 12, giving Trump time to appeal.

So, Trump’s trial will still likely not start on March 4.

Trump will likely appeal, but he could ask the entire circuit court to review the decision before taking it to SCOTUS.

I can see Trump taking that route since it would further delay the trial.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
So by that “logic”, Obama can be prosecuted for murder for ordering the assassination of an American citizen without due process, W can be prosecuted for felony murder for every troop that he sent to Iraq that was killed and Clinton can be prosecuted for what he did to the intern with his cigar,….got it

    stephenwinburn in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 10:45 am

    It does seem to be an error in law. If it protected him as President, it protects him now. If it did not protect him as President, then it cannot now. If it were the case that it protected him as President, but not now, then every administration would have full power to prosecute every departing President based on their own opinions of their actions, absent of law.

      I never expected something as shockingly bad and amateurish as this opinion. Concerns over the chilling effects from baseless prosecutions impacting presidential decisions? Don’t worry. There are safeguards, like the right to be charged by a grand jury upon a finding of probable cause. Someone might want to introduce them to a DC grand jury and tell them about that ham sandwich doing time. But there’s more. “Prosecutors have ethical obligations not to initiate unfounded prosecutions and “courts presume that they . . . properly discharge[] their official duties.” I guess they never met Jack Smith. And presuming he’s acting properly ain’t much of a safeguard. And in the end, they actually like the idea of threatened lawfare interfering with the Presidential decisions.

      And if one thought that they wouldn’t actually express a view that President Trump was guilty of something, one would be wrong. “To the extent former President Trump maintains that the post-2020 election litigation that his campaign and supporters unsuccessfully pursued implemented his Take Care duty, he is in error….Former President Trump’s alleged conduct conflicts with his constitutional mandate to enforce the laws governing the process of electing the new President.”

      One of the most disgraceful opinions I have ever read, and I’ve read Dred Scott.

    MarkS: So by that “logic”, Obama can be prosecuted for murder for ordering the assassination of an American citizen without due process, W can be prosecuted for felony murder for every troop that he sent to Iraq that was killed and Clinton can be prosecuted for what he did to the intern with his cigar,….got it

    In principle, that is correct. However, Obama was acting in the national interest against a citizen outside the jurisdiction of the United States who was waging war against the United States, so would constitute a prosecutable crime. It would be comparable to killing an American who was fighting for the Nazis.

    MarkS: W can be prosecuted for felony murder for every troop that he sent to Iraq that was killed

    No matter how unwise, that would clearly be within the scope of presidential powers.

    MarkS: and Clinton can be prosecuted for what he did to the intern with his cigar

    That wouldn’t be a crime.

    stephenwinburn: If it protected him as President, it protects him now.

    The Court did not rule on whether he could be prosecuted while president. A question there, under federal law, is whether the Justice Department can act independently. If prosecuted by a state, well, Trump mentioned he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not lose voters. Let’s hope a president never necessitates the Supreme Court having to rule on that matter. We do know that the president can be sued (see Clinton v. Jones) and forced to testify.

    Regardless, any presidential immunity would only delay prosecution, not foreclose it.

    stephenwinburn: If it were the case that it protected him as President, but not now, then every administration would have full power to prosecute every departing President based on their own opinions of their actions, absent of law.

    The president is not above the law. However, it takes more than “their own opinion” to prosecution someone. The law, courts, and juries have a say.


    There may be a long delay in responding, as our comments often languish in the moderation queue for extended periods of time.

      stephenwinburn in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2024 at 1:30 pm

      Here we are with the battle of BartE and yourself for the most incorrect and ignorant takes on everything. Welcome back. You two drag down the average IQ so much the rest of us are now outliers on the high end again. Thank you for returning.

      That wouldn’t be a crime.
      Actually, there’s several potential crimes there.

      MarkS in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2024 at 2:05 pm

      Oh, Zac, you just made my day!!!!
      The DC COURT of Appeals ruled that a president loses any immunity for what he did in office as soon as he leaves,…so, that now means that whether any act a president took even in the national interest, is subject to prosecution by any entity, so explain why now, a state AG can’t prosecute Obama for pre-meditated murder if his immunity evaporated

      stephenwinburn: Here we are with the battle of BartE and yourself for the most incorrect and ignorant takes on everything.

      And yet you forgot to mention anything incorrect in our comment.

      GWBActually, there’s several potential crimes there.

      You forgot to mention which crimes.

      MarkS: so, that now means that whether any act a president took even in the national interest, is subject to prosecution by any entity, so explain why now, a state AG can’t prosecute Obama for pre-meditated murder if his immunity evaporated.

      Due process applies. Assuming you are referring to killing an American citizen outside the jurisdiction of the United States who is waging war against the United States, then that would not be prosecutable under federal law as it is well within the parameters of the security powers of the President. Nor would it be prosecutable under state law because it is outside their jurisdiction. However, if a President Trump were to willy-nilly shoot someone on 5th Avenue, then it would be prosecutable.

      starride in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2024 at 3:27 pm

      Clinton can be prosecuted for WACO and Ruby Ridge.

        starride: Clinton can be prosecuted for WACO and Ruby Ridge.

        What crime?

        stephenwinburn in reply to starride. | February 6, 2024 at 4:31 pm

        And they don’t even have to change the law to make a window for the statute of limitations, since murder has no such limit.

        Milhouse in reply to starride. | February 7, 2024 at 7:38 am

        No, he can’t. Even if the FBI agents at Waco could be charged, indeed even if Reno could be charged, Clinton was not there and did nothing. “The buck stops here” is a political principle, not a legal one. Certainly not one in criminal law.

        As for Ruby Ridge, what the hell has Clinton got to do with it? How does his name even come up in that regard?

          starride in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2024 at 8:40 am

          Clinton was president in 1992 when the DOJ and FBI committed the acts that instigated the events of Ruby Ridge. It was Clintons DOJ. As for Waco you can bet your ass Clinton gave Reno the approval to go in.

          As for your logic in my example please explain that to the appellate judge that gave the same scenario with seal team 6. Your logic (While I agree with it) conflicts with HER logic.

          I

          starride: Clinton was president in 1992 when the DOJ and FBI committed the acts that instigated the events of Ruby Ridge.

          Uh, no.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2024 at 2:03 pm

          Starride, I think you may be lost in the multiverse. This is the universe where Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, Reagan survived the assassination attempt and served a full two terms, and then Bush had a term before Clinton became president. I take it you’re from one where Reagan died, Bush served out his term and the next one, and then Clinton was elected. Who was the first man on the moon there?

          starride in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2024 at 5:37 pm

          @Millhouse @Zachriel
          Yep Sorry I was off a year.

          But the thought is still the same…. The judge used the same scenario re seal team 6 as an example of criminality. What’s the different from Using seal team 6 verses using FBI Swat teams.

          Zach, Thanks for pointing my error out reasonably

          Millhouse,, Sorry Dude!!! I don’t speak Jackass, cant understand a word you are saying….

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2024 at 11:14 pm

          Starride, you’re the jackass. If you didn’t understand it I can only feel sorry for you.

          Why can’t you just post the second part, Milhouse? Please stop calling people names, that goes for all, btw; it doesn’t help anything and just makes things ugly and unproductive. You are (and–almost–everyone here is) better than that.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Zachriel. | February 7, 2024 at 1:15 am

      You might say that Trump was acting in his own interests when he asked the GA SoS to “find more votes” for him. True enough. But the president has a responsibility to assure that election results in any state are on the up-and-up. Acting in his own interests and acting in the interests of voters are not mutually exclusive. As a candidate, he was exercising his right to petition government (the right is not restricted to court challenges, you can petition any government official), and as president he was attempting to make sure the vote count was accurate, in both respects nothing that Al Gore didn’t do (petition government and demand recounts to verify the election ally) in Florida. In neither capacity did he do anything illegal.

    so would {not} constitute a prosecutable crime

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 12:46 pm

    According to the resident know it all, no president has murdered a US Citizen.

      That’s right. No president has ever done so. If you think otherwise, name the president and the person he murdered, and explain why you think it was murder. So far all you’ve brought up is ordinary cases of enemy forces killed in war, which far from being murder is a soldier’s duty.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 12:48 pm

    Also by that logic, every Senator and Representative is no longer granted immunity from prosecution while they made false claims under the “immunity” granted to them while they were making speeches on the floor of Congress.

    I am looking forward to many of those being hanged for treason and lies.

      I get your point, and concur that it puts them at risk.
      However, the immunity clause granted to legislators specifically says they are immune for the things they say not that they are immune while they are speaking. So it specifically makes the acts (the words they spew forth) immune, not just the time period.

      The difficulty is that the Constitution doesn’t make it as clear for the Executive. (It doesn’t speak on it, at all.) And, I think part of that stems from the idea of governmental immunity in general – how do you hold someone liable for the very acts required in the execution of their duties?

        AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 4:15 pm

        Correct. But I am speaking from the standpoint of the liberal “The law is what I say it is, no more, no less.”

        If immunity can be removed by fiat, and the courts have to figure it out, then prosecute all of them.

          Nobody is removing anything by fiat. The president’s absolute immunity from all criminal charges whatsoever, if it even exists in the first place, is obviously limited to his time in office and disappears the second he is out of office. Nobody disputes that. That’s not what this case is about, though this court seems to think it is.

        DaveGinOly in reply to GWB. | February 7, 2024 at 1:20 am

        “…how do you hold someone liable for the very acts required in the execution of their duties?”

        You can’t, and shouldn’t be able to do so. Logically, if an act was within the authority of any government official, it can’t be illegal, even if it might be a crime for a private person to do the same. An official/former official may only be liable for crimes committed while in office. Ipso facto, this excludes official (authorized) acts. Immunity is not required for official (authorized) acts, and doesn’t apply to criminal acts.

    jhkrischel in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 3:40 pm

    Some brave R attorney general needs to step up and indict Obama, Clinton, and Bush for war crimes.

      They should, could do with another Republican clown show. I mean seriously the GOP is a circus might as well add another act.

      Milhouse in reply to jhkrischel. | February 7, 2024 at 7:55 am

      What war crimes? Waging war is not a crime! And the USA did not commit any war crimes. It has been scrupulous in adhering to the rules of war.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | February 7, 2024 at 7:48 am

    So by that “logic”, Obama can be prosecuted for murder for ordering the assassination of an American citizen without due process,

    No, he can’t. Killing enemy soldiers is the whole point of war, and far from a crime it’s a duty. There is no such thing as “due process” in war, because there is no crime alleged. War is not a criminal proceeding, the enemy has not necessarily committed any crime, and is not being killed as a criminal penalty.

    And it makes absolutely no difference what passport an enemy holds. US citizenship does not confer immunity from being killed in war. If you bear arms against the USA you are liable to be killed. Ditto if you happen to be standing next to someone bearing arms against the USA, at the wrong moment, and catch a bullet meant for him.

    W can be prosecuted for felony murder for every troop that he sent to Iraq that was killed

    That’s even more nuts. He didn’t kill them, the enemy did. Sending servicemen into combat is a president’s job.

    Now according to Smith’s theory, if President David were to order Uriah sent into combat and deliberately left to die, for his own private reasons that had nothing to do with the war effort, then he could be prosecuted for it. According to Trump he could not.

    and Clinton can be prosecuted for what he did to the intern with his cigar,….got it

    Huh? What crime are you even imagining here?

Now the question is if the Supreme Court grants cert (which is a virtual certainty, right?) will they hear the case in some kind of expedited fashion? Absent that, the Court generally only hears oral arguments in October and April (I believe). IOW, will they hear the case this spring or punt it to October, which would clearly push any decision past the election?

    thad_the_man in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 10:45 am

    They are hearing the Colorado case this week. So likely it will be expedited, but that will still be sometime.

      TargaGTS in reply to thad_the_man. | February 6, 2024 at 11:46 am

      They are. But, they agreed to the Colorado case because there is an exigent reason to hear it: Trump has been removed from the ballot of an election that is date-certain. There is no reason to expedite this case other than political expedience, right?

      Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t be shocked beyond belief if they do expedite this case…but, I will be a little surprised. The Court has a history of giving hugely contentious issues some time to breathe before given them a hearing and generally only break that unwritten rule when there’s some kind of hard deadline that would foreclose their ability to remedy the situation of the deadline comes and goes.

        Milhouse in reply to TargaGTS. | February 7, 2024 at 7:58 am

        But, they agreed to the Colorado case because there is an exigent reason to hear it: Trump has been removed from the ballot of an election that is date-certain.

        No, he hasn’t been removed from any ballot. He will be removed, if the court finds against him. But if it doesn’t rule until after the deadline for removing him then he will stay on the ballot no matter how it rules, and the ruling will only be relevant for November.

    BartE in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 10:47 am

    My bet is on the Supreme Court not taking it. There isn’t really a question here. The notion that the president gets criminal immunity isn’t a difficult question.

      MarkS in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 11:01 am

      No it is not a difficult question yet this court really screwed to pooch on the question

      TargaGTS in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 11:06 am

      Dude, you didn’t even read the opinion, did you? The Circuit Court cedes that the president does indeed enjoy criminal immunity: “Properly understood, the separation of powers doctrine may immunize lawful discretionary acts but does not bar the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for every official act.”

      They’re saying that Trump doesn’t get immunity for THIS particular case. The chances that SCOTUS is going to allow the prosecution of a president to move forward without giving the prosecution some imprimatur of legitimacy are just about zero. So, they’ll either reject the Circuit Court’s argument that presidential immunity isn’t absolute or they’ll affirm them.

        TargaGTS: The Circuit Court cedes that the president does indeed enjoy criminal immunity

        No. They use the word “may”. That issue has never been adjudicated. What they are saying is that a former president is a citizen no more or less than any other.

          What they seem to be saying by a plain, clear reading of their words is that that ordinary citizen can have their actions – for which they are immune for a time – criminalized after the fact. Just who in the heck is going to perform any actions in furtherance of their duty knowing that in less than 4 years they face a trial?

          IF those actions are immune during the time of office, they MUST BE immune in perpetuity, or they were never really immune to begin with.

          GWB: criminalized after the fact.

          It’s not criminalized after the fact. Rather, prosecution may be put in abeyance for a time, but even that’s not clear. For instance, the Justice Department, as a matter of policy, avoids indicting someone within 60 days of an election. That doesn’t mean the person is forever immune from prosecution. That wouldn’t even make sense.

          Now, if Trump were to willy-nilly shoot someone on 5th Avenue, well, let’s hope the courts never have to face that situation.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 7, 2024 at 8:02 am

          What they seem to be saying by a plain, clear reading of their words is that that ordinary citizen can have their actions – for which they are immune for a time – criminalized after the fact.

          No, they’re not saying that at all. Presidential immunity (the kind they’re talking about) doesn’t make the president’s crimes into not-crimes. They’re crimes all along, they just can’t be prosecuted until he’s out of office.

          Immunity for official acts (which is the kind of immunity that Trump is actually claiming) also doesn’t turn crimes into not-crimes, it just means they can’t be prosecuted. If the immunity were to be removed and prosecution enabled, that would not be an ex-post-facto law.

        DaveGinOly in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 11:41 am

        IMHO, it’s the right decision. I don’t believe a president has immunity for all acts committed while president when the acts are both criminal in nature and otherwise beyond his authority as president. (Which is to say that no act within his authority can be a criminal act.) But the court seems to have reached the correct decision via a mistaken argument, viz. that any immunity that may have applied falls away when he left office. This is just ridiculous. Unless they’re referring to the general immunity from prosecution all presidents have while seated, even when they do, in fact, commit crimes while in office, or when past crimes are discovered while in office (although this seems to not be that immunity to which the court refers). The primary cure for that problem is impeachment and removal from office*, allowing prosecution to commence immediately. The fact that a president can be removed from office via impeachment in order to try him for crimes committed while in office should inform us that it is possible for a president to commit crimes while in office and his prosecution for them is not barred by claims of “immunity.”

        *Whether or not to impeach and remove a president is a political decision that determines first (in the House) the liklihood the president is guilty of a particular crime or crimes, and second (in the Senate), whether the seriousness of the crime warrants the disruption to the office and the Republic his removal may cause. Otherwise, the president can remain seated and can be prosecuted when he leaves office at the end of his term. (I am aware of the arguments that a president can’t be prosecuted for crimes unless he is impeached and removed. To state my opposition to this idea simply – the Constitution is silent on the matter, and only remarks that prosecution of a president who is impeached and removed is permitted – i.e., it is not “double jeopardy.” I believe this is declaratory – to avoid claims of “double jeopardy” – not restrictive.)

          TargaGTS in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2024 at 11:49 am

          What standard should a president use to be able to gauge what OFFICIAL acts he initiates may present him with criminal liability in the future? That would be a useful standard to know, would it not? Maybe someone should – you know – write it down so that future presidents won’t find themselves in this same situation.

          I suspect the Circuit Court didn’t establish any kind of standard because the standard they’re using is: We’re going to allow this prosecution because Trump might actually win.

          Azathoth in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2024 at 12:13 pm

          That’s a whole lot of writing when you could just have said that you have no idea how the law works.

          A president can look at, posess and classify or declassify information. He IS the highest clearance.

          But, once he leaves office, he’s a private citizen who looked at highly classified information, the highest, and he doesn’t have clearance to do so..

          What he had to do to do his job has suddenly become an illegal act.

          The president takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Part of that is insuring fair, accurate, and honest elections.

          And now having done that has been declared a crime.

          @azathoth

          It’s pretty rich saying to someone else you don’t understand what’s going on when you then display total ignorance of what’s going on. It’s spectacularly entertaining

          JohnSmith100 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2024 at 1:53 pm

          We will have a much better idea of the bounds of law when the Biden Syndicate is prosecuted.

          Sanddog in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2024 at 4:33 pm

          There’s a reason why we don’t go after former presidents and charge them with crimes for the actions they took when in office. It would bring on a civil war and spell the end of this nation. Every single former President would be charged with crimes. Jailing your political opposition is generally viewed by the sane as a very bad idea.

          Azathoth in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 6, 2024 at 10:12 pm

          “It’s pretty rich saying to someone else you don’t understand what’s going on when you then display total ignorance of what’s going on. It’s spectacularly entertaining”

          Wow. You just decided to say screw it and scream your ignorance.

          Here, I’ll try to make it simpler.

          The president CAN NOT be charged with crimes that were part of his presidential duties while he was in office.

          He is SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution. And part of that is securing free, fair and honest elections.

          The sitting president questioning the validity of an election, even one that he was party to, is part of the job. Doing it is not a crime.

          In fact, it’s not a crime when out of office.

          Stuffing the ballot box is a crime.

          Trying to find out if the ballot box was stuffed is not.

          Understand?

          If not, next time I’ll try it in crayon.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:04 am

          Unless they’re referring to the general immunity from prosecution all presidents have while seated, even when they do, in fact, commit crimes while in office, or when past crimes are discovered while in office (although this seems to not be that immunity to which the court refers).

          Actually that seems to be exactly the immunity to which the court is referring. It’s just not the immunity that Trump is claiming.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:06 am

          @azathoth

          It’s pretty rich saying to someone else you don’t understand what’s going on when you then display total ignorance of what’s going on. It’s spectacularly entertaining

          Hey, Bart gets something right! Blind pigs, acorns.

          Azathoth in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:27 am

          “Hey, Bart gets something right! Blind pigs, acorns.”:

          Why do you think anyone wants to hear your leftist blathering, Democrat?

          @Azathoth

          “The president CAN NOT be charged with crimes that were part of his presidential duties while he was in office.”

          Elections are explicitly not part of presidential duties

          “He is SUPPOSED to uphold the Constitution. And part of that is securing free, fair and honest elections.”

          Subverting the constitutional rights of the peoples voting choice is explicitly against the constitution as well as being against the constitution with respect to separation of powers

          “The sitting president questioning the validity of an election, even one that he was party to, is part of the job. Doing it is not a crime.”

          No its not, additionally no one claims he cant question the validity of the election what they accuse him of is then lying about it, stirring up insurrectionists and fraudulently presenting alternative slates. If you’d actually read the court opinion or the indictment you’d know this.

          For all your bluster about crayons you seem to have little to no understanding of any of the issues here. I’d suggest reading the court opinion for starters.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:47 pm

          Take a long walk off a short pier, you dammed liar.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:48 pm

          Oops. That was aimed at Azathoth and his vile slander against me, not against DaveGinOly.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:56 pm

          Bart:

          Elections are explicitly not part of presidential duties

          Really?! Where exactly is that explicitly stated?

          Actually the Take Care clause means that the conduct of federal elections by the states is a small part of his duties, since they are subject to the constitution and to federal law.

          Subverting the constitutional rights of the peoples voting choice is explicitly against the constitution

          Article, section, and clause, please. It doesn’t seem to be anywhere in my copy. The whole concept of a “people’s voting choice” is not in the constitution, let alone any rights such a person might have.

          as well as being against the constitution with respect to separation of powers

          How so?

          no one claims he cant question the validity of the election

          That’s exactly what he’s accused of.

          what they accuse him of is then lying about it, stirring up insurrectionists and fraudulently presenting alternative slates.

          Which all depends on the obviously false notion that he did not believe what he was saying. Every word of his on record proves clearly that he did believe it, without even going into how much of it was actually true.

          @Milhouse

          Bart:

          Elections are explicitly not part of presidential duties

          Really?! Where exactly is that explicitly stated?

          Actually the Take Care clause means that the conduct of federal elections by the states is a small part of his duties, since they are subject to the constitution and to federal law.

          No its not because the president with respect to his own election is a candidate not the president. Its the states responsibility to run elections not the presidents with respect to presidential elections. Presidents cant administer there own elections that would be absurd. The take care clause means that the President ought to enforce all laws, that doesn’t somehow give him the right to break the constitution, again that would be absurd.

          Subverting the constitutional rights of the peoples voting choice is explicitly against the constitution

          Article, section, and clause, please. It doesn’t seem to be anywhere in my copy. The whole concept of a “people’s voting choice” is not in the constitution, let alone any rights such a person might have.

          Excuse me, are you arguing that the right to vote doesn’t exist in the constitution!?

          as well as being against the constitution with respect to separation of powers

          How so?

          Immunity entails overriding all other branches of the governments ability to hold the president to account for anything at all. This should be obvious

          no one claims he cant question the validity of the election

          That’s exactly what he’s accused of.

          No, he is accused of materially lying about the facts. Saying “the election was stolen” is fine saying ” the election was stolen because of *insert lie here” is not. Its akin to someone complaining that the bank over charges (fine) but then robbing the bank to get the money back (not fine).

          what they accuse him of is then lying about it, stirring up insurrectionists and fraudulently presenting alternative slates.

          Which all depends on the obviously false notion that he did not believe what he was saying. Every word of his on record proves clearly that he did believe it, without even going into how much of it was actually true.

          Legally it doesn’t actually matter whether he believed it or not, you don’t get the right to rob a bank because you believe the bank owes you money. Its also pretty obvious that he did know his statements were false given the number of parties who told him there was no evidence to support the claim. Lawyers, research companies, advisors, sec of states, attorney generals. shopping for yes men/women lawyers isn’t a great response either.

        mailman in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 11:42 am

        This is INCREDIBLY dangerous territory to be treading.

        Who gets to decide WHICH acts are protected from future politically motivated malicious prosecution? Especially when its acts the Left has determined on their own to be criminal yet when its their own people doing worse they look the other way.

        Seems to me the entire reason why you would give Presidents blanket immunity is exactly because politically motivated prosecutions is what you get in banana 3rd world dictatorships….and also means Presidents can make tough decisions free of the fear of being politically targeted by their political enemies in the future.

          TargaGTS in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2024 at 11:51 am

          Agree completely…and I’m not a Trump sycophant. Trump didn’t murder his wife or some other horrible crime that is plainly unrelated to his presidency even in some tangential way. Instead, Trump is being prosecuted for literally GIVING A SPEACH…WHILE PRESIDENT. This is an unbelievably precarious time for the Republic should this prosecution be allowed to continue. While Trump may be the first prosecuted using such logic he most certainly won’t be the last.

          TargaGTS: Maybe someone should – you know – write it down so that future presidents won’t find themselves in this same situation.

          Sure. It’s all written down. It’s called the law. In particular, if a federal court, after a hearing and right of appeal, orders you to surrender certain property, then you are legally required to return the property.

          mailman: This is INCREDIBLY dangerous territory to be treading.

          Yes. Trump’s acts have threatened to upend the constitutional balances.

          mailman: Who gets to decide WHICH acts are protected from future politically motivated malicious prosecution?

          The law, the courts, and juries—like everyone else. The President is even provided a White House Counsel and staff to help keep him on the right side of the law.

          BartE in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2024 at 12:16 pm

          This is silly, people pretending that evey Trump prosecution is political isn’t an argument for making Trump a dictator.

          It is dangerous to make presidents immune from criminal acts and its frankly absurd to say otherwise.

          Your substance free response doesn’t help

          GWB in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 12:50 pm

          Is your response substance free? Or should we be asking “What’s he on?”
          Yes, this is a trite response. Because you’re throwing elbows without any idea of which direction the end zone is.

          BartE in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2024 at 12:17 pm

          @ targetgts

          What are you talking about, the prosecution isn’t based on one speech. Are you so ignorant as to not know what this case is based on. Maybe read the indictment. Jesus that’s ignorance in action

          BartE in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2024 at 12:56 pm

          @gwb

          Projecting much, when you can actually respond the claims come back to me.

          mailman in reply to mailman. | February 7, 2024 at 2:22 am

          Zack said “ The law, the courts, and juries—like everyone else.”

          That’s not how the three co-equal branches of government are supposed to work.

          By giving the judiciary the sole power to decide what is and is not covered by Presidentual immunity means the President is no longer an equal but is subservient to the Judiciary and once again subject to retaliation from Democrats for doing the most heinous thing possible, hurting their feelings with mean tweets.

          mailman: By giving the judiciary the sole power to decide what is and is not covered by Presidentual immunity means the President is no longer an equal

          You have it exactly backwards. Immunity is not in the U.S. Constitution. It’s a judicial construct constructed over generations of court rulings. But the immunity is limited. If the president isn’t constrained by law, then you may as well call him dictator.

          Milhouse in reply to mailman. | February 7, 2024 at 9:01 pm

          By giving the judiciary the sole power to decide what is and is not covered by Presidentual immunity means the President is no longer an equal

          It is the judicial branch’s function to say what the law is. If the immunity is part of the law then it is the judicial branch that defines its contours and bounds, not either of the other two branches.

        BartE in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 12:13 pm

        Lol read carefully ” immunise LAWFUL discretionary acts” meaning that civil acts are immunised not criminal. You are grossly misreading the courts opinion

        MarkS in reply to TargaGTS. | February 6, 2024 at 2:09 pm

        to paraphrase existing case law, no court gets to decide which act of a president are within the scope of his duties

          BartE in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 2:40 pm

          Existing case law to some extent sets out what the outer perimeter of presidential duties are. Courts have explicitly tried to address this question with particular regard to particular cases. So no you are wrong on this.

      tlcomm2 in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 12:25 pm

      I would love to bet against you for money 😉

        BartE in reply to tlcomm2. | February 6, 2024 at 3:02 pm

        Alas the best I’m able to offer is bragging rights. I don’t think it will be that long before we find out, maybe a matter of a few months.

        BartE in reply to tlcomm2. | February 7, 2024 at 4:49 pm

        Update the mandate from the court decision is 6 days with an implied message of don’t bother with en banc with respect to the DC circuit. Sounds like we wont be waiting that long to see if the supreme court will take it or not

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 12:52 pm

      Apparently for you it is.

      You are very much like Milhouse. A know it all without substance.

      The only difference? Milhouse tilts at windmills with reason.

      You? Like a puppy that shits on the floor and barks because you are proud of it.

      Funny. Neither JR or Thad Jarvis comments when you are here. Yet the idiocy is very much the same.

      You claim Trump is guilty of many things, yet he has NEVER been found guilty of anything.

        This is you admitting you don’t know anything, when you have something of value to say come back to me

        “You claim Trump is guilty of many things, yet he has NEVER been found guilty of anything.” *looks at record – sure buddy sure, the civil fraud cases don’t count, the defamation cases don’t count, the judges findings of fact don’t count, the grand jury indictments don’t count, the contrast between Pence and Trump on classified documents its imaginary. Hilarious

      DaveGinOly in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 1:22 am

      I, for one, agree with you. But I don’t necessarily arrive at the same conclusion via your route. See my comment above.

        I agree with your reasoning, I think the court decision deals with this as well. There are many reasons why Trumps claim of immunity falls flat.

So, based on the idiotic logic of these three robed lunatics, any person who made decisions or did anything that can be perceived as criminal while serving as a politician is immune, but then the gated of criminal and civil persecution can commence when they become private citizens.

What utter nonsense. But this is more of the “we have to destroy democracy in order to save it” bullshit we come to expect from the Leftists and NeverTrumpers.

    Its pretty clear you haven’t understood the courts opinion, id suggest reading it.

      MarkS in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 5:02 pm

      the opinion is clear, when the court opines, “in this case” they are limiting its decision to Trump and Trump alone

        DaveGinOly in reply to MarkS. | February 7, 2024 at 1:26 am

        “In this case” means “in this situation.” The court will set a precedent in its opinion, and that precedent will be applied in future, similar (if not identical) situations. It will similarly create a principle that can be applied in not-so-similar situations.

      Ironclaw in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 11:33 pm

      The Court’s opinion is quite easy to understand, it’s “we hate trump, immunity denied because we don’t like him.”

        BartE in reply to Ironclaw. | February 7, 2024 at 4:58 pm

        Actually reading the opinion should make it pretty obvious that your statement is absurd.

        Court: here is a long list of well thought out reasons why we made this decisions
        You: I haven’t read it but just assume its political and unjustified because my man Trump is the proverbial Jesus despite all known facts about him.

I doubt anyone is rationally expecting the trial to start march 4. There is motion practice, they have to send out jury notices, … it will take some time to get it ramped up again.

As for the ruling, haven’t read the ruling in it’s entirety. The argument that Trump does not have immunity for something he did as President because he is no longer President makes no sense. That means that judges can be sued for stuff they did as a Judge once they retire..

    Upon reflection, I believe that the appeals court was trying to punt on the issue so as not to receive scorn from their fellow travelers and will have SCOTUS do the right thing

      gonzotx in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 11:06 am

      One can pray

      thad_the_man in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 11:17 am

      I can also see SCOTUS taking up Meese’s argument that Smith was illegally appointed, and just punting on the whole thing. Courts love to punt.

        DaveGinOly in reply to thad_the_man. | February 6, 2024 at 11:47 am

        I agree. SCOTUS will likely stop these prosecutions with a series of opinions that avoid certain (divisive) core arguments (like “immunity” or whether or not presidents are subject to section 3 of the 14 Amendment) while basing them in sideshow technicalities.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 12:53 pm

      Yes. Long after the liars have made their rounds about how this decision is a sure bet that Trump will go to jail – finally!

      But they have been wrong on so many levels.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 3:14 pm

      If Trump is smart then his team will ask fo ran en blanc panel first, just to delay the trial that much more.

        from what I observed, Trump’s legal team is the JV

        He can’t, the court has stated there will be no stay with respect to appealing to the full panel. His only route with a stay would be via the supreme court provided he appeals within 6 days of the decision.

          Milhouse in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 9:05 pm

          It’s not up to the panel. He can go directly to the full circuit for a stay.

          BartE in reply to BartE. | February 8, 2024 at 6:07 am

          @milhouse

          True in theory but that’s what the opinion actually says. Its likely that the opinion was checked by the chief justice and possibly circulated to the full circuit for agreement.

          The fact is that a per curium opinion was formed across party lines on what may be a novel issue but fundamentally is a question of “Is the US a dictatorship or not” its a pretty simply question despite Trumps attempts to muddy the water.

    So it would be beneficial to be a dictator I see

      I think your comment is too far down to have the proper impact of a short, sarcastic comment.

      In response to “does not have immunity for something he did as President because he is no longer President”, it is pointed out how it would then be beneficial to be “El Presidente For Life” or some such, so you’re immune until the day you no longer can care.

      You have encapsulated the argument for immunity pithily.

I can think of a couple of former presidents who lived on presidential privilege that should be shaking in their boots.

No surprise is right. Those DC judges sat in on Trump’s arraignment and are complicit in Biden’s dictatorial action against his political opponent.

For a Biden-friendly court to rule like this is stunning considering what faces the entire Biden family. However, what Biden and his son/brother, wife, daughter, and granddaughter have done is mentioned in the Constitution as a crime. What Trump did is not mentioned and is only conjecture on the part of the court. Using a word like “Co-conspirators” indicates a conclusion by the court of a conspiracy. Then they call the election “Investigation” a fraud as if Trump intended no investigation. It was AG Barr who refused to investigate the actual fraud. I believe that SCOTUS will hear it but not in an expedited fashion.

    Not so stunning IMO. Nothing faces the Biden crime family. They’re democrats. Seriously, do you believe any Republican will EVER indict a former democratic president? NEVER GONNA HAPPPEN! Biden knows it. The court knows it The court isn’t worried about Biden. He’s safe. They want to get Trump. They don’t want him to be president. They don’t want to give the American people a chance to elect him president.

    That’s their logic. Pure and simple.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to dging. | February 6, 2024 at 12:57 pm

      That’s OK. FJB isn’t long for the world at his age and medical condition.

      Unlike Ann Coulter stating that Trump should die, I am simply stating a natural fact.

      Even if Congress wanted to pursue, it would be a waste of time.

      But the Biden crime family better be careful. The spawn of Satan and his brothers aren’t immune from a persistent prosecutor

      thalesofmiletus in reply to dging. | February 6, 2024 at 1:46 pm

      The Left has crossed the Rubicon. Their political calculations assume they will never, ever lose power again and therefore will never be subject to what they are putting their enemies through.

        That’s a nice thought, and I wish it were true. But the Left’s political enemies are feckless cowards – if they aren’t actually on the same side as the left only in different costumes. They “will never be subject to what they are putting their enemies through”. Full stop. IMO

      inspectorudy in reply to dging. | February 6, 2024 at 9:16 pm

      Maybe not but Biden’s crime is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable crime. That takes away a lot of BS about the crime. All the Rs have to do is prove it.

efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election
There’s the sleight of hand. First, the “effort to remain in power” instead of “interfere with the election” is a way to slide in the idea that he has committed a crime, which has not yet been proven (though loudly alleged). And that’s not the job of the appeals court here. Second, the “despite losing” part is based on a political assumption that has not been adequately proven. It has been stated to be so by the legislature, but once that occurred, Trump is not alleged to have done anything to stop it.

They are deliberately smearing together states, terms, and meanings to muddle the issue and stomp hard on Trump.

And then they wonder why so many people don’t trust them when they say things like “The election was perfectly fair, through and through.”

    BartE in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 1:07 pm

    Not even Trump is defending his actual conduct rather he tries to throw as much legal nonsense as possible to delay the trial.

    As for election. Stop flogging a dead horse, that notion is absurd. Get over it, Trump lost (again)

      GWB in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 2:04 pm

      So, someone who shoots another person on the street is guilty of murder? And their attempts to not defend their actual conduct but to throw the “legal nonsense” of “self-defense” into the mix is not kosher?

      And the horse of bogus dealings during the election that likely swayed the vote tallies in some places is certainly not a dead horse. Unless, of course, you don’t care how legal and proper the next election is?

      Also, you don’t seem to read very well. I didn’t flog the horse, nor state that Trump won. I stated the legal and constitutional facts, and how the court used terms that try to insinuate bad behavior contrary to determined facts.

        BartE in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 2:53 pm

        “So, someone who shoots another person on the street is guilty of murder? And their attempts to not defend their actual conduct but to throw the “legal nonsense” of “self-defense” into the mix is not kosher?”

        The point is that his defence is to delay as far as possible, no serious legal analyst really considers many of his defences anything other than delay tactics. It is also pretty telling that he cant actually defend himself with respect to the crimes themselves and is solely reliant on legalese type defences.

          GWB in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 3:13 pm

          he cant actually defend himself with respect to the crimes themselves
          So you say.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 3:24 pm

          “It is also pretty telling that he cant actually defend himself with respect to the ‘charges’. (I fixed it for you.)

          You don’t know that he can’t defend himself since no trial has taken place, everything so far has been motions and the like, no defense has yet been offered.

          AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 4:23 pm

          Go the fk away. You are not even an American, and your comment and opinion have no bearing here.

          Save it for whatever shit hole country you are from, that does not understand America.

          inspectorudy in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 9:17 pm

          Name the crimes, please.

          Ironclaw in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 11:44 pm

          If you look at the places where the trials are being held, his chances of getting a fair trial are roughly 0.00%

          Therefore, delay is the best strategy possible because if he can when then he can call off the justice department and stop the false prosecutions.

          DaveGinOly in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 1:32 am

          “…no serious legal analyst really considers many of his defences anything other than delay tactics.”

          The smell of Kool-Aid is strong on the breath of this one.
          Friend, you are going to be sorely disappointed when all of these prosecutions fail. They weren’t meant to succeed.
          1. They were meant to prevent Trump’s re-election
          2. The process is the punishment.

          But when these prosecutions fail, because you get your information from poor sources, those same sources will convince you that the decisions in favor of Trump were politically motivated. You will then be told you must support “packing the court,” or some other such “reform” of SCOTUS.

          You don’t understand you’re brainwashed because you’ve been brainwashed. You’ve been brainwashed so that you can be programmed like a computer, and played like a violin.

          BartE in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 5:13 am

          @AF_Chief_Master_Sgt

          Some ones triggered, instead of providing a meaningful response you go full snowflake.

          @inspectorudy

          Read the court opinion it sets them out quite clearly.

          @Ironclaw

          Errr no, you making stuff up isn’t much of an argument. What you are really saying is you want special rules for Trump because lets face it you don’t like the fact that Trump is being held to account for crimes and you support(ed) him. it blows a giant hole in the right wing narrative of being pro law, pro constitution. Hypocrites.

          BartE in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 5:08 pm

          @DaveGinOly

          “But when these prosecutions fail, because you get your information from poor sources, those same sources will convince you that the decisions in favor of Trump were politically motivated. You will then be told you must support “packing the court,” or some other such “reform” of SCOTUS.

          You don’t understand you’re brainwashed because you’ve been brainwashed. You’ve been brainwashed so that you can be programmed like a computer, and played like a violin.”

          With respect this makes zero sense. Ive read the indictments and kept up with the cases as well as listened to Trumps ‘arguments’. The prosecution case is exceptionally strong, we now have masses of guilty pleas for various parts of the conspiracy, a strong legal basis for the components, its not clear to me on what basis you can say anything other than he is guilty. He will of course get his day in court, but given his performance in other trials that’s going to end badly.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 3:22 pm

      “he tries to throw as much legal nonsense as possible to delay the trial.”

      So he is basically following Modern Legal Procedure? My brother is a lawyer and he has cases that are still going after 5 years.

      Ironclaw in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 11:41 pm

      You know, you’re probably stupid enough to actually believe that. But even that is a really high Mark for someone stupid enough to support a pedophile like Joe Biden

        BartE in reply to Ironclaw. | February 7, 2024 at 5:17 am

        @Gremlin1974

        Sure, there is generally nothing wrong with dragging a trial out as long as possible, and I’d correct your statement to Modern Legal Defence Practise. That doesn’t negate the basic fact that it indicates no other defence nor does it negate the fact that there is a wider public interest in knowing whether Trump is guilty prior to the election.

        @Ironclaw

        You really aren’t the brightest of sparks are you. You buying into nonsensical right wing talking points about Biden whilst handwaving away Trumps obvious crimes really says a lot about you.

        Can you actually give a reason

          Azathoth in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 10:02 am

          Yes, all that video of Biden grabbing and sniffing children as well as adult women is just ‘right wing talking points’

          Don’t believe those lying eyes.

          BartE in reply to BartE. | February 7, 2024 at 5:12 pm

          Biden being touchy feely isn’t paedophilia. Do better

    MarkS in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 2:13 pm

    In that piece of genius legalese, the Court has assumed that everything ing Smith’s indictment is true and correct, ending the presumption of innocence

      BartE in reply to MarkS. | February 6, 2024 at 2:54 pm

      No, id suggest actually reading the court opinion rather than making stuff up.

      Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | February 7, 2024 at 9:12 pm

      In that piece of genius legalese, the Court has assumed that everything ing Smith’s indictment is true and correct, ending the presumption of innocence

      OMG another one who has no clue. In a motion to dismiss there is no presumption of innocence, and the court has to assume that every word in the indictment is true. That’s extremely basic.

The bigger question is when the trial is going to be.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 1:44 pm

    Not soon enough for you. According to your comments, we should just skip the trial because you believe he is already guilty.

    You have decided that you are jury, judge, and executioner.

    FOAD.

      Laws are self executing,…… haven’t you heard?

        Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | February 7, 2024 at 9:14 pm

        Laws are self-executing. You don’t need a law to execute a law! If you did, what would execute that law?

      Making stuff up isn’t a great defence of your own intellectual prowess is it. I’m perfectly entitled to say I think he is guilty, likewise you are perfectly entitles to think he is innocent no matter how deranged that may be. None of that relates to an opinion on due process.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 3:27 pm

        Oh, so you don’t believe in the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty.”? That’s interesting.

        AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 4:25 pm

        Fûck of BarkE.

        Go 💩 on someone else’s floor. I don’t argue with morons. I just insult them until they go away.

          Apparently my previous comment to you has been deleted. strange all I mentioned is that all your comments seem to revolve around poo.

          You don’t argue because you haven’t got anything of value to offer.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to BartE. | February 6, 2024 at 3:26 pm

    My honest opinion and answer to that question is “Probably after the Election in early 2025.” Right now they are in the battle of motions and counter motions, this can be drug on for years.

destroycommunism | February 6, 2024 at 1:53 pm

trump says fight to protect your voting rights and is trouble

lefty directlyyyy threatens scotus justices etc and supported

this country is more upside down then kayne west at a mensa convention

destroycommunism | February 6, 2024 at 1:56 pm

look back at hillary v barak in 2008

rules changed bribes exchanged america shortchanged

go ahead read up on it

look at the 2020 lefty takeover as they justified their steal as retaliation for the unfounded russian collusion of 2016

by any means necessary means just that!

Seems to me they still are either trying to convict Trump for a action while he was President or anyone questioning their crimes

An argument I haven’t seen bandied here is, wouldn’t removing immunity once you leave office be the next best thing to an ex post facto law? The point of the prohibition is that you can’t make something illegal that was legal when the person acted.

So, if a president is immune during their time in office, wouldn’t removing that immunity afterward be ex post facto.

Another thing that I think a lot of folks are not arguing, but are assuming in their responses, is whether or not the acts Trump took were “in furtherance of his duties.” If you believe the rhetoric of “interfering with the election” and just assume that means doing illegal things, then you obviously don’t believe those actions were in furtherance of his duties. Which argument would, I think, be the “legal nonsense” Bart accuses Trump of throwing at the courts. This is the question of fact at issue, to which the immunity question pertains – were they illegal acts from which immunity only protected him from prosecution, or were they legal acts (based on his position as President) from which he is immune to consequences by virtue of the office?

    dging in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 2:47 pm

    Well said, sir.

    GWB: The point of the prohibition is that you can’t make something illegal that was legal when the person acted.

    If the act was illegal, holding off on prosecution while the president remains in power wouldn’t make the action legal. If you have a rule that nothing the president does while in office can be held to be illegal, then there is no rule of law, only the rule of a dictator. There would be no restraint, and Congress and legislation and the law itself would be superfluous.

      mailman in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2024 at 4:08 pm

      Except there are no acts that were illigal here that Trump is supposed to have committed.

      Secondly the reason Presidents have had total immunity in the past is so you don’t get the politically motivated malicious prosecutions you are seeing today.

      Blanket immunity ensures that your political rivals cannot weaponise the State against their political enemy like they would in a 3rd world shit hole.

      Blanket immunity ensures Democrats cannot target their political enemies because they committed the heinous crime of hurting their bitch ass feelings 😂

      Again, this is incredibly dangerous territory that Democrats are treading.

        mailman: Except there are no acts that were illigal here that Trump is supposed to have committed.

        Probable cause of criminal acts has been established. In particular, it’s alleged that Trump willfully refused to provide documents to the government pursuant to court order, including documents marked classified and documents relating to the national defense.

        mailman: the reason Presidents have had total immunity

        That is clearly not the case; otherwise there would have been no reason to pardon Nixon, or for Clinton to accept a deal to avoid possible prosecution.

        mailman: Blanket immunity ensures that your political rivals cannot weaponise the State

        No. It’s due process that protects citizens from the prosecutorial power of the state. Otherwise, there would be no restraint on a president.

      Ironclaw in reply to Zachriel. | February 6, 2024 at 11:48 pm

      Your problem is that his act was speaking which is never illegal. Now fuck off retard

    stephenwinburn in reply to GWB. | February 6, 2024 at 3:21 pm

    This is my argument earlier in the comments. If he was protected as a President, he must be now. If he was not protected as the President, then he cannot be now. There is no legal escape from these facts.

    DaveGinOly in reply to GWB. | February 7, 2024 at 1:41 am

    Immunity for a sitting president would be superfluous. Any “immunity” a president has must be effective after he leaves office. A president can only be tried after voluntarily leaving office (say, at the end of his term) or by being impeached and removed from office. He doesn’t need immunity while in office because he can’t be prosecuted then.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2024 at 8:23 am

      That’s exactly the immunity that this decision says goes away when he leaves office. Which is obviously true. It doesn’t seem to address the immunity Trump is asserting, which is for official acts.

Ty Mary..As you said, no surprises. What amazes me is that some legal eagles still claim that judges are fair.. I just don’t see it any more….Looking at you Ron.

@Mary Chastain

“I also do not blame Justice Sotomayor for complaining about the workload thrown at SCOTUS. People are relying on them for everything.”

Agreed!!!! But the SC has a lot of culpability here. The SC is the only court that can get these rogue courts and judges under control. But it refuses to do so. There are a lot of federal judges that need to be removed from the court for their poor decisions and injecting politics into law.

    MarkS in reply to starride. | February 6, 2024 at 5:11 pm

    to which I propose a 3 strike rule for judges,..get any three opinions, or rulings overturned and you’re out!!!

      DaveGinOly in reply to MarkS. | February 7, 2024 at 1:54 am

      Something has to be done about them.

      “What else than ignorance of the law is it that excuses judges themselves for all their erroneous decisions? Nothing. They are every day committing errors, which would be crimes, but for their ignorance of the law. And yet these same judges, who claim to be learned in the law, and who yet could not hold their offices for a day, but for the allowance which the law makes for their ignorance, are continually asserting it to be a ‘maxim’ that ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one;’ (by which, of course, they really mean that it excuses no one but themselves; and especially that it excuses no unlearned man, who comes before them charged with crime.)”
      Lysander Spooner
      An Essay On The Trial By Jury, pg. 180-181

To me this easy for the SCOTUS. If the president committed a crime worthy of indictment, he should first be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. If that happens, he loses his official immunity. Otherwise, he should be removed immune.

The President, the Congress, and the Judiciary, are three Co-Equal branches of government. None is subordinate to another. Ultimately all are subordinate to the people. Therefore these questions and issues are political, to be settled by the people in elections.

Mike Flynn is delighted with the ruling, should it hold
Remember: He’s the next AG, so even if the party of satan wins this time, the battle will be lost, and like the Reid rule, they may have the buyers remorse….

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

It seems to me that, whether deliberately or out of genuine cluelessness, the court confused two very different kinds of immunity.

The court seems to be thinking of the idea, not explicitly found anywhere but reflected in DOJ policy, that a sitting president is absolutely immune from all criminal charges whatsoever. According to DOJ, a president could literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, to quote President Trump, and he could not be charged until after he’d left office. The court is obviously correct, and nobody would dispute, that this immunity, if it exists at all, disappears the moment he’s out of office. If Biden were to commit a crime like that, he could be charged at 12:01 PM on Jan-20-2025. And obviously if Trump had committed such a crime during his term, he can be charged with it now.

But that’s not the immunity Trump is claiming. Trump is claiming the absolute immunity that all officials have, for official acts. Smith agrees that this immunity exists, and lasts forever; after all, it’s all that protects him from being charged one day with malicious prosecution. The dispute is over what is an official act.

Trump is arguing for a broad interpretation of this term, while Smith is arguing for a narrow one that includes examining the official’s motive. He’s saying that even an act that could be official becomes private when it’s done for private reasons rather than official ones.

And Trump is saying no, so long as it’s something within his job description his motive doesn’t matter. So for instance, if he were to pardon someone because he’d been bribed to do so, he could be charged with accepting the bribe, which is not part of his job description, but not with issuing the pardon, which is.

But all that seems to have gone right past this court’s heads and through to the catcher. They don’t seem to have even considered the question before them, and instead gave the obvious answer to a question they were never asked.

    dging in reply to Milhouse. | February 7, 2024 at 8:39 am

    That’s a great point that no one is really talking about. And it seems to be on a similar vein, no one, including even Trump and his lawyers, are making much of the fact that Trump is not claiming absolute immunity. He is claiming immunity for official acts unless he’s convicted by the Senate. To me, that seems to be the key point. And it’s the key point EXACTLY to prevent the weaponization of the DOJ that we’re seeing in Trump’s case.

    Trump is facing five indictments, in five separate jurisdictions from four different government agencies at the same time. Has that ever happened to any other American citizen in our history? Dillinger, Capone, Gotti didn’t face this. Is Trump worse than these guys?

    And he’s facing them in a presidential election year where he is the far away front runner of the opposition party. And each of these indictments could have been brought two years earlier. But they weren’t. The prosecutors waited for the election year and waited until he was the clear front runner. Is there any clearer example of political motivation, not motivation base on justice and equal protection under the law.

    Why isn’t Trump and his lawyers making more of these points? I wonder.

      Milhouse in reply to dging. | February 7, 2024 at 9:25 pm

      Trump is not claiming absolute immunity. He is claiming immunity for official acts unless he’s convicted by the Senate.

      Immunity for official acts is absolute immunity. As opposed to qualified immunity. And as far as I know it doesn’t depend on the senate; even if he were convicted by the senate, if it was an official act he could not be tried for it. The last clause of Art. I § 3 merely means that the senate trial doesn’t invoke double jeopardy, because it’s not a criminal proceeding and doesn’t put him in jeopardy. Immunity for official acts didn’t exist in 1788; now that the courts have invented it, that clause applies only to private acts, whether committed in office or before he took office.

      Which leaves the question of what is an official act, and that’s what this case is about.

      Why isn’t Trump and his lawyers making more of these points? I wonder.

      Probably because those are not legal arguments. Politically they’re highly relevant, but legally they’re not.

    milhouse: Trump is arguing for a broad interpretation of this term, while Smith is arguing for a narrow one that includes examining the official’s motive.

    That is not correct. Trump’s argument is that presidential immunity includes conduct that breaks federal law. Whether he broke federal law is an issue for the trial court. As an instance, Trump’s attorneys argued that a President Trump could order Seal Team Six to assassinate political opponents, and he couldn’t be held to account unless impeached and convicted by the Senate. Can’t imagine the weakness of that constitutional interpretation.

      starride in reply to Zachriel. | February 7, 2024 at 9:32 pm

      No he did not… the judge asked that question with the intent to try and pur absurdity into the discussion. Trump’s lawyer really didn’t know what to say. What trumps lawyer should have done is respond with the same level of absurdity and said “I don’t know, let’s ask President Obama”

        Milhouse in reply to starride. | February 8, 2024 at 12:42 am

        0bama did not order a hit on a political opponent. Nor did Trump ever contemplate doing so. Both Trump and 0bama, as well as every other president, ordered US forces to kill the enemy’s forces, which is what war is all about. Fighting the USA’s wars is a president’s most important job.

      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 7, 2024 at 9:45 pm

      It is correct. Smith’s case rests entirely on a tendentious inquiry into Trump’s motives. Smith claims that an act that would be official, and therefore immune, when done for the right motive, can turn into a private act and therefore not immune and criminal, when done for the wrong one. Trump claims that entire inquiry is illegitimate. So long as the act is within the scope of his powers it’s an official act, and his motive is irrelevant.

      Ordering SEALs to carry out a hit is clearly within the scope of the president’s powers; therefore, as the judge said, it’s an official act. This was in the context of Trump’s claim that the Impeachment clause bars prosecution unless he’s first been impeached and convicted, but does allow it in that instance, so his lawyer claimed that yes, he would be immune until Congress removed the immunity by impeaching and convicting him, which it would surely do.

      I don’t buy that entire claim; I would answer the judge’s question by saying that “ordering a hit” is not an official act, the official act is ordering a hit on an enemy of the united states, so it would depend whether the target was indeed an enemy. If he was, then it’s plausible that he is immune even if his motive was to take out an opponent. If he wasn’t, though, then the order was not an official act and is not immune.

    BartE in reply to Milhouse. | February 8, 2024 at 6:16 am

    Milhouse,

    You do realise that absolute immunity is what had been claimed by Trump? Id refer you to the hypotheticals posed in the appeal hearing. There were multiple arguments put forward including the notion that a President would have to be impeached first before becoming ‘liable’ for criminal prosecution.

I hope some DA somewhere quickly gets a Grand Jury Indictment of President Obama for something he did in office, so the Supreme Court will decide to waste no time in overruling the DC Court of Appeals ruling.

These timelines are ridiculous. I’ve had several cases before SCOTUS and kno the first Tuesday of October. w this is unrealistic. Add to that factor is the certainty that among the justices there are several who may delay any decision until after the election. As expected the Court of Appeals ruled against Trump. The next move will be to petition for an en banc hearing by the entire court. This will take another 6 weeks to decide. That brings us to the middle of March. Then, there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is likely to be granted, and that will take another 6 months bringing the case to September. SCOTUS is onvacation from August throughThen, if SCOTUS does not rule in Trump’s favor, which I feel is unlikely given the fact that a criminal case has a much higher standard of proof than a civil case, sitting Presidents are immune from civil actions. The justices will find a distinction between the exaggerated claims that immunity will allow a sitting president to murder his rivals and the facts in this laughable case, it will take at least 90 days to prepare for trial which brings us to December or January 2025, at which time Trump will simply pardon himself and using the precedent of the court of appeals begin indicting Obama and Biden for the very serious crimes and criminal conspiracies they have committed.