DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

[susano]

THREAD: Trump indictment #3: 2020 election & January 6th [US / federal]

---

An appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump does not have immunity in a case related to the 2020 presidential election.

'Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution,' the three-judge panel ruled unanimously, striking a blow for prosecutor Jack Smith.

His case accuses Trump of using false claims of voter fraud to pressure lawmakers, Justice Department officials and then-Vice President Mike Pence to prevent certification of Joe Biden's election victory.

It is the second time in as many months that judges have rejected Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took during his time in office and during the run up to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...onald-Trump-immunity-2020-court-election.html

 

[69360]

I think if this is appealed to scotus, Trump could potentially win based on the past decisions and current makeup of scotus. Probably with some sort of limited scope though. Scotus has to consider that they can't make a future president have immunity for any action they took. I feel like Trump may get a pass on the Jan 6th case, but not the documents case or Georgia case. Who knows at this point?

 

[spudea]

Just look at the photo of the 3 judges, and you understand what happened with their ruling. And 2 were appointed by Biden. Either way doesn't matter to me, if no immunity, where is the prosecution for Obama's extrajudicial killings of American citizens. Oh, he probably left no family members alive to complain and lodge a case against him. Every former president is a war criminal, where is their prosecution? The argument for immunity would be government stability over selective prosecution depending on which party remains in power.

 

[TheCount]

That fact that some Americans believe that the founding fathers intended for presidents to be literally above the law is a sign of the horrible state of education in this country.

 

[familydog]

That fact that some Americans believe that the founding fathers intended for presidents to be literally above the law is a sign of the horrible state of education in this country.

We are so beyond what the Founders intended it's practically irrelevant to even discuss their motivations and desires.

 

[PAF]

We are so beyond what the Founders intended it's practically irrelevant to even discuss their motivations and desires.

“Founders”… the Federalists who ratified a central constitution, or the Anti Federalists who rightly warned against it?

 

[familydog]

“Founders”… the Federalists who ratified a central constitution, or the Anti Federalists who rightly warned against it?

Both groups can reasonably be labelled as Founders.

 

[CaptUSA]

That fact that some Americans believe that the founding fathers intended for presidents to be literally above the law is a sign of the horrible state of education in this country.

Uh... no. That's not what's going on at all. In fact, this is a sign of YOUR horrible education.

Just like you have to file charges prior to arresting or trying someone, there is a process in place for going after a President. It's called impeachment. That is the remedy for a President to be tried for high crimes or misdemeanors. Agree with it or not, the Founders anticipated that a President could commit crimes while in office and established a process to prosecute them. You're trying to rewrite that as "being above the law" is just idiotic.

I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but I'm also aware of the political witch hunts happening... Perhaps our Founders were wise enough to prepare for that as well.

 

[CaptUSA]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now??? Or is this exclusive for the orange man?

 

[WarriorLiberty]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now??? Or is this exclusive for the orange man?

Isn't it amazing how MSM are quiet on the Clinton and Epstein leaks?

Or how far the Media are protecting Hunter Biden despite the leaked images of Hunter Biden doing things that are illegal for president/PM family to do?


If this were Trump on those images/documents the media wont be stopping talking about this for years.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

That fact that some Americans believe that the founding fathers intended for presidents to be literally above the law is a sign of the horrible state of education in this country.

While you have Biden acting above the law currently with the air strikes in Iraq and Syria currently believing and thinking as if America owns the middle east.

 

[oyarde]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now??? Or is this exclusive for the orange man?

i certainly see no reason Ngo's helping people come into country illegally or Epstein's clients shouldn't be gone after.

 

[69360]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now??? Or is this exclusive for the orange man?

I think that is what will make life difficult for scotus if this case makes it to them. They would have to bail Trump out of his legal problems with a narrow enough scope that future President can't just have immumity for anything.

 

[Invisible Man]

Uh... no. That's not what's going on at all. In fact, this is a sign of YOUR horrible education.

Just like you have to file charges prior to arresting or trying someone, there is a process in place for going after a President. It's called impeachment. That is the remedy for a President to be tried for high crimes or misdemeanors. Agree with it or not, the Founders anticipated that a President could commit crimes while in office and established a process to prosecute them. You're trying to rewrite that as "being above the law" is just idiotic.

I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but I'm also aware of the political witch hunts happening... Perhaps our Founders were wise enough to prepare for that as well.

Are you saying that inclusion of a process of impeachment in the Constitution means that the person convicted of an impeachment shall not be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law?

 

[Invisible Man]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now???

I don't see why not.

 

[susano]

Uh... no. That's not what's going on at all. In fact, this is a sign of YOUR horrible education.

Just like you have to file charges prior to arresting or trying someone, there is a process in place for going after a President. It's called impeachment. That is the remedy for a President to be tried for high crimes or misdemeanors. Agree with it or not, the Founders anticipated that a President could commit crimes while in office and established a process to prosecute them. You're trying to rewrite that as "being above the law" is just idiotic.

I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but I'm also aware of the political witch hunts happening... Perhaps our Founders were wise enough to prepare for that as well.

I've never liked the claim of immunity (for anyone) and, in Trump's case, I find it a weak defense in that I don't believe he's guilty of any crimes, at all (just stupidity and saying dumb stuff). Being innocent seems the more important thing to focus on.

When any politician is guilty of a crime I don't think impeachment suffices because it doesn't carry a penalty other getting kicked out of office and I don't think I've ever read any founder's reasoning behind immunity. I understand that, in the political arena, impeachment or prosecution carries the risk (almost guarantee) that it has political motivations but don't see how that effects the accused committing crimes.

 

[Mordan]

I've never liked the claim of immunity (for anyone) and, in Trump's case, I find it a weak defense in that I don't believe he's guilty of any crimes, at all (just stupidity and saying dumb stuff). Being innocent seems the more important thing to focus on.

What would you do if the whole deep state was out to destroy you? I think the strategy is sound. Also its an interesting debate to have. Because it can open a nice can of worms.

PS: TDS Sufferers.. can you see why Trump is a good choice. He makes things go forwards in god's ways. He brings out the evilness of the democrats who are now far far away from their supposed democratic values.

 

[acptulsa]

PS: TDS Sufferers.. can you see why Trump is a good choice. He makes things go forwards in god's ways. He brings out the evilness of the democrats who are now far far away from their supposed democratic values.

He's nearly as good as Dubya as doing the exact same thing for the Republicans, who aren't one whit closer to theirs.

 

[TheCount]

While you have Biden acting above the law currently with the air strikes in Iraq and Syria currently believing and thinking as if America owns the middle east.

I know, it's incredible isn't it. Thank goodness Trump never conducted strikes in Iraq and Syria.

 

[Anti Globalist]

I suppose we can go after Clinton, Bush and Obama for their crimes now??? Or is this exclusive for the orange man?

Nope. Trump will unfortunately be the only exception.