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

[susano]

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.

I do understand that the attorneys need to use everything they can for their client, Trump. That includes exploring the possibility of immunity. I would, too. Nevertheless, every charge against Trump is bogus.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

Amazing how GW Bush lied to the world in front of the UN and lied all about Saddam being a threat.
No one in the Bush family is being arrested or threaten with a suit.


Justice System is broken...

 

[susano]

Amazing how GW Bush lied to the world in front of the UN and lied all about Saddam being a threat.
No one in the Bush family is being arrested or threaten with a suit.


Justice System is broken...

I remember when he spoke to UN and was followed by Hugo Chavez who said he could still smell the sulphur from Bush being up there.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Trump J6 case REMOVED from DC court docket
The case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith and presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan, currently has motions pending that are on appeal.
https://thepostmillennial.com/just-in-trump-dc-election-interference-case-removed-from-court-docket
{The Post Millennial | 01 February 2024}

The J6 case against Donald Trump has been dropped from the court's public calendar in Washington, DC. The case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith and presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan, currently has motions pending that are on appeal.

"Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal," the Washington Post reports.

The motion currently on appeal is one brought by Trump's attorneys stating that he has presidential immunity from the charges as he was still in office at the time the alleged offenses occurred. Trump brought the motion to Chutkan, who denied it, and Trump then appealed.

Smith took the motion to the Supreme Court and asked them to rule on it quickly, but the court declined to do so, leaving the matter for the lower court to decide. This process has caused a delay of the trial that Smith wanted to ram through the court system as quickly as possible.

Chutkan had said that trial deadlines would be suspended as the motion brought by Trump moves through the appeals court. President Joe Biden's Department of Justice has accused Trump of staging the J6 riot, which happened while Trump was still in office.

Trump faces a RICO case in Georgia brought by Fulton County DA Fani Willis [see this thread - OB], who is now facing her own crisis after it was revealed that she hired a man to work on the prosecutorial team with whom she was having an affair. Willis has been subpoenaed by one of the 18-codefendants in the case, Michael Roman.

The case brought by Manhattan DC Alvin Bragg [see this thread - OB] will likely move forward this spring. Trump is accused of having recorded payments made to his attorneys as legal fees in his bookkeeping records, though Bragg claims the funds in question were intended as "hush money" to a porn star with whom Trump allegedly had a dalliance. Bragg has claimed that these misdemeanor charges are actually felonies, though he has not revealed what felony he believes these suspected misdemeanors were in service too. A pretrial hearing is on February 15.

In a Florida federal court, Trump faces charges of hanging onto classified documents after leaving office [see this thread - OB]. That case is tied up as the Biden attorneys sort out how to view the classified documents in question. Trump has said that under the Presidential Records Act he had the right to designate which documents he would retain for personal use.

"Chutkan also has acknowledged that Trump’s March trial was off. On Jan. 24, for example, Chutkan scheduled a new trial for April 2, when Trump’s projected six- to eight-week trial would have been ongoing. On Wednesday, Chutkan set a March 18 hearing for another defendant, saying, 'I suspect in March I will not be in trial,'" the Post reported.

//

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

The ones being bombed don't have standing to sue because they aren't Americans.

Americans don't have standing to sue because they aren't the ones being bombed.

(Pretty sweet how that works out, ain't it?)

 

[Occam's Banana]

MOD NOTE: I've moved all the posts about immigration/invasion/etc. to the "Invasion USA" thread. They made up just over half the thread, but they weren't germane to the issue of Presidential "immunity" as presented in the OP.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

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

From another thread:

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

Torturing prisoners (Bush) ... drone-assassinating American citizens (Obama) ... bombing countries without Congressional approval (Biden) ...

Where could this "legal theory that a president [is] free to do nearly anything with impunity" possibly have come from?

It's such a baffling mystery!

Despite all the squawking of the clowns in the OP article, Trump is nothing special in this regard.

They're all "Tricky Dick" now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk

https://twitter.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1747952069397577821

https://twitter.com/KenGardner11/status/1748156117882917241

Well, why shouldn't he think it?

After all, previous presidents have effectively enjoyed "total immunity" for their crimes.

Trump is nothing special in this regard. (At worst, he's just more crudely open and blunt about it.)

"What can possibly go wrong?" Too late - it's already gone wrong (and you did not object, because it suited your desire).

Trump is just another iteration of what all you complacent assholes previously tolerated (or even encouraged).

IOW: Reality is a thing - and causes will have their effects.

IOOW: What is reaped is what was sown - and as rotten as it may be, one way or another, the fruit of that labor will be eaten.

IOOOW: Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1748037134190313827
& https://twitter.com/pangyre/status/1748128562245218762

 

[CaptUSA]

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?

What? No. Not at all. Just that impeachment is the first step.

If we're going to make an exception for the orange man, then let's go after the rest of 'em, too.

 

[acptulsa]

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.

Immunity protects voters from having the representatives they elected removed and prevented from voting by whatever random, scurrilous charges anyone cares to toss out there. Want to get your bill passed? Press phony charges against members of the opposition, then drop them after the vote.

Impeachment is the process the body uses to deprive actual criminals of that position and that immunity, so the law can proceed against them. Immunity does not cover ex-office holders. The Court was right about that.

This is just Trump channeling Nixon. It doesn't mean a damned thing to anyone but his cultists.

 

[Invisible Man]

What? No. Not at all. Just that impeachment is the first step.

No. For criminal trials, indictment is the first step. Impeachment and criminal indictment are two independent things.

If we're going to make an exception for the orange man, then let's go after the rest of 'em, too.

There's no rule there that requires an exception for anybody. Yes, let's go after all of them.

 

[acptulsa]

No. For criminal trials, indictment is the first step.

Just stop. If they're in elected office, indictment is prohibited. Therefore, in those particular cases, impeachment is a necessary step, and necessarily the first step.

 

[Invisible Man]

Just stop. If they're in elected office, indictment is prohibited.

1. Is that in the Constitution?
2. This isn't just about people currently in elected office, but also after they leave office.

 

[acptulsa]

1. Is that in the Constitution?
2. This isn't just about people currently in elected office, but also after they leave office.

Try reading it once. You'll need go no farther than Article One, Section Three to answer these questions.

 

[Invisible Man]

Try reading it once. You'll need go no farther than Article One, Section Three to answer these questions.

Done. Still can't find it. Can you?

 

[acptulsa]

1. Is that in the Constitution?
2. This isn't just about people currently in elected office, but also after they leave office.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Done. Still can't find it. Can you?

Why are you wasting my time? No one can help you when you get like this.

 

[Invisible Man]

Why are you wasting my time? No one can help you when you get like this.

You just quoted the same thing I quoted before.

And it doesn't say anything remotely like what you said.

 

[Invisible Man]

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

acptulsa and CaptUSA, is the above the basis for what both of you were saying? Or is there something more?

Because if that's it, I don't see it. There is nothing there that makes lack of impeachment a reason that someone either in office or who has formerly held office can't be indicted for a crime.

 

[acptulsa]

acptulsa and CaptUSA, is the above the basis for what both of you were saying? Or is there something more?

Because if that's it, I don't see it. There is nothing there that makes lack of impeachment a reason that someone either in office or who has formerly held office can't be indicted for a crime.

Admitting that the indicated section really is relevant is always a nice bone when you get around to begging people to play your semantic games. But why do you always poison the bait by pretending we said something else and that you disagree with us because you agree with what we said?

I told you, it's not my day to play semantic games with you.

 

[CaptUSA]

acptulsa and CaptUSA, is the above the basis for what both of you were saying? Or is there something more?

Because if that's it, I don't see it. There is nothing there that makes lack of impeachment a reason that someone either in office or who has formerly held office can't be indicted for a crime.

Kinda - It's been a long-standing principle (starting with Justice Story in the 1800's, I believe) that a President cannot be subject to arrest while performing the duties of his office. That's why an impeachment is necessary prior to indictment. This came up in Spiro Agnew's case in the 70's when it was ruled that this privilege didn't confer to the Vice President. It's been Justice Department precedent for a long time. This has even been the precedent for once a President leaves office if the action was taken during his official term.

Now, we can debate whether or not that precedent should stand. And we can rejoice that now the door has been opened. But what we cannot say is what the Count was saying that the President is "above the law". It's just that there's a process that has historically been followed.

 

[Invisible Man]

Admitting that the indicated section really is relevant is always a nice bone when you get around to begging people to play your semantic games. But why do you always poison the bait by pretending we said something else and that you disagree with us because you agree with what we said?

I told you, it's not my day to play semantic games with you.

I don't see any semantic games on my part. You made an assertion, and then when pushed to support it, you quoted a part of the Constitution that doesn't support your claim.

So, is it fair to say that after all your bluster and talking down to me like an idiot, in fact you are not aware of anything the Constitution says that supports your assertions?

When you sat there pretending to know what you were talking about, was that all a lie?