m-p{3}Federal appeals court rules Trump doesn't have broad immunity from prosecution
kescusayThere was never a possibility it would rule any other way. Now we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.
aseriesoftubesNow we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.
I believe he can request an en banc hearing, which he definitely will, because it will delay the proceedings further.
Hopefully, the court will deny the request with prejudice. It’s such a goddamn dumb argument.
He can request it, but the good thing about those is the appeals court can deny the request. He can appeal to the Supreme Court and they could either deny it or take it up to smack down the argument. If they side with his argument the country is over (along with all of the court’s own power) as they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.
Jaysynthey would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.
And then Dark Brandon activates Seal Team Six for elephant hunting season.
RanvierThe three judge panel anticipated that these arguments are primarily delay tactics. They have said in the decision they will stay their ruling only for an appeal accepted directly to the supreme court. If he appeals to the en banc panel first, then the trial can go ahead while that appeal plays out, so it can’t be used as a delay tactic. Only the Supreme Court can delay it further now.
I assume that certain elements on the Supreme Court will attempt to delay it (Thomas, Alito, and probably Gorsuch, I’m looking at you). How much can they realistically delay the trial?
IIRC it takes 4 of them to agree to take up a case. If they did they could decide to fast track it which who knows how much that would delay the trial. Weeks or a couple months.
If they tried to put it on their regular schedule who knows when you’d even have a ruling as the court typically goes into recess at the end of June and doesn’t come back until October.
if 4 of them decide to take the appeal, I suspect the other 5 would make it an expedited schedule to not delay the trial even more.
also keep in mind, this thursday scotus is hearing the colorado 14th amendment case and the deadline for this appeal is monday. I really don’t think scotus is going to destroy the little credibility they have with the 14th amendment case and then completely end their relevance by taking this appeal since the only logical reason they would take the appeal would be to overturn the decision.
They could potentially accept an appeal and wait to hear it until next Fall and then not rule on it until after the election, if they’re so inclined, unfortunately. That would mean if Trump was elected he could try and nullify it by self pardoning or ordering his attorney general to drop the charges (not supposed to do that, but it hasn’t stopped Trump from trying to directly order around his attorney general before).
The supreme court could choose to hear it quicker, or they could just deny the appeal outright without hearing the case. Though all it takes is four justices want to hear it for the appeal to be accepted.
First of all nobody should accept a self-pardon as legitimate.
But beyond that, the 14A says how someone can regain their eligibility to hold office, and a pardon isn’t listed as an option. If anything, accepting a pardon would cement his ineligibility because it’s an admission of guilt.
Oh I’m not saying to accept it, I think it’s totally illegitimate. I’m just saying what I think he will do. More likely he appoints some stooge as attorney general who orders the charges be dropped though.
TropicalDingdongAh yes. History is inevitable.
Except that its not and they absolutely could have ruled some other way.
Nothing is guaranteed.
agent_flounderI didn’t share your faith in the outcome. But I’m glad they ruled as they should.
nkat2112A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that Donald Trump does not enjoy broad immunity from federal prosecution, a major legal setback for the former president who almost certainly will appeal.
The ruling comes a month after lawyers for Trump argued made sweeping claims that he enjoyed immunity from federal prosecution, claims that lawyers for the special counsel said would “undermine democracy” and give presidents license to commit crimes while in the White House, such as accepting bribes for directing government contracts or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.
That’s quite a beating, President Drink Bleach was administered. The article is with the read. The judges gave excellent examples of why presidents shouldn’t, you know, be criminals.
He’ll appeal as much as he can. But I cannot see him succeeding beyond delaying.
Delay is success.
What the hell is the argument for immunity? Even if presidents can’t be charged for doing their job, stealing an election and walking away with nuclear secrets is not part of the job.
BlackbeardWhat the hell is the argument for immunity?
It’s the well-established “throw shit at wall, hope it sticks” principle of legal argumentation.
ALQI started typing a joke comment about how the “term of art” was “kitchen sink defense,” but then I remembered that it actually is a bit of a term of art.
I trolled myself and am not sure how to feel about this.
theprogressivist The argument is that it’s hurting Trump’s feelings and that’s why he should be able to do whatever he wants without question.
LillyPipThe argument is that~~ it’s hurting Trump’s feelings~~ might keep him out of federal prison and that’s why he should be able to do whatever he wants without question.
Fixed the stakes for you.
cedarmesaPffft. As if we havent all unleashed a violent mob to murder congress.
It was a somewhat successful delay tactic.
The argument is that Trump gave all these judges some really cushy lifetime jobs, and he thought they would deliver some payback.
The argument was that it successfully delayed the many cases against him.
The dumbass interpretation of “Separation of powers” means that the judiciary doesn’t have jurisdiction over any executive branch official, for anything, ever. Corollaries being that congress can’t pass laws that apply to judges, and the Department of Justice can’t investigate Congresspeople. Instead of checks-and-balances, they want independent kingdoms.
I need you to be conscious of the fact that the people floating this argument know that it’s bullshit. They’d never accept the idea that Joe Biden can’t be bound by laws passed by Congress or rulings made by the judiciary, even though that’s exactly what they’re arguing. It’s just that the DoJ is saying “Trump broke the law and needs to be punished like anyone else would” and even the GOP doesn’t think they can convince us that the things we all watched happen on TV didn’t happen. They tried floating the idea that Jan 6 wasn’t actually an attempt to stop Joe Biden taking power and it didn’t stick. They tried saying that Trump didn’t incite it, but he clearly and obviously did right in front of us. Now they’re trying “okay, it happened and Trump incited it but it’s not illegal” but realistically they just need to be able to say something, even if they’re bullshitting, we know they’re bullshitting, and they know we know they’re bullshitting, because we can prove it to be false but there’s no way to prove that they don’t believe it. The card says “moops”, and that gives them enough cover to delay, obstruct, exhaust every avenue of appeal and generally keep the ball in the air as long as they can and hope for a miracle. The most likely miracle being that Trump wins the election, gets to be president and pardon himself of everything, thus rendering this all moot until his attempts to pardon himself get to the Supreme Court that he paid for. They will then rule that the Constitution doesn’t say he can’t declare himself above the law and the US will have a permanent one-party government.
The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops
Auf YouTube findest du großartige Videos und erstklassige Musik. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder mit der ganzen Welt teilen.
They’re also likely even just OK with keeping the ball up until after the primaries, when they can make a NEW argument about prosecuting a presidential candidate, about how it’s tantamount to creating a one-party state or something.
reality of the month club. whatever they need to be true, that will be the truth for as long as it serves their ends. when it’s no longer useful to them, it will be discarded and the complete opposite will become the truth.
The tactic is to delay the inevitable in hopes that he can lead another, better coup attempt later, install himself as president for life and then pardon himself for all crimes, past and future
the argument is the fucking moron’s understanding of the president (that the president can do whatever whenever and no one can do anything about it). I had that same understanding of the president up until maybe the 2nd grade.
and that’s the point of how batshit bonkers this theory was. 77 year old trump was forcing his lawyers (because I cannot in good conscience believe that lawyers who have not committed sanctionable offenses actually believe this) to advance a theory about the office of the presidency that your average 10 year old could easily dismiss (just noting I wasn’t 10 in the 2nd grade but I was in the smart kid classes, so I’m giving average kids another 2 years).
the really over the top stupid side point of this argument is that the republican party is trying to impeach the current president for actions they say he made during(? after? do they even know?) the time he was vice president and none of them, the elected ones at least, are saying anything about trump which shows how ethereal at best that argument is.
Heresy_generatorA quick reading of the decision seems like it's very thorough and hits every point. This may be good enough that the Supreme Court doesn't even take it up.
About damn time.
Interesting they used Nixon as precedent.
Riccosuave^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.
Except:
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.
Also:
In relevant part, the district court rejected Trump’s claim of executive immunity from criminal prosecution, holding that “[f]ormer Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.” United States v. Trump, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.
Finally…
as the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained:
No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.
Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.
That’s all well and good but he’s being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president
And, as the ruling states, the president isn’t immune to all prosecution.
According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I’d like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president
Read the ruling. It discussed this.
He’s being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn’t part of his official duties as President.
The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president…I’d like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn’t operate on common sense
So, you’re saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?
No, I’m saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump’s situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?
Greatest works of poetry of all time:
-
William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’
-
T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’
-
Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’
-
Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’
-
US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump
Thanks!
Who might analyze this at length, any YouTubers or podcasters? I’m thinking Leonard French or The Weeds…
medgremlinLegal Eagle has been doing some good commentary videos on the slew of Trump legal stuff.
Ah nice, thanks.
Flying SquidHey everybody! Guess what it’s time for?
I seriously need to save this image so I don’t have to download it each time.
LOL did you scrub the episode and get a new frame this time?
No, and oh ffs I just realized he’s not actually playing in this one.
That image shows up as a lemmy.world URL for me. Does Lemmy cache images somehow?
I would love to have Lemmy host a copy of a Biden “I Did That!” Sticker for every time we hear about the economy doing better.
Yes, it caches them. I should probably just save that URL. I’m lazy.
littleblue✨But, then you’ll have saved that image. 🥹
What you say is rational and is something I should do. And yet…
(Actually, I just bookmarked it.)
They mean if you’ve downloaded it, it’s already saved.