Posted on 02/06/2024 7:16:19 AM PST by CFW
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s broad claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged criminal acts he committed as president in trying to overturn the 2020 election in a chain of events that led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Trump will almost certainly appeal immediately to the Supreme Court in a bid to prevent the trial from going ahead as scheduled in March. The Supreme Court could make a quick decision on whether to hear the case and could fast-track any ruling.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that there was no basis for Trump to assert that former presidents have blanket immunity from prosecution for any acts committed as president.
The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces even as he remains the presumptive front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Shipwreckedcrew also chimed in. Conflicting citations in the DC court’s own opinion.
Was this ruling faster than expected and whet might we expect the next moves to be here?
Expert opinions?
Thoughts?
Would be a waste effort to try and overturn en bank when only 4 of the 11 judges were appointed by a Republican and the one appointed by Bush was on the original panel. That being said if the strategy is to stretch out the litigation so the Supreme Court opinion will be later, ok. But I think the faster the Supremes can dispose of the persecution of these nonsense cases the better.
No person is above the law. Presidents merely get a stay on civil and criminal prosecutions.
—
Presidents get Impeachment, Conviction, and Removal in office. Out of office they should be immune.
Else no one will run for President ever again, since someone somewhere will charge them with some crime while in office.
This also opens the door for the World Court to step in and extradite a former President for some crime. Some President; Some Senator; Some ordinary citizen; Any One can be found guilty of some law existing or retroactive.
Yes, it's all about stalling. Which is pretty indicative of how Trump thinks both the Supreme Court will rule and what the verdict of the trial will be, otherwise he would not have made this immunity claim to begin with nor been opposed to Jack Smith asking for a speedy Supreme Court expediated ruling.
Thanks.
This did not happen. Trump was impeached once. The party of evil is not playing by the rules.
Nixon was afforded a full pardon for the coming witch hunt which would have torn the country apart.
If the President, while he is a sitting president or during that time, doesn't have full immunity why not just charge him at the time? Impeachment and trial would be relegated to a mere formality if the president were to be acquitted and the charged anyway even though found innocent by his peers.
Correct
Presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. That immunity is kept in check by the Impeachment process. If they survive the Impeachment process their immunity is intact.
Good, so that means obamas, clintons, and joe and the Bushes can be prosecuted too
“Roberts overlooked the core of 0bamaCare. “
Didn’t Roberts once say that he wants voters rather than the Supreme Court deciding elections?
…The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia …
The court that Hussein and Dingy Harry packed with parasites.
It did, but it was also to protect him from future prosecution for "all offenses against the United States" that may have been committed during his Presidency.
They were not lying. Most of them went to Syria and probably Turkey.
Bush Sr? As one who lived through his lousy tenure, like I said, all Democrats.
You betcha.
I think Trump and his lawyers expected the court to decide against him WRT immunity. The immunity motion served to delay the Chutkan case. However, SCOTUS seems to have doubts about Jack Smith’s crazy “obstruction” theories, and that may be a problem for both Smith and Chutkan.
Doesn’t the The U.S. Supreme Court hear every case en banc?
Quote: Doesn’t the The U.S. Supreme Court hear every case en banc?
Yes, but before appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump could ask the DC Circuit to hear the case en banc.
As long as they are playing creative hard ball, I support it.
We live in trying times, and everything seems very complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.