Trump's sweeping immunity claim rejected by US appeals court

Reuters ^ | February 6, 2024 | Andrew Goudsward

[Dr. Franklin]

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Donald Trump does not have immunity from charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, bringing the former U.S. president a step closer to an unprecedented criminal trial. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted because the allegations relate to his official responsibilities as president.

"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the unanimous panel wrote. The court concluded that any executive immunity that may have shielded Trump from criminal charges while he served as president "no longer protects him against this prosecution." The ruling, which Trump vowed to appeal, rebuffs his attempt to avoid a trial on charges that he undermined American democracy and the transfer of power, even as he consolidates his position as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

[Dr. Franklin]

Trump’s mistake on this point was that he didn’t understand that the RINO-Democrat coalition were intending to prosecute him after he left office.

What Trump could have done differently in the face of a rigged election and the complicity of both parties to do nothing about it, will be debated in the future. IMHO, once he did nothing and allowed the Congress to meet with illegitimate members seated, his options were limited to the judiciary and the state legislatures for the presidential electors. As I've noted before, Trump is the lawyer-up-and -litigate type, not a Pinochet or Pilsudski type to rule by force of arms. Guiliani told him that if he invoked Oboma's executive orders about hacked elections, they all would go to jail. So Trump shut down Sidney Powell's appointment as Special Prosecutor and recount by DHS or US Marshalls. Now he is being prosecuted for not doing that. I good argument can be made that he had a constitutional obligation to fight the Big Steal.

[TheCipher]

Trump should immediately release that he will indict Bush and Cheney for the Iraq war since there is no immunity.

And Obama for capital murder for the killing of US citizens in a drone strike

[vivenne]

Yes, they do.

[Dr. Franklin]

Correct. He committed NO crimes and these malicious prosecutions are purely political. The idea of trying to remove him from a ballot over charges not even adjudicated is ridiculous.

The problem is that courts rarely, almost never, shut down malicious prosecutions before a verdict. On the civil side of the court, judges throw cases out all the time, but they tend not to do that in criminal cases. When the prosecutor knows the judge is in on the prosecutor's game, nothing happens. The simple fact is that all of this is being done to influence the election and paint Trump in a bad light, and force him to spend millions on frivolous lawsuits that he engaged in "insurrection" by challenging the obvious fraud.

[Dr. Franklin]

A punt. Nobody will touch it.

This court can rehear the case en banc or SCOTUS could take the case. It's the kind of high profile policy case that SCOTUS likes to hear, which would set a precedent for the future, so that is possible.

[CommerceComet]

Both of them conceded. They just weren’t thrilled about it. Trump never conceded.

What difference does that make? No one is obligated legally or morally to concede an election.

[Firehath]

Kangaroo court

Vigilantes - thugs - nazis

Mobocrats

Gog rat usa

Magog rat nato

Rev 13

[Dr. Franklin]

Do Federal judges have immunity from prosecution when they carry out their duties? I am not talking about committing criminal acts.

Federal judges have no immunity for crimes, but it is extremely rare that they get prosecuted for anything. When they get in trouble, it is usually for something egregious like bribery. Yet, they have civil immunity. So, a judge could take a bribe, but be immune from civil liability for damages caused. However, if convicted of that crime, the judge could be ordered to make restitution. Judges usually don't find serious fault with other judges, even when they do outrageous things.

[logi_cal869]

Ok.

Effective immediately, qualified immunity of public officials is out the window, replaced with that analogous to j6 witch hunts:

Extrajudicial punishment.

[logi_cal869]

See #49.

[logi_cal869]

And 9/11.

[ronnie raygun]

They will stop at nothing

[nonliberal]

I’d even go so far as to find something to wheel Carter’s decrepit ass in front of a judge for.

[nonliberal]

Trump could put out on Truth that he was looking into his ability to strip immunity from judges, opening them up to criminal prosecution for their decisions.

[Dr. Franklin]

Trump could put out on Truth that he was looking into his ability to strip immunity from judges, opening them up to criminal prosecution for their decisions.

That would require new legislation. It would be less controversial to pass a new law limiting the immunity of prosecutors to bring charges contrary to precedent since prosecutorial immunity is relatively new.

[1Old Pro]

I think the idea is there is immunity from charges relating to your official duties. Trump was arguing that fighting election fraud related to his official duties.

Indeed, insuring an election is properly run is part of official duties.