Posted on 01/09/2024 10:52:10 AM PST by Red Badger
WASHINGTON (AP) — With Donald Trump listening intently in the courtroom, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trump's appeal could be dismissed.
During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump's lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office.
“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law," said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush.
The outcome could carry enormous ramifications both for the landmark criminal case against Trump and for the broader, and legally untested, question of whether an ex-president can be prosecuted for actions taken in the White House. It will also likely set the stage for further appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month declined a request to weigh in but could still get involved later.
A swift decision is crucial for special counsel Jack Smith and his team, who are eager to get the case — now paused pending the appeal — to trial before the November election.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Note the number of authors a sure sign it is a hit piece.
Elected Federal officials are subject to the impeachment of the senate, very little to do with the chief executive in state court when the phone call is about the conduct of a controversial election the courts already deceived to stay hands off of until it was over. For all the noise, the Federal Governments Excusive Branch was Trump until inauguration day. If that was going to be changed that was up to the senate....the senate did nothing and has no officials comment with 60+ votes since.
And the REAL CRIME was the rampant and flagrant Democrat cheating all over the country in the 2020 election including states not following their own election laws and violating their own state constitutions.
True
This root crime is propagating more criminal behavior.
Punish your enemies.
Charge them with what you are accused of doing.
Trump hating is in fear of him.
“This root crime is propagating more criminal behavior.”
Yep. Criminals getting away with crimes are emboldened and commit far bigger crimes next time...and the next...and the next.
That isn’t the purpose of this particular hearing. They’re considering Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.
No D.C. District of Corruption
This is so stupid but I’ve never heard it presented this way. He wasn’t trying to overthrow the Govt! He was trying to verify the integrity of the election. He didn’t break any laws, he asked questions regarding many of the potentially illegal actions taken by states in the process of managing the election.
The only "paradox" in this idiot's statement is that she fails to define the "criminial law" that was violated...
So if the DOJ has long held, going back to Nixon, that President’s cannot be indicted for acts consistent with their sworn duty and Trump was relying on that boundry as he challenged the election as fraudulent, how can he be charged for following the law as then defined by DOJ?
This will be settled at SCOTUS.
Yes!
That’s why the founding fathers put impeachment in the constitution, and why they were so detailed as to how impeachment should proceed and apply to a president who committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Not this other crap being concocted as if the constitution was silent on the issue.
Isn’t the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Should appeals court level judges be familiar with it?
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.