‘absolute immunity for constitutional duties’
So, Trump’s J6 actions will be spun by Ds as “extra constitutional”, which might play in a DC court-—that’s my glass half empty perspective
“...The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as “whether a prosecution involving Trump’s attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch...”
Glass full for the lower Court to continue election interference?
“So, Trump’s J6 actions will be spun by Ds as “extra constitutional”, which might play in a DC court-—that’s my glass half empty perspective”
They probably will, but then that decision will be appealed to the circuit court, and then to SCOTUS again. In the meantime, the trial will still be on hold.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't even meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't meet the federal definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?
-PJ
Trump can (and has) counter spun his J6 actions were official, part of his duty to see that the law was correctly and faithfully observed. There’s no way one can say overseeing federal election law is an exception to that. Yes, he’s wearing multiple hats with overlapping interests, but that is inevitable for the Executive the Framers provided.