The Liberal DC Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects Trump's Claims of Presidential Immunity

Not great for Trump.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump cannot shake off his charges for an alleged effort to subvert the 2020 election by claiming presidential immunity.

Trump, who is facing four criminal indictments, has argued that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office unless they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found unanimously that Trump cannot invoke presidential immunity against the four-count indictment alleging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes. ... Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count," the appeals court panel said in the 57-page ruling Tuesday.

The decision is a notable blow against Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 election, who is accused on four criminal counts of attempting to subvert the 2020 election. While the judges were not asked to find Trump liable for the alleged crimes, they made clear the seriousness of his charges if he were convicted.

"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government," the court said, adding Trump's stances "would collapse our system of separated powers" by placing him outside the scope of the three branches of government.

"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the court said.

The District of Columbia Circuit told Trump he has until Monday to appeal the decision, including with a request to pause his trial proceedings. If he does, the criminal trial that is before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the first to rule against his immunity claims, will not resume until after his appeal reaches a final resolution.

What Trump would like is for the Supreme Court to take this appeal. If they agree to hear the issue, that would almost certainly push the trial off well past the election.

But they do have to agree to hear it for that to happen. For a case to be entertained by the Supreme Court, four justices have to agree to grant certiorari. I don't really know what that means but my head cannon is "certified that a Constitutional issue is at play which the Supreme Court must resolve."

If four justices do not agree to hear the case -- if the Court "denies cert" -- then the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' word is the operative ruling, and the trial can be scheduled before the election.

I would not count on the Supreme Court granting cert. They may, but they may not. Amy Coney Barrett is basically a Roberts liberal, and Kavanaugh is also weak.

I would hope that the Supreme Court considers this case important enough to hear, even if only to put a check on the Deep State's obvious headlong rush to interfere in the 2024 election.

But Roberts will always vote to uphold Regime authority, Barrett seems to be his puppet, and Kavanaugh also seems to really want to be liked by the liberal Permanent Government of DC.

Update: TheJamesMadison says I'm all wet about Kavanaugh:

I'm getting the sense that Kavanaugh is much more...antagonistic to the administrative state than we were led to believe.

In the Raimondo oral arguments, he was apparently the primary antagonistic voice, even moreso than Gorsuch who's been trying to create an anti-Chevron coalition since he showed up on the SCOTUS bench.

He could be right.

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew

Reading the DC Appeals Court decision. Lots of comments later but right now I'm headed for a cross-country flight so time is limited.

Initial impression:

"We beg you, Justices of the Supreme Court, please take this nightmare off our hands."

This thing is written in a way that begs for SCOTUS review.
10:44 AM * Feb 6, 2024

I don't know how an appeals court writes an opinion that "begs" the Supreme Court to review them, but, there's his opinion.

Thanks to Martini Farmer.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:14 PM

| Access Comments