BEARKING: Appeals court rules Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution

This is great. However, he'll just keep appealing this until it gets to the SC.

"Trump will almost certainly immediately appeal to the Supreme Court in a bid to prevent the trial from going ahead as scheduled. The Supreme Court could make a quick decision on whether to hear the case and could fast-track any ruling."

Take THAT, ya rat bastard.

I hope he strokes out over this news.

He’s done no matter what.

He never ceases to look ridiculous in those elevator shoes.

I can't understand how it got this far in the first place. His presidency ended three years ago. Why would he still have had presidential immunity?

Because he was still (technically) president on January 6, 2021, r5

The SC can also decide not to hear the case and let the lower court ruling stand. I don’t think this is likely, but it would be delicious!

Yet another day of the housekeeping staff wiping ketchup off the walls at Mar-a-Lago.

🐻👑

🐻👑❤️ r9

This had better stick. So tired of him and his attempts to evade justice.

Step by step, we'll get that rat bastard it just takes too damn long.

According to Barr he had immunity while he was president. Now Trump argues he has immunity when he’s not president. But Biden can be impeached for having a no-account son. Why doesn’t his head explode?

Oh it’ll stick. The only question is how long he can milk the process.

what a CHUMP

[quote]The only question is how long he can milk the process.

Not long: "The D.C. Circuit gave Trump until Feb. 12 to ask the nation's highest court to pause its decision before it takes effect."

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court declines to hear this case. He can always go back to the DC Circuit and ask the entire court to reconsider the panel decision en banc, but that tactic rarely works. Plus, the majority of the judges on that court were appointed by Democrats. (And one of the panel is a Republican who isn’t going to be in favor of reversing the decision.) They all know that he’s trying to delay the case to push it until after the election.

There’s nothing in the constitution saying the president is immune from prosecution.

But….if SCOTUS agrees, then any US president can be charged with war crimes. I revisited the entire WMD debacle this week after finding out the producer for The Rolling Stones in 1960s was half brother to NYTimes front page liar Judith Miller. What a rabbit hole that was. When Judith was jailed, she was visited in prison by Bob Dole, Tom Brokaw and John Bolton. Media and intelligence agencies conspiring to start a war. Imagine if Bush could’ve been tried for war crimes

If SCOTUS rules in favor of no presidential immunity, all presidents will be charged, eg red states will charge Joe Biden with something about the border, or Ukraine, or something in the Middle East. They’re going to have to find in favor of immunity or else write reams of exemptions. And they’re too lazy to do that.

[quote]If SCOTUS rules in favor of no presidential immunity, all presidents will be charged

"No" presidential immunity is not at issue, "absolute" immunity is.

^ This. But yes, it’s still a Pandora’s box, at least that’s my fear. But it’s got to be done — he has to be held accountable, period, end of. So YES, Rethugs are now going to use that against Dem Presidents. So how do we fight back? Crush them, neuter them, break their party. In many ways, the party (in Congress) is already mostly broken. The more dangerous parts are the wealthy groups funding them. Those are the real enemies, and they are billionaires, and that is who needs to go down, but I’m not sure how you stop them.

You stop them by outvoting them every time and waiting for them to die.

[quote]So YES, Rethugs are now going to use that against Dem Presidents. So how do we fight back?

Congress could pass legislation defining the scope of non-prosecutable presidential powers. That's unlikely to happen with our current politics so we'll have to rely on courts to bat down frivolous lawsuits.

He needs to drop dead. Now.

More lawyers fees to be paid by the RNC and donations from suckers. That means less money for downballot Republicans.

The fact that no prior president has ever been subsequently prosecuted for acts while in office strongly suggests that post presidency criminal immunity is both unnecessary and that T**** is a crook, a unicorn and a moron.

The closest the country has ever come was the idea that Nixon “might” be prosecuted (again for attempting to subvert an election), sixty years ago.

Two of the three judges were appointed by Biden. I don’t think there was ever any question about what the ruling would be.

[quote]Two of the three judges were appointed by Biden.

And the third Republican-appointed judge agreed with them.

In addition to the Nixon pardon, the court cited Bill Clinton giving up his law license and paying a fine to avoid prosecution for perjury.

None of the judges were T**** apparatchiks. There was never any question about what the ruling would be.

How can I get a seat on that court? I need to protect my Daddy Donald.

[quote] If SCOTUS rules in favor of no presidential immunity, all presidents will be charged, eg red states will charge Joe Biden with something about the border, or Ukraine, or something in the Middle East. They’re going to have to find in favor of immunity or else write reams of exemptions. And they’re too lazy to do that.

That’s Trump’s argument, and it is proven to be frivolous by the fact that no other former president has ever been indicted in almost 250 years

Thank you, R6.

[quote]Not long: "The D.C. Circuit gave Trump until Feb. 12 to ask the nation's highest court to pause its decision before it takes effect."

He can't ask for an en banc hearing first?

The three judge panel was smart in the way that they set up Trump's appeals to both the SCOTUS and en banc by granting the stay through Feb 12, forcing Trump to go to the SCOTUS quickly (normally, they grant stays on judgments for 30 days or until the entire court can decide, so this is a major win for the people). I suspect that the entire court weighed in on this part of the decision knowing that, particularly in this case, justice delayed is justice denied, forcing Trump to basically go right to the SCOTUS and making [italic]them[/italic] weigh in on any further delay. It also indicates to any [italic]good[/italic] attorney that the en banc ruling would return with the same result and that they're prepared to deal with it quickly. But none of Trump's parking lot attorneys are good, so the point may be lost.

r34 I see, thanks!

Loser, Loser, Diaper-Oozer!

If you're going to troll, r26, try being less glaringly obvious.

If the president has immunity forever for things he did while in office, he’s a king or dictator, not an elected official in a representative government.

R18 Hey moron! Why hasn't it been a problem for the last 228 years? Dummy.

I could actually see Abbott (or his AG, rather) charging Biden with something border-related, just for show.

Trumpers are already saying they’re going to bring charges against Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden. There are lunatic red state AGs and DAs out there. They don’t care if their charges are bogus. They’ll do it as a financial weapon.

I’ll never forget …I’ve written about it before….my husband worrying before the election in 2016

“I’,m worried what will happen if Trump wins. It will be a catastrophe.”

. “Don’t worry! Everyone had Hillary in the lead. Even if Trump wins x and he definitely won’t - he’s full of bluster. He’ll calm down and hire people…probably Bush administration people who we hate, but he won’t go off the rails with the presidency. He’ll stop his nonsense and others will take over. As long as they stroke his ego he’ll purr and pose for pictures in the Oval Office.”

Yup. I’m a jerk. I did not have “FBI interferes in election and gets away with it” on my bingo card.

I don't understand why the Tanya case is on hold and that New York criminal case can proceed. Was he not president when he cooked those Stormy books? Forgive me for losing track of his criminality, there's just so much of it.

[quote]Was he not president when he cooked those Stormy books?

He was not, r42.

Oh look another Trump thread.

Go stick your head back in the sand, r44.

Oh look, another R44.

Tanya case?

Supreme Court must be so fed up with Trump plus they have a severe credibility problem with all the billionaire bribes and the Thomas corruption. Think they'll just refuse to take it on? There's no way they'll give him immunity. If they accept the case then just sit on it for months the blowback will be enormous. They will be seen as gifting Trump with delays the same as that Florida judge.

What’s up with the fine in the tax fraud case? When’s that coming along?

r47 I can't spell her last name for shit, so I just call her Tanya.

r49 Mid-February. Apparently, there were some new developments, so the judge had to take some additional time.

I think the Supreme Court has lost all sense of shame. They get a thrill out of exercises of raw judicial power.

There's been nothing for so long, the Supreme Court denying cert for this would feel like something was actually starting to move along. Of course, they'll immediately fuck us over with that Colorado case, so the celebrations won't last long.

Trump is the biggest pain in the ass alive.

Thinking about this a little more, what’s the point of impeaching (been done multiple times) and then convicting (never happened yet) if you can try the now ex-president for the thing he did as president?

Yes, he is out of office and can’t do it again with immunity, but then he (or she) gets off scot free. It’s absurd.

^^^ if you can’t try

R39, I think Trump means this as a threat. He's signaling his MAGAT crazies to start filing bogus lawsuits to harass former Democrat presidents. It's all about revenge and retribution with Trump.

Donnie the Evasive Diva

[quote] Trumpers are already saying they’re going to bring charges against Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden. There are lunatic red state AGs and DAs out there. They don’t care if their charges are bogus. They’ll do it as a financial weapon.

There has to be an actual criminal act. There are still statutes of limitations. You need to have jurisdiction over a case. You need to convince a grand jury to indict. That’s not the highest bar, but it would screen out frivolous cases. You need evidence to survive a motion to dismiss and to convince a jury.

It’s not so easy to indict just out of spite.

Ed Meese (remember that corrupt SOB from the Reagan administration?) and his cronies have submitted an amicus brief that the conservative members of the Supreme Court may latch onto to stop Jack Smith's classified documents case in its tracks. This argument avoids the immunity issue (and all the outlandish arguments that support it) altogether and instead argues that Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute Trump because his Special Prosecutor appointment was invalid. The crazy Supremes could adopt this argument without ruling on the immunity issue (and embarrassing themselves any further (if that's possible).

Watch out for this move - it's a real snake in the grass. Basically the argument is as follows:

[quote]The argument raised by Meese and friends is not directly related to immunity. Instead, they assert that Jack Smith doesn’t have the authority to prosecute Trump. They have two reasons, both relatively technical. The first is that Jack Smith was a private citizen when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him as special counsel, and private citizens cannot be tasked with special counsel duties. (Smith was an assistant United States attorney during the Clinton and Obama administrations but has been a special prosecutor at The Hague, investigating war crimes in Kosovo, since 2018.) The second argument is that no statute authorizes the attorney general, rather than the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a special counsel.

[quote] He needs to drop dead. Now.

I agree

Talk is cheap, Anne.

If SCOTUS is going to effectively rule section 3 of the 14th Amendment out of existence, I can only hope they would at least quickly decide not to take certiorari on this case.

Had the court said Trump had immunity could Biden then round up Trump and all the Magas and have them killed?

^ and give their jobs to all the illegal immigrants.

R18 I really think that is s fruitless argument. For one, you'd actually have to bring a case against whichever said *Former President* that could be REASONABLY argued before a Court of Law where you could PROVE a Violation of the Constitution. Republicans in Congress now are on a continuous losing streak of trying to open "Investigations" let alone "Impeachment" proceedings against Biden , and can't scrabble together a lick of EVIDENCE nor witnesses who will even Testify in accordance! Just arguing, "The President acted against the Constitution by not defending our Borders" is insufficient as you would have to demonstrate WHICH LAWS the President had broken or Violated. Don't forget- 99% of what Presidents do must be within complete adherence to the Nation's Laws and Statues ( which have previously voted and ruled upon).

With Trump - these Violations are clear- he shredded our laws flagrantly with Zero concerns for any Accountability. That now changes.

Such a compelling argument, R60, that not even Trump's lawyers made it.

Engoron's decision is taking longer than expected because of Weisselberg's plea deal in another trial. He's told both parties they have until tomorrow to respond, threatening to go "falsus in uno" on Weisselberg's testimony.

R26! Go play in traffic.

R60–it’s interesting that Trump’s attorneys do not raise this argument themselves and that the DC Circuit panel appears to have ignored it. It would be odd for SCOTUS to suddenly dismiss both of Smith’s cases on its own initiative on the basis of an argument not raised by the defense.

r59 also, Obama and Clinton will easily be able to put together a kick-ass legal team with probably a couple of rich supporters helping them foot the bill. Presidents are generally seen as untouchable in the US. Obama, Clinton, and Bush are well liked by the monied class, they'd laugh off any lawsuit. Unless not related to Epstein, cough Clinton.

It was extremely unlikely than the appeals court would vote that he has totally immunity. And Trump knew this as well. This was yet another delay tactic. He is betting all his chips that he will get reelected before he is convicted of any criminal charges, and then basically demolish our judicial system and democracy to keep himself out of prison.

R67 and R70 -

As the article itself says:

[quote]With a different Supreme Court, one that was not utterly in thrall to the worst conservative impulses, this might not get anywhere, given that it is only an argument made in an amicus brief. However, after Justice Alito’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s evident that the conservatives are happy to use amicus briefs to get the results they want.

[quote]SCOTUS has appropriated briefs like this in the recent past

[quote]A Politico investigation found that the conservative jurists have leaned heavily on amicus filings from several anti-choice activist groups affiliated with Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society.

[quote]In Dobbs, Alito relied on an amicus brief from Professor Robert P. George to make his historical argument that abortion had been a crime for centuries, even before the founding of America. One problem: George isn’t a historian. He studies philosophy and jurisprudence. Another problem: his understanding of the historical record, according to actual factual historians, is wrong. After the Dobbs opinion, 30 different historical associations signed on to a statement saying it was a “flawed and troubling precedent” to have a major historical inaccuracy in such an important court ruling. Alito’s opinion also relied upon an amicus brief from the rabidly anti-choice Lozier Institute to mischaracterize which countries permit abortion past 15 weeks.

[quote]To be fair, reliance on amicus briefs isn’t limited to conservatives, and if the absolute immunity argument makes its way up to the Supreme Court, the more rational members of the Court may look to amicus briefs as well.

It’s doubtful that this trial is going ahead. He’ll win in November, pardon himself, and then that’s the end of it. He’ll appeal this thing until November. Fannie Willis fucked up the other case.

Picking up an entire argument not advanced by the parties is different from relying on amicus briefs that are endorsing an argument made by a party.

Why did the Circuit Court ignore the argument if it’s possibly going to be the basis for a SCOTUS dismissal of the entire case?

Contrast this with the jurisdictional argument made by an amicus which the circuit court specifically asked the parties to address in oral arguments.

R74, please join R26. Maybe you’ll get hit by a semi, and be put out of your butt-hurt misery.

Shouldn't all of this have been resolved years ago?

Looks like diaper stains on the back of the couch.

It might have, R78, if the only other former president - Nixon - to be accused of criminal wrongdoing had not been pardoned.

That judge who asked Trump's lawyer if Trump could order Seal Team Six to kill his political rival.

I wish instead she had posed the question this way.

Could President Biden order Seal Team Six to kill Donald Trump and not face prosecution. I would have loved to see Trump's own lawyers arguing that Biden could have Trump killed and not face prosecution unless he was impeached and removed first.

R80 I was only a teenage then but I was horrified when Ford pardoned Nixon. It gave a signal to the president can commit crimes and be absolved of it with the swipe of a magic wand. Ford said he pardoned Nixon to help heal the country. That was complete bullshit. Nixon most likely only agreed to leave office under the condition that he will receive a pardon from his successor, which I'm sure Ford was fine with. He should have been impeached and convicted and then charged with crimes he was involved in. Years later on 2001 the John F Kennedy Profile in Courage Award was given to Gerald Ford :

The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award presented to Gerald R. Ford on May 21, 2001. Senator Edward Kennedy presented Ford with the high honor and remarked: “At a time of national turmoil, America was fortunate that it was Gerald Ford who took the helm of the storm-tossed ship of state. Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon. So President Ford made a courageous decision, one that historians now say cost him his office, and he pardoned Richard Nixon. I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement.”

This made me realize than even so called prestigious awards are often complete bullshit. In 2020 Trump awarded Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom which completely tarnished the legitimate claims that it was based on prestigious merit .

[quote] I was only a teenage then but I was horrified when Ford pardoned Nixon. It gave a signal to the president can commit crimes

White collar!

My god, there will be enormous worldwide celebrations when this fat ugly miserable lying fascist cunt is finally DEAD. The partying is going to be epic.

Yes R78. Biden should have had him arrested and prosecuted the moment he entered the White House.

[quote] The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award presented to Gerald R. Ford on May 21, 2001.

At the time there was a growing consensus that what Ford did was statesmanlike. It was a product of a lack of imagination. There was no thought that the likes of a Trump could ever become president.

I think Meese's arguments regarding Smith's appointment are spurious. First, the DOJ has a long-standing policy of appointing special prosecutors to handle high profile cases and this one is no different. Second, Smith's background at The Hague and before made him particularly well suited for this position, and the idea that only someone already working for the DOJ could be appointed is easily solved (and probably was) by hiring him five minutes before his appointment. Third, we're talking about the SCOTUS upsetting decades (if not centuries) of prosecutions, including those successfully conducted against Democrats. They aren't going to want to go back and have a whole bunch of their rulings overturned because the dickheads at the Federalist Society want to protect Trump.

The Roberts Court is keenly aware of the fact that they have the lowest approval rating in modern memory as fully 2 out of 3 Americans have no faith in the current SCOTUS, and any controversial ruling (like saying Smith has no jurisdiction) would erode their ratings even further. The public does not like it when a technicality results in a reversal or acquittal. And don't kid yourself, John Roberts does not want history to reflect that it was his Court that wrecked jurisprudence and altered the Court permanently.

And finally, every argument that Trump has brought before the court has been rejected.

Ford had also ingratiated Democrats few years earlier by penning an opinion piece in the NYT advocating censure, not impeachment, for Clinton.

R87, I’ve been reading for *years* that Roberts wants to protect the prestige and respect for the court. I no longer believe that at all. Look at who his wife is for one thing. Second, he has no control over his own court, I believe Alito is running the show. Third, he refused to do a goddamn thing to safeguard ethics accountability on any level for SCOTUS.

So let’s all stop pretending Roberts is some scholarly lawyer who is protecting SCOTUS. He’s a piece of trash who should fucking RESIGN and admit he failed our nation. It’s reminding me how in the beginning some here tried to pretend Melania wasn’t a Nazi cunt, we needed to believe she would “be best”.

Yeah, SCROTUS doesn’t GAF about how badly they’re hated. Why should they? Ain’t like anyone can protest outside their houses, fire them, or make their lives miserable.

They live in their little Bohemian Grove Federalist Society bubble where they’re untouchable.

I want to kick Alito in the cuntbone until he pukes.

Well if they rule that Presidents have absolute immunity that’s carte Blanche to have them killed.

[quote] Yeah, SCROTUS doesn’t GAF about how badly they’re hated.

No Justice should base their decisions on popular opinion. What the mob thinks has no bearing on what the Constitution and the law require.

They don’t GAF about the Constitution, either, r92. Nor precedent, nor anything else but giving KKKoch what he paid for through fat ass Leo.

[quote] I’ve been reading for *years* that Roberts wants to protect the prestige and respect for the court. I no longer believe that at all.

Well, he DID defy all predictions to save the ACA. And he wasn't part of the majority that overruled Dobbs. The composition of the Court HAS changed, leaving him with less authority to affect his ambitions for the Court

Roberts is a feckless cunt.

I know it's not - right? - going to happen, but I still like to imagine the collective heads of MAGA world exploding if Trump is denied a place on the ballot through the votes of any of his SCOTUS appointees.

Reading this thread - the standout for me is that there are "Republican judges" and "Democrat judges" who would rule a certain way based on who appointed them. If true - that's terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.

Shouldn't judges be impartial and interpret the law without bias? Another sign that everything in the US has become divided and politicized. i.e.: SCOTUS.

It’s not Democrat it’s Democratic, closet MAGAT.

^ It's not a both sides thing, Rose. Republican judges like Clarence Thomas and John Roberts are blatantly corrupt and rule according to their ideology. The Democratic ones go by the law (which sometimes ends up pissing off the far Lefties).

R98 are you talking to me? Are you feebly trying to call me a MAGA cult member?

LOL. Sorry to disappoint you - I'm not American and in my country (Australia) I vote for the Greens. My point/observation was that judges are supposed to be impartial and according to many posts in this thread they absolutely aren't. Yes agreed R99. The SCOTUS has been ruined for at least a generation by Dump's additions.

R90 is the most accurate comment

[quote]are you talking to me? Are you feebly trying to call me a MAGA cult member?

You've done a good job of that on your own, R100.

You're either with us or without, mate; if it is the former, show some respect and address the Democratic Party by its correct name, not by the MAGAtted slight.