Appeals court (surprise surprise surprise) has rejected the Trump immunity motion

[BackAgain]

Remember his claim that the president had the power to send seal team six to take out his main political rival.

Do you really want to hand that to Biden?

That was a silly answer from the lawyer to a question from a judge. It was not in fact the legal argument in the brief.

Also, it dealt with a subsidiary legal argument.

And, in any case, I want our Presidents to me upstanding people who make their determinations in the best interest of our republic. I certainly don’t want them to have to second guess every decision with an eye on some future asshole (like Potato) seeking to criminalize an Executive determination.

 

[postman]

But even a lummox like you should know that it is subject to being appealed. The en band panel of all those circuit court justices (not just the three who made this appellate ruling) is one option.

The other could be a direct appeal to SCOTUS.

Like with Tony Keith, it's en banc

And you promised to proofread.

 

[JGalt]

Dammit Joe...
You don't have immunity.
Guess that 5th avenue plan is off the table.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html

Of course the claim was ridiculous on its face.

No biggie. Whatever it was Trump supposedly did, will disappear once he's back in the White House.

Then we get to prosecute that influence-peddling border-wrecking pedophile currently occupying the White House.

Come on 2025.

 

[BackAgain]

Not only are you butthurt, but a total mental case.

Says the Midol deprived ^ asshole bitch.

Go menstruate elsewhere.

 

[BackAgain]

Like with Tony Keith, it's en banc

And you promised to proofread.

No. No promise. But I did miss the typo.

 

[bendog]

Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claim — The Wall Street Journal

Ruling by three-judge panel tees up possible further appeal to the Supreme Court

apple.news

I have not yet seen the decision. But I predicted it a while ago.

Of course this circuit court would be hell bent on denying the legal claim.

Ultimately, the SCOTUS was always the Court that was going to have to decide this one.

It is (admittedly) not a sure thing in the SCOTUS, either. Not with our hare brained Chief Justice. And the Lord alone knows how Amy will come down.

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

It seemed pretty academic to me, which is not a criticism, but the opinion may not be something most people are interested in, and that's not a criticism either.

I just don't see 5 votes for Trump's "argument." There's a reason poor Gerry Ford had to pardon Nixon.

 

[pknopp]

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

It seemed pretty academic to me, which is not a criticism, but the opinion may not be something most people are interested in, and that's not a criticism either.

I just don't see 5 votes for Trump's "argument." There's a reason poor Gerry Ford had to pardon Nixon.

My bet is the Supreme Court refuses to take the case so that a few of them don't actually have to go on record.

 

[postman]

That was a silly answer from the lawyer to a question from a judge. It was not in fact the legal argument in the brief.

It wasn't in the brief, because it has no legal support. But when the lawyer was asked that question by one of the judges on the panel the lawyer said:

Trump's lawyer argues that a president can order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival if Congress is cool with it.

Essentially if not impeached and convicted, the president has that power.

 

[BackAgain]

Loading…

storage.courtlistener.com

It seemed pretty academic to me, which is not a criticism, but the opinion may not be something most people are interested in, and that's not a criticism either.

I just don't see 5 votes for Trump's "argument." There's a reason poor Gerry Ford had to pardon Nixon.

There are 4 real justices. There is the somewhat undependable Justice Amy. And there’s the half wit Chief Justice who is more concerned with court politics and the favor of pundits than he with his supposed judicial philosophy and principles.

That could be 6.

Or 5 to 4 for the President.

Or 4 to 5 against the President (ie, a loss to the not so special persecutor who, himself, has been bitch-slapped by the SCOTUS in the past).

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course it's a legally correct decision. We do not grant anyone immunity from our laws nor should we.

That's rich, considering what we know about the Biden clan.

Clearly some people have immunity. Hillary, Barack, Joe, Hunter, Nancy, Bill, anyone who's on board with Davos.

 

[pknopp]

That's rich, considering what we know about the Biden clan.

Clearly some people have immunity. Hillary, Barack, Joe, Hunter, Nancy, Bill, anyone who's on board with Davos.

I believe many of them should have been prosecuted but unfortunately we had no one that wanted to.

Despite Trump's promises he did nothing.

(Hunter is being prosecuted)

 

[bendog]

My bet is the Supreme Court refuses to take the case so that a few of them don't actually have to go on record.

Well Clarence the not so friendly ghost and the bow down to ManJesus abortion will be on it like the Knights of Columbus on a 9 year old sex abuse victim who's pregnant. But it takes two more.

 

[okfine]

Hey OP, Trump lost.

 

[BackAgain]

It wasn't in the brief, because it has no legal support. But when the lawyer was asked that question by one of the judges on the panel the lawyer said:

Trump's lawyer argues that a president can order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival if Congress is cool with it.

Essentially if not impeached and convicted, the president has that power.

The main contention, with solid legal reasoning to support it, was that, subject to the same caveats as apply to a President’s civil immunity, a President should have the immunity extended for subsequent criminal prosecutions.

There was another contention, which itself seems to logically follow from the very text in our Constitution to the effect that immunity is implied by the impeachment clause. That was absolutely argued by Trump’s lawyers in the pleadings.

Be shares that brief in prior posts in prior threads.

 

[BackAgain]

Hey OP, Trump lost.

Only on an early appellate level.

You’re too stupid to grasp that until the appeals are exhausted, such determinations can change.

I can’t help the fact that you’re retarded. But it’s amusing to watch you constantly prove it.

 

[Blaster]

By denying a President immunity he or she could be charged with a crime by ordering drone attacks on civilian targets in foreign lands. This is a slippery slope.

 

[John09]

To note, the decision was unanimous with three of the judges having been appointed by Trump.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - Wikipedia

Unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, not en banc.

 

[Blaster]

Of course it's a legally correct decision. We do not grant anyone immunity from our laws nor should we.

Why not?

 

[Godboy]

Dammit Joe...
You don't have immunity.
Guess that 5th avenue plan is off the table.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html

Of course the claim was ridiculous on its face.

Damn, now Trump is going to be forced to reach for a pen and then sign his name on a pardon that other people wrote for him. What an incredible inconvenience!

 

[postman]

There was another contention, which itself seems to logically follow from the very text in our Constitution to the effect that immunity is implied by the impeachment clause. That was absolutely argued by Trump’s lawyers in the pleadings.

Be shares that brief in prior posts in prior threads.

The impeachment clause was really meant to answer the question of double jeopardy. That being tried and convicted by the senate, doesn't prevent them from being tried and convicted of the same offense again.