DC appeals court says Trump is not immune (as a former president) from prosecution

[1miseryindex]

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.

www.foxnews.com

Well, this was interesting, esp the part here

site

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

Comment

I wonder if a former president can be held accountable for what he /she did when VICE president?

Answer?

Only if he or she is a Republican?

 

[1miseryindex]

But check out this

It's just a DC court

 

[1srelluc]

Go ahead SCOTUS (where it's headed)....Open that box and see what happens. I triple dog dare you.

In fact why limit it to POTUS.....Hell the SCOTUS has caused plenty of harm over the years and could easily be indicted by folks with standing.

 

[john doe 101]

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.

www.foxnews.com

Well, this was interesting, esp the part here

site

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

Comment

I wonder if a former president can be held accountable for what he /she did when VICE president?

Answer?

Only if he or she is a Republican?

So why hasnt every former President been indicted in the past?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So why hasnt every former President been indicted in the past?

The Democrats have never been this desperate until Donald Trump showed up.

They constantly cried about the neocon Republicans. But they were pretty comfortable with them, at least compared to Donald Trump, who is only implementing the policies that those neons claim to believe in all along.

 

[SeaMajor7]

CLOWN SHOW

 

[john doe 101]

The Democrats have never been this desperate until Donald Trump showed up.

They constantly cried about the neocon Republicans. But they were pretty comfortable with them, at least compared to Donald Trump, who is only implementing the policies that those neons claim to believe in all along.

So you think a President is above the law. Why?

 

[Lastamender]

So why hasnt every former President been indicted in the past?

Probably because they were nothing but puppets.

 

[BluesLegend]

A "DC" court you say... Too bad for Dems the Trump SCOTUS has the final say.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So you think a President is above the law. Why?

I said that?

What post number?

 

[BluesLegend]

This reminds me of when we replaced Ginsburg with a conservative justice!

 

[john doe 101]

A "DC" court you say... Too bad for Dems the Trump SCOTUS has the final say.

SCOTUS won't hear the case.

 

[BluesLegend]

SCOTUS won't hear the case.

The Trump SCOTUS will kick Dems in the groin, like we intended when we stacked the court.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The constitution provides a clear procedure to prosecute a president for acts committed while in office. That procedure is to impeach that president, remove him from office, and then prosecute him for whatever crimes he committed.

There is no provision in the constitution for a do over after the fact, if the impeachments crash and burn, due to their purely partisan nature.

 

[JoeB131]

Go ahead SCOTUS (where it's headed)....Open that box and see what happens. I triple dog dare you.

In fact why limit it to POTUS.....Hell the SCOTUS has caused plenty of harm over the years and could easily be indicted by folks with standing.

I think you are confused, as always.

Trump was arguing ANY action he takes as president is immune to prosecution if he wasn't impeached and convicted for it. (Particularly absurd, because Mitch argued that since he left office, he was no longer Congress' problem.)

Judge Pan ripped this to shreds by pointing out that he could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his rival and if Congress didn't impeach him he was home free.

 

[konradv]

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.

www.foxnews.com

Well, this was interesting, esp the part here

site

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

Comment

I wonder if a former president can be held accountable for what he /she did when VICE president?

Answer?

Only if he or she is a Republican?

No, what Trump said is untrue. He’s a special case. Usually he likes being the special case, but this one he’s running away from. Go figure!

 

[JoeB131]

The Trump SCOTUS will kick Dems in the groin, like we intended when we stacked the court.

I doubt that SCOTUS would ignore centuries of precedent to help Trump against decades of precedent.

Look, man, just let Trump argue that it was perfectly okay for him to unleash a mob on Congress in front off a jury.

 

[BluesLegend]

I doubt that SCOTUS would ignore centuries of precedent to help Trump against decades of precedent.

Look, man, just let Trump argue that it was perfectly okay for him to unleash a mob on Congress in front off a jury.

Watch and learn, the time of Dems bastardizing the law are over!

 

[JoeB131]

The constitution provides a clear procedure to prosecute a president for acts committed while in office. That procedure is to impeach that president, remove him from office, and then prosecute him for whatever crimes he committed.

There is no provision in the constitution for a do over after the fact, if the impeachments crash and burn, due to their purely partisan nature.

The constitution says no such thing. In fact, presidents have always been liable to criminal prosecution after leaving office.

It's why Ford had to pardon Nixon.

It's why Clinton reached a settlement with Charles Ray on all matters related to Paula Jones perjury.

 

[JoeB131]

Watch and learn, the time of Dems bastardizing the law are over!

I'm watching and laughing.

Trump's problem is that he hires lawyers for their tit size instead of their legal acumen.