The current appellate status of the presidential immunity claim

[BackAgain]

The DC Circuit Court heard oral arguments earlier today regarding the move by former a presidents Trump to have one or more of his pending criminal cases thrown out based on “Presidential Immunity.”

Regardless of the merits of the President’s motion (and the case law which supports his motion), he t seems fair to predict that the Circuit Court s going to reject it. This is not a significant ruling because their ruling isn’t the one that will ultimately decide the issue. Instead, all it does is lay the groundwork for the eventual decision by SCOTUS.

There are several possibilities here. (1) SCOTUS could decline to take the case prior to trial. Or (2) they could take the case only insofar as to address the prospect that the President should be entitled to that legal defense subject to asserting it at trial and having the trial court properly charge the jury accordingly. Or (3) they could take the appeal and decline to extend the principle of “Presidential Immunity” to criminal cases.
Or (4) they could accept the appeal and firmly decide that our law does require that the President be granted immunity even in criminal matters under the same bases as it exists for civil matters.

It would be astounding to see the circuit court grant the President’s motion. But of course, if they did that, the United States (via the special persecutor) would still seek an appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[yidnar]

i doubt the far left DC appeals court will rule in favor of immunity .. it'll probably wind up in the SC .

 

[rightwinger]

i doubt the far left DC appeals court will rule in favor of immunity .. it'll probably wind up in the SC .

I don’t think any court at any level would claim that a President is above the law.

A President acting within the scope of Executive Powers should have immunity for the decisions he makes.

But breaking laws or accepting bribes to make those decisions should be criminally prosecuted

Trump should not get executive protection for banging a porn star and paying for her silence with business funds

 

[BackAgain]

I don’t think any court at any level would claim that a President is above the law.

A President acting within the scope of Executive Powers should have immunity for the decisions he makes.

But breaking laws or accepting bribes to make those decisions should be criminally prosecuted

Trump should not get executive protection for banging a porn star and paying for her silence with business funds

Leftwhiner still doesn’t understand the relief being sought.

 

[rightwinger]

Leftwhiner still doesn’t understand the relief being sought.

Maybe you can splain….

Did you read Trumps ALL CAP CLAIM ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY?

 

[BackAgain]

Maybe you can splain….

Did you read Trumps ALL CAP CLAIM ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY?

Yes. He got it wrong. And his wishful thinking on the matter doesn’t control.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes. He got it wrong. And his wishful thinking on the matter doesn’t control.

Neither does his lawyers claims in appellate court

 

[BackAgain]

Neither does his lawyers claims in appellate court

You post a lot of gibberish.

His lawyers have made very good arguments.

We will see what SCOTUS has to say.

 

[rightwinger]

You post a lot of gibberish.

His lawyers have made very good arguments.

We will see what SCOTUS has to say.

His lawyers really suck in all his cases.
His claims of presidential immunity are especially ridiculous.

Even the TRUMPCourt, with three of his chosen judges, will support his interpretation of Presidential immunity

 

[BackAgain]

His lawyers really suck in all his cases.
His claims of presidential immunity are especially ridiculous.

Even the TRUMPCourt, with three of his chosen judges, will support his interpretation of Presidential immunity

Again, you simply don’t know what you’re babbling about. And you communicate it indecipherably.

Extending the concept of Presidential Election Immunity to the realm of criminal prosecutions would come with many or all of the same caveats as are already applied in the civil realm.

What will SCOTUS ultimately decide? It’s a good question. Neither of us know.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you simply don’t know what you’re babbling about. And you communicate it indecipherably.

Extending the concept of Presidential Election Immunity to the realm of criminal prosecutions would come with many or all of the same caveats as are already applied in the civil realm.

What will SCOTUS ultimately decide? It’s a good question. Neither of us know.

Are you claiming banging a porn star and paying her to be quiet is a presidential act?

Is hiring fake electors part of his duties?

Is holding Top Secret documents after you are no longer president a presidential act?

What is Trump claiming immunity on?

 

[BackAgain]

Are you claiming banging a porn star and paying her to be quiet is a presidential act?

You have no idea whether he ever had sex with storm.

Is hiring fake electors part of his duties?

Is lining up an alternative slate to be at the ready a criminal act?

Is holding Top Secret documents after you are no longer president a presidential act?

They were declassified. We’ve been over this, boi.

What is Trump claiming immunity on?

What’s he being charged with? And we won’t know if he is claiming immunity until the court makes a final ruling as to whether it exists in criminal matters.

 

[citygator]

I don’t think any court at any level would claim that a President is above the law.

A President acting within the scope of Executive Powers should have immunity for the decisions he makes.

But breaking laws or accepting bribes to make those decisions should be criminally prosecuted

Trump should not get executive protection for banging a porn star and paying for her silence with business funds

I dont think banging pornstars and paying them to not tell people is a crime… unless you do it with campaign funds like Trump did.

 

[rightwinger]

I dont think banging pornstars and paying them to not tell people is a crime… unless you do it with campaign funds like Trump did.

It definitely doesn’t fall under Executive Privilege

Neither does hiring fake electors

 

[AZrailwhale]

I dont think banging pornstars and paying them to not tell people is a crime… unless you do it with campaign funds like Trump did.

Trump didn’t pay Daniels.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump didn’t pay Daniels.

He should have instead of using business funds
He wouldn’t have been indicted

 

[AZrailwhale]

He should have instead of using business funds
He wouldn’t have been indicted

He didn't pay her with any funds. Here is the article from factcheck.org:
"
Who made the payment?

On Oct. 17, 2016, three weeks before the Nov. 8 election, Cohen incorporated Essential Consultants LLC in Delaware. In February, Cohen released a statement to the New York Times, acknowledging that he authorized the payment.

When was the payment made to Daniels?

On CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, held up a receipt from a bank in San Francisco showing that on Oct. 27, 2016, Essential Consultants made a $130,000 payment to Daniels’ attorney at the time.

Did Trump reimburse Cohen?

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of the president’s legal team, told Fox News on May 2 that Trump used his personal funds — not campaign funds or corporate funds — to reimburse Cohen. (Corporations, by federal law, are prohibited from making contributions to candidate committees.)

The next day, Trump said for the first time that he had reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels.

The criminal information describing Cohen’s conduct and the plea agreement he reached with prosecutors said that he was reimbursed by the Trump Organization. It says that “the Company” reimbursed Cohen from the trust account created when Trump became president. “The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses,” the criminal information said."

The money paid to COHEN came from Trump's PERSONAL ACOUNTS, not the campaign accounts.

 

[rightwinger]

The money came from Trump's PERSONAL ACOUNTS, not the campaign accounts.

Well
Tell it to the judge

Let’s see Trump prove he paid

Cohen went to jail for this
You think Trump should be exempt?

 

[BackAgain]

MSN

This is a well informed and well reasoned article.

Of course our resident libturds will dismiss it. But what they will not able able to do is authoritatively discuss -- it much less refute what Chamberlain wrote.

 

[ReinyDays]

"But under the logic of the D.C. Circuit, he could be criminally prosecuted for that same act" where "he" refers to Obama and the Act is killing civilians with a military drone in 2011 ...

I think Obama should be prosecuted if he killed anyone with a anything after 2017 ... otherwise we're back to Nixon's "If the President does it, it's not illegal" ... or worse, the President is above the law for all time ... Trump sold "Top Secret/SCI" information to our enemies ... you or I would go to prison for life ...

Hey STUPID ... Trump can't be impeached right now ... or removed from office ... you'd sell classified military information just for political purposes ... what a scab ...