Federal court rules no immunity for Trump

THE FINAL RULING: Don't be distressed and disheartened by the woefully erroneous ruling President Trump 45-46, or your family, close allies and 150 plus legal voters; all those with the mark/666 of the beast/Antichrist who colluded, conspired and coordinated to level all the false slanders, false accusations, false civil suits and false charges against you, your family, close allies and 150 plus million legal voters won't be immune from prosecution on the judgment seat of God, Jesus the Christ either, wherein at God's exact appointed time they will be placed naked and afraid on the judgment of God, Jesus the Christ, wherein their every idle thought, word and deed will be judged against the backdrop of God's holy righteousness, based on his holy justice, after which time they will weep and gnash their teeth for eternity under God's holy wrath in utter loneliness and darkness in direct proportion to the exact number of sins and the magnitude of each sin they committed in their earthly existence.

THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO UNREPENTANT MAN, BUT IN THE END LEADS TO DEATH: Then in their anguish and torment they may ask themselves over and over for eternity was saving their "our Democracy" from the constitutionally required Make America Great Again, Make America First Again righteous agenda worth the price an eternity of weeping and gnashing their teeth. Unrepentant, I beg you for your sake, please repent, your/the end is very, very, very near...

RememberTheDanny

110%er [7163]

TigerPulse: 96%

Posts: 9724

Joined: 10/6/21

Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

Feb 6, 2024, 5:56 PM

Here is why SCOTUS will agree to Team Trump’s pending appeal of this single aspect of the J6 case.

First, a C&P from the last two paragraphs of the BBC article, with the second of those paragraphs containing a quote from the Appeals Court:

“The argument from Mr Trump's lawyers hinged on the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, they noted, was impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
In Tuesday's ruling, the judges wrote that interpretation "still would leave a president free to commit all manner of crimes with impunity, so long as he is not impeached and convicted.”

Trump’s argument for limited immunity pertains to presidential acts which took place while a president is still in office, I.e., before the next president gets inaugurated. This limited presidential immunity pertains to acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of presidential duties. Election integrity, or the apparent lack thereof, is arguably within the concerns of a president … which was what Trump still was on J6.

The Appeals Court sentence, at least the one quoted in the BBC article, ruled that a president who is no longer in power, cannot ‘commit’ crimes and still be covered by presidential limited immunity. “Commit” seems to imply that Trump is arguing for immunity for any crimes that he commits AFTER he had left office. That is not what Team Trump was seeking; he is seeking limited immunity for any acts that took place while he was in office, so long as those acts were within the ‘outer perimeter’ of presidential duties.

The Appeals Court, in particular Judge Janet Pan (a Biden appointee), had questioned Trump’s lawyers whether Trump should have gotten presidential immunity if he had ordered ‘Seal Team 6 to kill his political opponents.’ That absurd argument provides an example of presidential behavior that is clearly outside the outer perimeter of presidential duties. Judge Pan’s question deliberately conflated “absolute” immunity with “limited” immunity. The final sentence of the BBC article implies that the Appeals Court ruling was based on grounds of denying “absolute” immunity.

Regardless of what whack job MSNBC legal opinion contributor Neal Katyal says, this Appeals Court ruling is an easy one for SCOTUS to overturn. The Appeals Court did not even grasp the core premise at hand when making their ruling.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Glad to see that as no President is above the law.***

Which law?***

Non-consenual buggery.***

OF A HORSE.***

Give it a lick, it tastes just like raisins.

Re: Glad to see that as no President is above the law.***

See both sides of this one

Re: See both sides of this one

I dont disagree. Going back a few years,

What would Bush be charged with for the invasion?***

The war crimes BS.***

Is that a federal offense?

Dont get in the weeds on the war crimes.

But what is he getting pursued for that's objectively related to his duties?

Re: Dont get in the weeds on the war crimes.

Fair question. Im not sure.***

I don't like the potential precedent...

We discussed just yesterday your dislike

Yes and no, depending on the case

Re: Federal court rules no immunity for Trump

That didnt take long, wont be possible to top this one

I don't know what all that even means

Re: I don't know what all that even means

Re: That didnt take long, wont be possible to top this one

Gonna need a Rumble link if I am to take you seriously.***

Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

Re: Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

Re: Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

Re: Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

Re: Appeals Ct ruling appears to have whiffed re: premise of Trumps argument

You dont even understand how the CPI works,

I think Trump should ignore this ruling and claim immunity anyway.

I am tired of all of this winning.***

Re: I am tired of all of this winning.***

HHEEEELLLLLLOOOO,

TigerBoard POTD