Home » DC appeals court rules against Trump’s presidential immunity as a legal bar in the election interference case

Comments

DC appeals court rules against Trump’s presidential immunity as a legal bar in the election interference case — 17 Comments

  1. It will be the last fatal blow to the American justice system if former President Trump is found guilty of election interference. As the facts demonstrate exactly the opposite.

    If the left can convict and imprison a former president of a charge entirely lacking in validity, then no one is safe and innocence is no longer a sufficient defense.

    The left will have ended the rule of law within America and only one means of redress of grievance will remain.

    No doubt some on the left desire a violent reaction. Should they get their wish, they will discover to have chosen… poorly.

    “Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms” Robert A. Heinlein

  2. Yes, appeal for an en banc review and then appeal for cert. to the S.C. This will all take time.

  3. Problem with en banc is that Julia Roberts would probably use their inevitable denial as a reason why SCOTUS should not accept the case.

  4. Which Republican prosecutor will now pursue a claim against Obama for illegally drone striking a US citizen ?

  5. Jonathan Hurley says the DC Court order gives Trump until Feb. 12 to appeal to the SC. Normal time frame would be 90 days, he says.

  6. Kate:

    So the Chatiqua Circuit has decided to allow The Great Orange Whale the possibility of an appeal? How megamanicial (or magnamanous, or is that MAGAnamanous) of them. We don’t deserve such rulers.

  7. Kate:

    I misspelled again:

    the Chiquita Circuit Court of Appeals. The best in our Banana Republic of Brandon.

  8. LordAzrael. They never think of the consequences, do they? It will never happen to them because they will have absolute power forever and ever. Good luck, but just wait to see what you’ve unleashed.

  9. I saw this quoted in some post somewhere recently.
    Certainly relevant to this situation, and quite a few more, as Rufus points out in his reply to LordAzrael. (Sorry about the formatting; it’s not fixable in copypasta from a pdf.)

    https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/initiatives/Rule/2021-01_RuleofLawvsRulebyLaw.pdf

    The phrase “rule of law” is in the news a great deal. While referred to often, it is rarely
    well explained, with its true meaning often lost. Despite the fundamental constitutional
    importance of the concept, if the meaning of “rule of law” is not well understood there is
    a significant risk of it being challenged and torn down. The rule of law — where the law
    applies equally and everyone is subject to it — becomes conflated with its antithesis,
    which is rule by law — where those in power can arbitrarily create and apply law as they
    choose, with no accountability. The rule of law provides an orderly method for a society
    to change and evolve through addressing issues such as inequality and prejudice. Rule by
    law, on the other hand, permits the arbitrary creation and application of the law and
    excludes the ability to challenge its validity or its application. If the rule of law loses
    public support because it becomes associated in the public mind with the rule by law, a
    most effective method of bringing orderly change in a democratic society to address
    important societal issues will be lost.

  10. @ Kate > ” the DC Court order gives Trump until Feb. 12 to appeal to the SC.”

    That was repeated in the Julie Kelly Tweet as well.
    If Trump’s lawyers don’t already have the brief written and the barristers prepped for a SCOTUS hearing they are committing malpractice.
    They can’t guarantee the Supremes will take the case (dodging their responsibility seems to be de rigueur now), but they have to be ready.

  11. I can’t speak to Presidential immunity, as I don’t know enough about it. There IS something I “like” about the whole J6 thing. The FBI and maybe the DOJ ran an operation on J6 without Trump or the White House knowing about it. An operation against the President’s interest. If this isn’t evidence of a rogue agency I don’t know what is.

  12. “Election interference?” What happened in 2020 that wasn’t “election interference?”

    The case against Donald Trump is absurd, but the appeals court wasn’t asked to decide that. One can imagine a case where a president really did try to establish a dictatorship and wonder if executive privilege would really protect him from prosecution, but that’s far from what happened in this case. The likely result is that executive privilege will only exist for Democrats (and the occasional Republican who goes along with the Democrats).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>