Federal appeals court rules Trump doesn't have broad immunity from prosecution
Federal appeals court rules Trump doesn't have broad immunity from prosecution
You're viewing a single thread.
85 comments
-
-
Excerpt:
For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.
Well worth skimming the ruling if you ask me. And up vote parent comment for visibility please.
-
Also:
In relevant part, the district court rejected Trump’s claim of executive immunity from criminal prosecution, holding that “[f]ormer Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.” United States v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 8359833, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023). It concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support” the existence of such an immunity, id., and that it “would betray the public interest” to grant a former President “a categorical exemption from criminal liability” for allegedly “attempting to usurp the reins of government.” Id. at *12.
-
Finally...
as the Supreme Court has unequivocally explained:
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."
-
Which is great until the law gets changed by a bunch of sycophants in congress.
-
-
-
Greatest works of poetry of all time:
- William Carlos Williams, ‘The Red Wheelbarrow’
- T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land’
- Robert Frost, ‘The Road Not Taken’
- Gwendolyn Brooks, ‘We Real Cool’
- US Court of Appeals v Donald J Trump
-
That's all well and good but he's being prosecuted for something that he did while he was still president
-
And, as the ruling states, the president isn't immune to all prosecution.
-
According to what OP quoted a former president can be prosecuted. I'd like to see them rule that the law applies to actions committed by a president
-
Read the ruling. It discussed this.
-
-
-
He's being prosecuted for doing something illegal (allegedly) that wasn't part of his official duties as President.
-
The ruling quoted by the oedon I replied to applies to things done by a former president..I'd like to see the courts role that the law applies to a current president, or someone who was president at a time. It seems like common sense but the law doesn't operate on common sense
-
-
So, you're saying you think it should be legal for Biden to shoot you in the face?
-
No, I'm saying I want the ruling to be relevant to Trump's situation so he can be prosecuted. Where the fuck are you getting that from?
-
-
-
-
^ Everyone upvote this for visibility please. People need to read this.
-
Thanks!
Who might analyze this at length, any YouTubers or podcasters? I’m thinking Leonard French or The Weeds…
-
Legal Eagle has been doing some good commentary videos on the slew of Trump legal stuff.
-
Ah nice, thanks.
-
-
-
Interesting they used Nixon as precedent.
-
85 comments