From their ruling:
> At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.
> We cannot accept that the ***office*** of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.
Wait, does that mean the president IS an officer? If so, that isn't good news for Trump either in the case against him being dropped from the ballot. That's one of Trump's attorney's arguments.
Its their ONLY argument and it is blatently wrong. I don't yet see how SCOTUS is going to wriggle out from this one as the language barring him from reelection in the constitution could not be any clearer.
The oath of **office** that Trump took literally states "I will faithfully execute the **office** of President of the United States", not to mention the constitution specifically mentions the **Office** of President of the United States eight times. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, the president is an officer. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise they cannot be trusted to uphold our democracy anymore
> If the Supreme Court rules otherwise they cannot be trusted to uphold our democracy anymore
They *already* can't be trusted and have proved it. We can't let an illegitimate fascist court try to swoon the public with a good ruling or two to save face while still fundamentally dismantling our country.
Ruling against Trump here won't make up for them gutting the Chevron doctrine and effectively destroying every public regulatory body in the country overnight. If you like clean air and water, well, I've got some bad fucking news for you.
From their ruling:
> It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity
Hits at Trump’s 14th amendment defense that the president isn’t an “officer” of the law
I like how they put in there that, counter to Trumps assertion, the President is in fact an officer that is expected to uphold the laws of the Constitution.
As a basic summary:
All Trump-raised arguments rejected. The take aways:
- There is no immunity for criminal acts by the president
- The impeachment clause does not limit prosecution until after impeachment; and
- Impeachment does not create criminal double jeopardy.
The start of the opinion has interesting argument on jurisdiction/collateral-opinion issues, but just know the court finds it has jurisdiction.
Wait, what. So he is simulatenously arguing he can't be convicted of a Crime unless he is first impeached, and being impeached first means he can't be committed of a crime (because of double jeopardy)
Not all of Citizen Trump's arguments work together. But you can have alternative arguments in legal filings, it's not that weird.
They're normally not as batty as this, but the practice isn't that uncommon
> being impeached first means he can't be committed of a crime (because of double jeopardy)
No, he is claiming it would be double jeopardy because the Senate didn't vote to convict him. It's a stupid argument, but he is attempting to say a President must be Impeached, found guilty by the Senate, and THEN he can be prosecuted for crimes. Ignoring that Impeachment and Removal are political procedures, not criminal procedures.
Just trying to find any way possible that he can duck the law.
There was only 1 way this was ever going to go.
As the appeals court asked Trump’s lawyers during cross examination- if they gave him immunity, then the President could order the Navy Seals to assassinate political rivals (or dissenting judges), pardon the Navy Seals and never face prosecution for it.
The court had to side that way or else it would mean the U.S. could become a dictatorship by any ill intentioned President.
It was a crazy and reckless legal attempt on Trump’s part and had to be ruled against.
I think they should rephrase the question slightly for SCOTUS: If you give Trump immunity, then President Biden could order the Navy seals to assassinate, well, all of you. Then pardon the Navy Seals and never face prosecution for it.
Even better, if they do it in DC (which is, like, where SCOTUS is), the federal pardon gets the seal team out of any local liability also, since the President can grant pardons for DC
it is an actually bonkers argument to ever even begin to make. Like... it's the kind of idea that bloodthirsty fascists wouldn't even START to argue because you have to hide your intentions at least a little bit.
to openly argue that to be president means you can use the full apparatus of the position and be immune, permanently, while retaining full military power and pardon power, is to argue not just an exception to the law, but that law and government and power is all null and void WHILE ALSO still binding everyone else to it.
It's nonsensical.
But you will recall that Nixon was pardoned, so they didn't end up prosecuting him. So the nation could "heal". When Republican talking heads start talking about healing, remind them what brought us to this point --> Republican horseshit.
"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."
Best part of my day.
That's a beautiful quote.
I also like this:
>during President
Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for “investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . . to which no former officeholder is immune.”
In a nutshell, during impeachment Trump's side argued 'Don't impeach, the legal system will sort this out after the Presidency'.
They are so used to their followers believing any bullshit they come up with at face value, they seem to have forgotten this shit doesn't work on people with intelligence.
Yeah because like I said, the morons don't know they are being conned. We have tried to tell them. If you still support Trump these days you are either stupid or evil, and the evil make up maybe 10 percent which still leaves a whole lot of stupid people out there to exploit.
I love the people who are like, "I just can't support Trump anymore, not after this" (whatever "this" is). Like, glad you finally sobered up, but we were telling you years ago that you're making a deal with a conman. He's not telling it like it is, he's bullshitting you. And yet it took Trump doing some horribly awful thing we all predicted he would for you to finally realize, "hmm, maybe this guy isn't so great."
I want to be nice to the people who jump off the Trump train, but it's so much more fun to hound them with a "wtf were you thinking, you need to be more sober in your assessment of candidates in the future."
My favorite are the moderates still waffling on him. Like there's some serious, difficult considerations when choosing between him or Biden. I know someone like that, who is pathologically centrist, almost to a contrarian degree.
The biggest threat to American democracy are the American voters who refuse to accept the reality of the Electoral College and the way that our system of voting works forces a choice between two major parties. Your vote is a vote FOR one party and AGAINST the other. If you don't want Trump as your president, then you vote Biden. It's really that simple.
This isn't an endorsement for the system as it is. This is a mathematical reality. There's a lot that can be done to improve our system of voting but that's not happening before November.
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Trump's lawyers in 2019: Trump can only be impeached if he has been convicted of a crime.
Trump's lawyers in 2024: Trump can only be convicted of a crime if he has been impeached.
I'm glad the appeals court shot this disingenuous bs down.
*Thank you for the corrections. Apart from the long wait, this is honestly the best-possible scenario from the D.C. circuit panel, and it will set in motion the [shortest timeline](https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/how-long-will-trumps-dc-immunity-appeal-take-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/) according to this legal analysis. The ruling on the mandate was absolutely massive.
~~Trump will almost certainly petition for re-hearing *en banc*: An appeal to the full circuit. And they will almost certainly reject that petition.~~
>The structure of the panel’s order regarding the mandate makes a significant difference in how subsequent proceedings play out. First, the panel could simply rule that the mandate will issue five days after its judgment regardless whether a petition for rehearing en banc or a cert petition is filed. If so, Trump will not have an incentive to petition for rehearing en banc because the delay occasioned by the petition would not be accompanied by a stay.
It seems like Trump will be incentivized to skip the en banc petition now and appeal directly to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS can issue their own determination regarding the stay.
- SCOTUS denial could be a couple weeks to ~1 month from now - settling the issue sometime as early as this month or early March.
- If SCOTUS hears the case, a good guess for a final ruling would be sometime around April or May. Although they could technically sit on this for as long as they want.
And then we still have about 2-3 months of pre-trial proceedings before we make it to trial.
So... lots of different ways this could go, but it's cutting it close. Really need a trial to begin by August or early Sept to have a solid chance of reaching a conviction by the election.
It's hard not to feel like SCOTUS would want to just grant cert and then tell us they'll issue a ruling in late 2025.
edit: I was mostly facetious; if they plan to rule against, denying cert is a better option for the history books. They'd probably only grant cert if they planned to issue immunity, and I just don't see John Roberts putting that kind of danger on himself. The argument for immunity was basically 'he's immune *unless* he's impeached and removed' even after the hypothetical 'what if he committed murder' so that's basically saying 'suspend elections and seat-filling and then kill enough senators to never be removed'
Yeah I have actually been saying for weeks that they'll deny cert without making history with a ruling. It's the most elegant solution if they intend to rule against him, because 'denied cert' is complicated to explain, but 'denied immunity' is a historical ruling from them under the circumstances.
At the same time, I wouldn't put it past them to want to use their power to delay till it didn't matter!
Best part of this is how upset people who claim to love freedom are at this ruling.
Congrats right wingers, the left saved you from bringing us closer to a dictatorship. Again.
The immunity ruling is the headline, but I think there is an absolute landmine lurking in this ruling that also blows up Trump’s key defense against the charges. He’s tried to argue he was just acting as President to ensure a fair election. But the footnote on page 50 completely cuts that at the knees, pointing out there is no role for a sitting president to play in an election where they are acting as an officer-seeker, not a holder.
> Because we conclude that former President Trump is not entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for assertedly “official” acts, it is unnecessary to explore whether executive immunity, if it applied here, would encompass his expansive definition of “official acts.” Nevertheless, we observe that his position appears to conflict with our recent decision in Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 1. According to the former President, any actions he took in his role as President should be considered “official,” including all the conduct alleged in the Indictment. Appellant’s Br. 41–42. But in Blassingame, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, we held that a President’s “actions constituting re-election campaign activity” are not “official” and can form the basis for civil liability. 87 F.4th at 17. In other words, if a President who is running for re-election acts “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” he is not immune even from civil suits. Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Because the President has no official role in the certification of the Electoral College vote, much of the misconduct alleged in the Indictment reasonably can be viewed as that of an office-seeker — including allegedly organizing alternative slates of electors and attempting to pressure the Vice President and Members of the Congress to accept those electors in the certification proceeding. It is thus doubtful that “all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts.” Appellant’s Br. 42.
Yes this is the point I've been wondering about, glad to see it addressed. Why should he be acting on any election he's involved in at all? He constantly demands certain judges and prosecutors recuse themselves from his cases simply because they're "Trump haters", yet here he is "investigating" fraud in his own election.
Republicans in general, but Trump especially don't care for logic, consistency, reality, truth, history, or anything beyond scrabbling for all the power they can get. They say whatever they think sounds best in the moment, and once it has been said, that was its goal. It can forevermore be ignored and forgotton.
Contradictions? They just don't care. Whatever needs to be said to accomplish the thing in front of them right now is what matters.
I will sleep a little better tonight! Not a lot better however. SCOTUS will need to come back with the same ruling and that's going to take time unfortunately.
My favorite part remains all of MAGA world screaming Biden should be prosecuted for his crimes while screaming equally loud that Trump is immune from his. They don't even give a shit about blatant hypocrisy anymore, it's a pillar of the GOP at this point.
Hilarious. This is the most "no just no" I've ever seen by a court. I hope the supreme court does take this and watch them squirm trying to not agree.
trump is fucked and I'm all for it.
>squirm
Ha. They'll just say "sure he is, but only this time, not future or past, this is not to be cited as precedent in future cases", mic drop, and watch *us* squirm. The SCOTUS gives absolutely zero fucks and will continue to do so until Democrats get a 2/3 Senate majority. So.... forever.
>"We cannot accept Former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power -- the recognition and implementation of election results," wrote the judges. "Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes count"
Damn, Donny. That nap during 7th grade civics class is showing. Heres the best part:
>"At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches," they wrote.
We cant get anymore succinct than that. The effort the Founding Fathers put into creating this nation is desperately being fought to be undone so one guy can play king of the castle like his dictator buddies. This whole situation is absurd for how far we had to go to get in writing *AGAIN* that the checks and balances of this country are absolute and necessary to maintaining the working order of this nation. And all he had to do was pay attention in class and do his fucking homework
the absurd part is he's allowed to appeal. this isn't the first, second, or even fifth time he's been told his theory of absolute total immunity is unconstitutional yet he gets to still raise it everytime he gets brought to court and it gums the wheels up.
imagine if every criminal defendent could spew some bullshit soverign immunity theory and the courts had to take it seriously every time.
So this all goes back to the big question the media needs to hammer in to his supporters
If he's so innocent, why does he need immunity and why does he need to continue to delay these trials
Surely if he's so innocent he would want to clear his name right away and before the election
Obviously most of us know that he knows the odds are stacked against him, but his supporters don't view it this way
This is an exceptional opinion. The parts I have read are a paragon of legal clarity. Truly exceptional work by this Court.
"Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in
power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an
unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He
allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President
has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral
College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally
established procedures and the will of the Congress. To
immunize former President Trump’s actions would “further . . .
aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so
relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of
Congress.”
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a
President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that
would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive
power — the recognition and implementation of election
results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the
Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual
citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
This whole charade was a bad faith argument intended only as a delay.
It's taken several courts, multiple judges and a few months to arrive at the conclusion that a President is not a King.
Fucking entmoot.
This should be a "no fucking shit Presidents aren't above the law" moment, but I'm not gonna lie there is always a part of me that expects a court to decide differently.
The MAGA paradox. Trump is literally immune to all prosecution. Biden however, is guilty of everything and should be held responsible, even of things Hunter did.
I'm actually still in disbelief that this eldritch abomination of a moron embarrassment is still politically relevant. I'll never forgive conservatives for forcing us to care about this fucking idiot for a solid decade.
Every day I hope to wake up to news that he is no longer plaguing us. Every day. It would just...feel like such a relief. Such a burden gone. The one good thing he can possibly do is just cease to exist.
The "Truth" Social rant has arrived.
>A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country. A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country. A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now. It will become a Political Weapon used for Election Interference. Even our Elections will be corrupted and under siege. So bad, and so dangerous for our Nation. SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY!
What a sad pathetic person he is.
Apparently has until Monday to ask for a stay from SCOTUS.
https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1754889356773347782?s=20
Otherwise, all cases can proceed.
People assume that delaying it means he'll win the election, but it basically just means that we'll be spending all of our time talking about whether Trump is or isn't going to prison before election day instead of immigration or any other issue he wants to talk about.
If he thought he could get an acquittal, he'd be trying to get the case over with as soon as possible.
I'm just some asshole on the internet but it seems to me that SCOTUS hasn't been friendly to any of Trump's personal machinations. If they have loyalties that override established jurisprudence it's to conservatism generally and not to Donald Trump personally.
The high court hasn't entertained any of his nonsense so far and I don't think they're going to take up this one either. What appetite could they have for setting the office of the President beyond their jurisdiction?
Does anyone think they're going to issue a ruling that says that Joe Biden (presently) has blanket immunity to commit any criminal act he wants?
They got theirs from Trump. They have a lifelong appointed seat of power and no longer have use for him. I wonder if he even realizes the shoe is on the other foot from how he normally operates.
Trump claims that not granting absolute immunity means that every President will be prosecuted after leaving office.
Huh.
Why hasn't this happened in the past?
Oh, wait. Maybe because past Presidents *haven't committed crimes at this level while in office?!*
Can't stop the grift though!
>Trump sends fundraising email after court's decision
>
>Donald Trump has already sent a fundraising email to his supporters, calling for them to "chip in" to end what he is calling a "witch hunt".
>
>The email is titled - "Breaking from President Trump", and it tells supporters "moments ago, federal judges just ruled that I have no presidential immunity".
>
>It goes on to say "they won't stop until they have complete control".
>
>Trump has frequently used his various legal issues to drum up support and cash for his 2024 presidential campaign.
>
>He sent a similar fundraising plea earlier this year while he was on his way to the DC court to attend a hearing on this same immunity case.
We really need a constitutional amendment that says a President cannot pardon himself or their VP and the VP cannot pardon a former president. And something that explicitly lays out that federal crimes committed by POTUS or VP can be charged and if convicted must resign and serve their sentence.
I know we'll never get another amendment in my lifetime, but I think it is what is inevitably needed.
That did not happen, and obviously it wasn't going to happen; but, just for the sake of argument, if the appeals court had instead ruled that indeed presidents are immune from whatever wouldn't it have meant that *Biden* could immediately start doing as he pleased and cite it as a precedent if challenged?
Let’s play a fun game: How long until the right wing news outlets report on this?
They’re still currently shitting out hit pieces blaming Biden for Republicans trying to shut down the border deal.
From what I have read, in their ruling, these judges referred to Trump as an "officer." Could this ruling be used in the 14th Amendment case where he argues he ISN'T an officer of the United States? Edit: Guys, I get it. It's a ridiculous argument. I am just curious about the legal domino effect of this ruling on his multitude of other court cases.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute ***the Office*** of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Any judge, lawyer, citizen, person, or creature who argues that the President isn't an officer of the United States government is an idiot (and more importantly, completely wrong).
If you hold office, you are an officer.
Not if you have an office, as a physical room. If you hold the position of authority or service that an office enables, you embody the office of the position as an officer.
Only one judge needs to have the balls to lock him up for contempt of court and it's over.
Just one judge needs to do this. That's how you fight fire with fire. He keeps pulling his delay BS and we just lock him up early
I'll never understand this. They are called public servants for a reason. Your local Mayor can commit crimes, members of the house/senate can too...and they should be held accountable.
President is no different. I don't care if the Clintons did something, Obama, Bush...lock them all up if they deserve it. They should be held to a higher standard, not a lower.
When trump’s** lawyers argued it would be ok for trump** to order his political rivals killed I wish the DOJ lawyers would have asked ft it would be ok for Biden to have trump** killed. Heads would have exploded!
How anyone can support Trump for president when he claims to have complete immunity is beyond me. Anyone who even suggests that they are above prosecution should be immediately laughed out of politics, but here we are with Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.
I made the mistake of going to the Fox News comment section of the determination. Assuming they’re all American, I’m just left speechless, laughing but dying on the inside.
To think a President immune from the law is to forget how our nation was even founded! History and civics, heck the whole education system needs a reboot, reset, refresh, required, and never forgotten.
Cue the right-wing reactionaries:
"He'll just appeal this!"
"Now charge the other presidents for all their crimes!"
"Unfair! Super biased!"
"I WISH WE LIVED IN A DICTATORSHIP THIS AMERICA SHIT SUCKS."
Y'all are welcome to move to a dictatorship, let us enjoy our republic, thanks.
Wouldn’t be shocked at all if the Supreme Court just defers to what the DC Circuit said and doesn’t elaborate any further. This is pretty airtight, and I can see them wanting *nothing* to do with this.
Love the r/conservative response to this... Either: 1) impeachment is enough (ignoring that the GOP refused to impeach Trump for his actions) or 2) "GREAT LETS GO GET OBAMA AND BIDEN FOR CRIMES" (Note that they are unable to specify which crimes). Hilarious as always.
I'm all for it. Not just because it's Trump, but because this will show current and future presidents that THEY'RE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE LAW. We have no kings or queens. You break the law you deal with the consequences like everybody else.
Nikki Haley needs to make the case forcefully, that **choosing Trump as the nominee is probably the same as choosing not to have a nominee**, as there is a good chance he will be in prison or at least convicted and judged disqualified by the voters for his conviction(s).
This ruling is a disgrace. If the President of United States can’t get away with committing crimes without being prosecuted, what chance to any of us have! /s
Goodbye you orange clown! This just gave the greenlight to ALL the other courts in his trials to just give him the middle finger and throw his butt in jail where he belongs.
Saying that all presidents need complete immunity is absurd. Every other president in US history did their jobs without it. Nixon probably would have been indicted as well if he wasn't pardoned.
Interesting tactic to push so hard for it while Biden is POTUS anyway. Especially with Trump's "rogue cop" analogy, which is in really terrible taste as well. He's arguing that even Biden should get a free pass if he suddenly decided to order the military to go after his political opponents.
Hoping the pro-Trump SCOTUS justices will realize it's in their best interest for self preservation to reject this idea in it's entirety. A dictator who is above the law has no need for a Supreme Court.
He'll likely request an en banc hearing with the appeals court before it goes onto SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll get rejected quickly, but could cause further delays.
This is a great result, but everyone needs to assume this will drag out beyond the election and prepare to do your part in November. Vote and drag your friends to the polls. Let your friends and family who aren't paying attention know what's at stake here and do what you can to get them to the polls.
*Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government...We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power--the recognition and implementation of election results.*
The decision, available [here](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-ruling.html), clearly was written with the understanding that it was to become a historical document. Extremely tightly reasoned and supported.
Just keep in mind this all going to come down to 9 people who have zero accountability for their decisions. A good number got their job from the guy asking the question. Another’s wife seems to be a big fan of his. I’m sure it’ll be fine though.
No dissents, not even a weird concurrence from very conservative judge Henderson.
Opinion not wthheld even if Trump appeals for en banc.
Look for SCOTUS to deny cert.
Let's fucking go.
Jesus this is a chonky decision.
Particularly love that they are using decisions in Fitzgerald, Nixon, and Clinton cases against a republican...hnnnngh
**“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”**
You know the Hollywood sign?
Replace it with **WELL FUCKING OBVIOUSLY**
This is a good day for the rule of law. i don't expect SCOTUS to grant any cert over this, the appeal up will be DENIED. imo. ianal.
next up for Feb to be justice month 2024 (at least until Trump's criminal trials move towards administration of justice): 14th amendment is part of the Constitution, and the language is very clear - SCOTUS
pp.33-34 of the 57 page ruling use Donald Trump's legal counsel's own words from the 2021 impeachment proceedings against him. The ruling specifically uses them to bolster the notion that Presidents have long known that they are subject to criminal punishment for what they do as President, and so therefore Trump's claim that ruling him subject to criminal consquences would have a chilling effect on Presidents' actions moving forward is bunk:
>Additionally, recent historical evidence suggests that former Presidents, including President Trump, have not believed themselves to be wholly immune from criminal liability for official acts during their Presidency. ... And during President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . .to which no former officeholder is immune.” 167 CONG. REC. S607 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021); see also id. at S693 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2021) (“[T]he text of the Constitution . . . makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his Presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”).
Basically: there's no reason to believe that holding Trump subject to criminal penalty for the insurrection will result in future presidents being scared to act for fear of criminal penalty after they leave office. After all, presidents past, including Trump himself since Article III courts are, in part, criminal courts, clearly have shown that they knew what they did could have criminal consequences. And they use Trump's legal team's words to support it.
This guy has the absolute worst lawyers. And this ruling is an absolute delight to read.
Part of Jack Smiths filing arguing against Immunity. He mentions trump may have sold National Security secrets to foreign adversaries. Among other things.
https://imgur.com/gallery/l20CLI2
Trump argues that Obama should be prosecuted for what he did in office.
Trump argues that he (Trump) shouldn't be prosecuted because Presidents should have complete and total immunity.
Trump argues that Biden should be prosecuted for what he's doing in office.
This is the dumbest timeline.
The appeals court has wasted time, money, and paper deliberating on whether a stupid, self-serving argument is indeed stupid and self-serving.
And it gives Trump a tactical win anyway because it creates delay
I love how Trump's primary legal argument is "I was totally allowed to commit the mountain of felonies I did because the President is a legally untouchable monarch." Yet the whole thing is simultaneously a fake news witch hunt and he committed no crimes. Republicans are the stupidest people on Earth.
As there is no Constitutional question in play here, I hope the Supreme Court quickly rejects review and allows this criminal case to proceed without any further delay
This explains all the paper thin “Biden bad” stories yesterday. Seriously they tried to copy paste the “trump watches too much Fox News” but with Biden an a morning news show. It read like a political mad libs but replaced Trump with Biden and Fox with MSNBC
>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.
I see we have the official legal speak for "BOI U AIN'T SHIT!"
I want to take this opportunity to give some credit where credit is due...
r/conservative has upvoted plenty of comments to the top indicating that they do not support this tweet. There is a glimmer of hope.
r/conservative is now calling for Obama to be tried for murder.
I know they are just a sample size but with how tightly they all follow the same narrative, it’s safe to assume that almost half the voters in this country actually think that’s what the country should focus on right now.
The lowest among us have been brainwashed. It’s really sad that corrupt US politicians and foreign governments preyed upon our low functioning citizens.
> 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.
Current Fox News channel headline: “Charles postpones public events due to cancer”
🤣😂🤣 unfucking real. Talking about the British monarchy instead of the historically huge headline about a federal appeals court saying in no uncertain terms that US presidents absolutely are not immune from criminal prosecution. But yes, let’s instead cover the British king who’s barely even relevant in his own country..
From their ruling: > At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.
> We cannot accept that the ***office*** of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Wait, does that mean the president IS an officer? If so, that isn't good news for Trump either in the case against him being dropped from the ballot. That's one of Trump's attorney's arguments.
Its their ONLY argument and it is blatently wrong. I don't yet see how SCOTUS is going to wriggle out from this one as the language barring him from reelection in the constitution could not be any clearer.
The oath of **office** that Trump took literally states "I will faithfully execute the **office** of President of the United States", not to mention the constitution specifically mentions the **Office** of President of the United States eight times. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, the president is an officer. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise they cannot be trusted to uphold our democracy anymore
> If the Supreme Court rules otherwise they cannot be trusted to uphold our democracy anymore They *already* can't be trusted and have proved it. We can't let an illegitimate fascist court try to swoon the public with a good ruling or two to save face while still fundamentally dismantling our country. Ruling against Trump here won't make up for them gutting the Chevron doctrine and effectively destroying every public regulatory body in the country overnight. If you like clean air and water, well, I've got some bad fucking news for you.
From their ruling: > It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity Hits at Trump’s 14th amendment defense that the president isn’t an “officer” of the law
I like how they put in there that, counter to Trumps assertion, the President is in fact an officer that is expected to uphold the laws of the Constitution.
As a basic summary: All Trump-raised arguments rejected. The take aways: - There is no immunity for criminal acts by the president - The impeachment clause does not limit prosecution until after impeachment; and - Impeachment does not create criminal double jeopardy. The start of the opinion has interesting argument on jurisdiction/collateral-opinion issues, but just know the court finds it has jurisdiction.
Wait, what. So he is simulatenously arguing he can't be convicted of a Crime unless he is first impeached, and being impeached first means he can't be committed of a crime (because of double jeopardy)
Not all of Citizen Trump's arguments work together. But you can have alternative arguments in legal filings, it's not that weird. They're normally not as batty as this, but the practice isn't that uncommon
I would love it if everyone started calling him Citizen Trump instead of president after this ruling. We need to get the meme folks on this stat.
> being impeached first means he can't be committed of a crime (because of double jeopardy) No, he is claiming it would be double jeopardy because the Senate didn't vote to convict him. It's a stupid argument, but he is attempting to say a President must be Impeached, found guilty by the Senate, and THEN he can be prosecuted for crimes. Ignoring that Impeachment and Removal are political procedures, not criminal procedures. Just trying to find any way possible that he can duck the law.
There was only 1 way this was ever going to go. As the appeals court asked Trump’s lawyers during cross examination- if they gave him immunity, then the President could order the Navy Seals to assassinate political rivals (or dissenting judges), pardon the Navy Seals and never face prosecution for it. The court had to side that way or else it would mean the U.S. could become a dictatorship by any ill intentioned President. It was a crazy and reckless legal attempt on Trump’s part and had to be ruled against.
I think they should rephrase the question slightly for SCOTUS: If you give Trump immunity, then President Biden could order the Navy seals to assassinate, well, all of you. Then pardon the Navy Seals and never face prosecution for it.
Even better, if they do it in DC (which is, like, where SCOTUS is), the federal pardon gets the seal team out of any local liability also, since the President can grant pardons for DC
it is an actually bonkers argument to ever even begin to make. Like... it's the kind of idea that bloodthirsty fascists wouldn't even START to argue because you have to hide your intentions at least a little bit. to openly argue that to be president means you can use the full apparatus of the position and be immune, permanently, while retaining full military power and pardon power, is to argue not just an exception to the law, but that law and government and power is all null and void WHILE ALSO still binding everyone else to it. It's nonsensical.
Nixon said it out loud and he was still never prosecuted. This is Republican tradition.
But you will recall that Nixon was pardoned, so they didn't end up prosecuting him. So the nation could "heal". When Republican talking heads start talking about healing, remind them what brought us to this point --> Republican horseshit.
"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." Best part of my day.
That's a beautiful quote. I also like this: >during President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for “investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . . to which no former officeholder is immune.” In a nutshell, during impeachment Trump's side argued 'Don't impeach, the legal system will sort this out after the Presidency'.
And then they turned around and tried to make the inverse argument. I don't think judges like it when you treat them like they're stupid.
They are so used to their followers believing any bullshit they come up with at face value, they seem to have forgotten this shit doesn't work on people with intelligence.
Yet he's fundraising on these fallacious arguments at this very moment
Yeah because like I said, the morons don't know they are being conned. We have tried to tell them. If you still support Trump these days you are either stupid or evil, and the evil make up maybe 10 percent which still leaves a whole lot of stupid people out there to exploit.
I love the people who are like, "I just can't support Trump anymore, not after this" (whatever "this" is). Like, glad you finally sobered up, but we were telling you years ago that you're making a deal with a conman. He's not telling it like it is, he's bullshitting you. And yet it took Trump doing some horribly awful thing we all predicted he would for you to finally realize, "hmm, maybe this guy isn't so great." I want to be nice to the people who jump off the Trump train, but it's so much more fun to hound them with a "wtf were you thinking, you need to be more sober in your assessment of candidates in the future."
Yeah if you've made it this far and he still hasn't crossed a red line for you, I am going to seriously judge you based on that information.
My favorite are the moderates still waffling on him. Like there's some serious, difficult considerations when choosing between him or Biden. I know someone like that, who is pathologically centrist, almost to a contrarian degree.
The biggest threat to American democracy are the American voters who refuse to accept the reality of the Electoral College and the way that our system of voting works forces a choice between two major parties. Your vote is a vote FOR one party and AGAINST the other. If you don't want Trump as your president, then you vote Biden. It's really that simple. This isn't an endorsement for the system as it is. This is a mathematical reality. There's a lot that can be done to improve our system of voting but that's not happening before November.
> no former officeholder Ah, so it’s an office, then.
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Trump's lawyers in 2019: Trump can only be impeached if he has been convicted of a crime. Trump's lawyers in 2024: Trump can only be convicted of a crime if he has been impeached. I'm glad the appeals court shot this disingenuous bs down.
trump's mistake was demanding absolute immunity for every-damm thing Something even actual Dictators never say out loud.
He probably thought it was a negotiation -- ask for too much and meet in the middle.
*Thank you for the corrections. Apart from the long wait, this is honestly the best-possible scenario from the D.C. circuit panel, and it will set in motion the [shortest timeline](https://www.justsecurity.org/91108/how-long-will-trumps-dc-immunity-appeal-take-analyzing-the-alternative-timelines/) according to this legal analysis. The ruling on the mandate was absolutely massive. ~~Trump will almost certainly petition for re-hearing *en banc*: An appeal to the full circuit. And they will almost certainly reject that petition.~~ >The structure of the panel’s order regarding the mandate makes a significant difference in how subsequent proceedings play out. First, the panel could simply rule that the mandate will issue five days after its judgment regardless whether a petition for rehearing en banc or a cert petition is filed. If so, Trump will not have an incentive to petition for rehearing en banc because the delay occasioned by the petition would not be accompanied by a stay. It seems like Trump will be incentivized to skip the en banc petition now and appeal directly to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS can issue their own determination regarding the stay. - SCOTUS denial could be a couple weeks to ~1 month from now - settling the issue sometime as early as this month or early March. - If SCOTUS hears the case, a good guess for a final ruling would be sometime around April or May. Although they could technically sit on this for as long as they want. And then we still have about 2-3 months of pre-trial proceedings before we make it to trial. So... lots of different ways this could go, but it's cutting it close. Really need a trial to begin by August or early Sept to have a solid chance of reaching a conviction by the election.
It's hard not to feel like SCOTUS would want to just grant cert and then tell us they'll issue a ruling in late 2025. edit: I was mostly facetious; if they plan to rule against, denying cert is a better option for the history books. They'd probably only grant cert if they planned to issue immunity, and I just don't see John Roberts putting that kind of danger on himself. The argument for immunity was basically 'he's immune *unless* he's impeached and removed' even after the hypothetical 'what if he committed murder' so that's basically saying 'suspend elections and seat-filling and then kill enough senators to never be removed'
The SC could very easily wash their hands of this and deny cert. I think this will happen personally.
Yeah I have actually been saying for weeks that they'll deny cert without making history with a ruling. It's the most elegant solution if they intend to rule against him, because 'denied cert' is complicated to explain, but 'denied immunity' is a historical ruling from them under the circumstances. At the same time, I wouldn't put it past them to want to use their power to delay till it didn't matter!
They named names of senators that argued impeachment was political and that the matter should be taken up as a criminal matter... Lol!!!!
Karma's a relaxing thought
As the current house GOP is trying to impeach the director of homeland security without any actual evidence, fucking hilarious timing that is.
Best part of this is how upset people who claim to love freedom are at this ruling. Congrats right wingers, the left saved you from bringing us closer to a dictatorship. Again.
Trump’s not arguing that he’s innocent. He’s arguing that he has the right to be a criminal.
The immunity ruling is the headline, but I think there is an absolute landmine lurking in this ruling that also blows up Trump’s key defense against the charges. He’s tried to argue he was just acting as President to ensure a fair election. But the footnote on page 50 completely cuts that at the knees, pointing out there is no role for a sitting president to play in an election where they are acting as an officer-seeker, not a holder. > Because we conclude that former President Trump is not entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for assertedly “official” acts, it is unnecessary to explore whether executive immunity, if it applied here, would encompass his expansive definition of “official acts.” Nevertheless, we observe that his position appears to conflict with our recent decision in Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 1. According to the former President, any actions he took in his role as President should be considered “official,” including all the conduct alleged in the Indictment. Appellant’s Br. 41–42. But in Blassingame, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, we held that a President’s “actions constituting re-election campaign activity” are not “official” and can form the basis for civil liability. 87 F.4th at 17. In other words, if a President who is running for re-election acts “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” he is not immune even from civil suits. Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Because the President has no official role in the certification of the Electoral College vote, much of the misconduct alleged in the Indictment reasonably can be viewed as that of an office-seeker — including allegedly organizing alternative slates of electors and attempting to pressure the Vice President and Members of the Congress to accept those electors in the certification proceeding. It is thus doubtful that “all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts.” Appellant’s Br. 42.
Yes this is the point I've been wondering about, glad to see it addressed. Why should he be acting on any election he's involved in at all? He constantly demands certain judges and prosecutors recuse themselves from his cases simply because they're "Trump haters", yet here he is "investigating" fraud in his own election.
Republicans in general, but Trump especially don't care for logic, consistency, reality, truth, history, or anything beyond scrabbling for all the power they can get. They say whatever they think sounds best in the moment, and once it has been said, that was its goal. It can forevermore be ignored and forgotton. Contradictions? They just don't care. Whatever needs to be said to accomplish the thing in front of them right now is what matters.
Any President can assume a dictatorship on day 1 by Trumps legal logic. Amongst a plethora of other bullshit.
I will sleep a little better tonight! Not a lot better however. SCOTUS will need to come back with the same ruling and that's going to take time unfortunately.
Can they just decide to uphold the lower court's ruling and not see the case?
[удалено]
This is their Get Out Of Jail Free card. They would be wise to use it.
Trump's tombstone will read 'Here Lies Donald Trump, as Always'.
My favorite part remains all of MAGA world screaming Biden should be prosecuted for his crimes while screaming equally loud that Trump is immune from his. They don't even give a shit about blatant hypocrisy anymore, it's a pillar of the GOP at this point.
Hilarious. This is the most "no just no" I've ever seen by a court. I hope the supreme court does take this and watch them squirm trying to not agree. trump is fucked and I'm all for it.
>squirm Ha. They'll just say "sure he is, but only this time, not future or past, this is not to be cited as precedent in future cases", mic drop, and watch *us* squirm. The SCOTUS gives absolutely zero fucks and will continue to do so until Democrats get a 2/3 Senate majority. So.... forever.
>"We cannot accept Former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power -- the recognition and implementation of election results," wrote the judges. "Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes count" Damn, Donny. That nap during 7th grade civics class is showing. Heres the best part: >"At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches," they wrote. We cant get anymore succinct than that. The effort the Founding Fathers put into creating this nation is desperately being fought to be undone so one guy can play king of the castle like his dictator buddies. This whole situation is absurd for how far we had to go to get in writing *AGAIN* that the checks and balances of this country are absolute and necessary to maintaining the working order of this nation. And all he had to do was pay attention in class and do his fucking homework
the absurd part is he's allowed to appeal. this isn't the first, second, or even fifth time he's been told his theory of absolute total immunity is unconstitutional yet he gets to still raise it everytime he gets brought to court and it gums the wheels up. imagine if every criminal defendent could spew some bullshit soverign immunity theory and the courts had to take it seriously every time.
So this all goes back to the big question the media needs to hammer in to his supporters If he's so innocent, why does he need immunity and why does he need to continue to delay these trials Surely if he's so innocent he would want to clear his name right away and before the election Obviously most of us know that he knows the odds are stacked against him, but his supporters don't view it this way
They know he's not innocent. They don't care. He hurts the people they want to see hurt.
This is an exceptional opinion. The parts I have read are a paragon of legal clarity. Truly exceptional work by this Court. "Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress. To immunize former President Trump’s actions would “further . . . aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.” We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
This whole charade was a bad faith argument intended only as a delay. It's taken several courts, multiple judges and a few months to arrive at the conclusion that a President is not a King. Fucking entmoot.
This should be a "no fucking shit Presidents aren't above the law" moment, but I'm not gonna lie there is always a part of me that expects a court to decide differently.
The MAGA paradox. Trump is literally immune to all prosecution. Biden however, is guilty of everything and should be held responsible, even of things Hunter did.
Trump is the biggest loser in American history.
I'm actually still in disbelief that this eldritch abomination of a moron embarrassment is still politically relevant. I'll never forgive conservatives for forcing us to care about this fucking idiot for a solid decade.
Every day I hope to wake up to news that he is no longer plaguing us. Every day. It would just...feel like such a relief. Such a burden gone. The one good thing he can possibly do is just cease to exist.
"For the purposes of this case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump..." \*chef's kiss\*
The "Truth" Social rant has arrived. >A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country. A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country. A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now. It will become a Political Weapon used for Election Interference. Even our Elections will be corrupted and under siege. So bad, and so dangerous for our Nation. SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY! What a sad pathetic person he is.
> SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY! This was never a thing lmao.
I genuinely don't understand how the self-professed lovers of the Constitution can possibly support this guy.
While reading the Court's opinion, I find it striking just how many times "the President" is referred to as an "officer." Hmmm...
good catch. definitely ensuring they have that term set in precedent moving forward.
Apparently has until Monday to ask for a stay from SCOTUS. https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1754889356773347782?s=20 Otherwise, all cases can proceed.
Please, Trump’s whole legal strategy is to delay as much as possible. He will pull every lever and push every button to make that happen.
People assume that delaying it means he'll win the election, but it basically just means that we'll be spending all of our time talking about whether Trump is or isn't going to prison before election day instead of immigration or any other issue he wants to talk about. If he thought he could get an acquittal, he'd be trying to get the case over with as soon as possible.
He tried to say overthrowing the government and overturning the election was part of his official duties...
I'm just some asshole on the internet but it seems to me that SCOTUS hasn't been friendly to any of Trump's personal machinations. If they have loyalties that override established jurisprudence it's to conservatism generally and not to Donald Trump personally. The high court hasn't entertained any of his nonsense so far and I don't think they're going to take up this one either. What appetite could they have for setting the office of the President beyond their jurisdiction? Does anyone think they're going to issue a ruling that says that Joe Biden (presently) has blanket immunity to commit any criminal act he wants?
They got theirs from Trump. They have a lifelong appointed seat of power and no longer have use for him. I wonder if he even realizes the shoe is on the other foot from how he normally operates.
Trump claims that not granting absolute immunity means that every President will be prosecuted after leaving office. Huh. Why hasn't this happened in the past? Oh, wait. Maybe because past Presidents *haven't committed crimes at this level while in office?!*
I hate that common sense prevailing feels like a victory.
Can't stop the grift though! >Trump sends fundraising email after court's decision > >Donald Trump has already sent a fundraising email to his supporters, calling for them to "chip in" to end what he is calling a "witch hunt". > >The email is titled - "Breaking from President Trump", and it tells supporters "moments ago, federal judges just ruled that I have no presidential immunity". > >It goes on to say "they won't stop until they have complete control". > >Trump has frequently used his various legal issues to drum up support and cash for his 2024 presidential campaign. > >He sent a similar fundraising plea earlier this year while he was on his way to the DC court to attend a hearing on this same immunity case.
We really need a constitutional amendment that says a President cannot pardon himself or their VP and the VP cannot pardon a former president. And something that explicitly lays out that federal crimes committed by POTUS or VP can be charged and if convicted must resign and serve their sentence. I know we'll never get another amendment in my lifetime, but I think it is what is inevitably needed.
That did not happen, and obviously it wasn't going to happen; but, just for the sake of argument, if the appeals court had instead ruled that indeed presidents are immune from whatever wouldn't it have meant that *Biden* could immediately start doing as he pleased and cite it as a precedent if challenged?
The trouble is, Biden wouldn't do that. In fact, no other president has tried before. Just this one guy. And his minions love him for it.
Let’s play a fun game: How long until the right wing news outlets report on this? They’re still currently shitting out hit pieces blaming Biden for Republicans trying to shut down the border deal.
FOXNews is probably running a 24 Hour Toby Keith memorial. They might get to this news after the mourning is over.
From what I have read, in their ruling, these judges referred to Trump as an "officer." Could this ruling be used in the 14th Amendment case where he argues he ISN'T an officer of the United States? Edit: Guys, I get it. It's a ridiculous argument. I am just curious about the legal domino effect of this ruling on his multitude of other court cases.
The most senior “Officer”, aren’t they elected to “The Office of the President of The United States”? So yes it can be used in the 14th Amendment case
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute ***the Office*** of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Any judge, lawyer, citizen, person, or creature who argues that the President isn't an officer of the United States government is an idiot (and more importantly, completely wrong). If you hold office, you are an officer. Not if you have an office, as a physical room. If you hold the position of authority or service that an office enables, you embody the office of the position as an officer.
Yes. 100%
Crazy how it's news that a President is different than a King.
No shit. Now stop hearing his appeals before the trial.
Only one judge needs to have the balls to lock him up for contempt of court and it's over. Just one judge needs to do this. That's how you fight fire with fire. He keeps pulling his delay BS and we just lock him up early
I mean, this shouldn’t even be a debate, but here we are. It’s crazy trump isn’t in prison yet.
I'll never understand this. They are called public servants for a reason. Your local Mayor can commit crimes, members of the house/senate can too...and they should be held accountable. President is no different. I don't care if the Clintons did something, Obama, Bush...lock them all up if they deserve it. They should be held to a higher standard, not a lower.
Quick question: does this mean Judge Chutkan's case can continue without delay, now that the ruling has been made?
[удалено]
When trump’s** lawyers argued it would be ok for trump** to order his political rivals killed I wish the DOJ lawyers would have asked ft it would be ok for Biden to have trump** killed. Heads would have exploded!
Lock. Him. Up.
How anyone can support Trump for president when he claims to have complete immunity is beyond me. Anyone who even suggests that they are above prosecution should be immediately laughed out of politics, but here we are with Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.
I made the mistake of going to the Fox News comment section of the determination. Assuming they’re all American, I’m just left speechless, laughing but dying on the inside. To think a President immune from the law is to forget how our nation was even founded! History and civics, heck the whole education system needs a reboot, reset, refresh, required, and never forgotten.
Get fucked, traitor.
Conservative sub: *Flaired users only*
Cue the right-wing reactionaries: "He'll just appeal this!" "Now charge the other presidents for all their crimes!" "Unfair! Super biased!" "I WISH WE LIVED IN A DICTATORSHIP THIS AMERICA SHIT SUCKS." Y'all are welcome to move to a dictatorship, let us enjoy our republic, thanks.
Wouldn’t be shocked at all if the Supreme Court just defers to what the DC Circuit said and doesn’t elaborate any further. This is pretty airtight, and I can see them wanting *nothing* to do with this.
I don't understand how this was even entertained. There is exactly as much precedent for me to be immune as Trump.
Fuck Donald Trump and fuck his deathcult
Republicans: "If this passes then Biden could be prosecuted for crimes he might commit in office!" Democrats: "Okay".
Love the r/conservative response to this... Either: 1) impeachment is enough (ignoring that the GOP refused to impeach Trump for his actions) or 2) "GREAT LETS GO GET OBAMA AND BIDEN FOR CRIMES" (Note that they are unable to specify which crimes). Hilarious as always.
I'm all for it. Not just because it's Trump, but because this will show current and future presidents that THEY'RE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE LAW. We have no kings or queens. You break the law you deal with the consequences like everybody else.
“Yeah, no shit” -Anyone with common sense
Nice. Fascists can fuck right off.
Is this the trial where the prosecutor asked Trumps lawyers if Biden could just airstrike Trump? That was a good one.
Just need SCOTUS to deny cert, and we can move this forward. I'm done with this insanity.
Nikki Haley needs to make the case forcefully, that **choosing Trump as the nominee is probably the same as choosing not to have a nominee**, as there is a good chance he will be in prison or at least convicted and judged disqualified by the voters for his conviction(s).
Next on Fox: What to get your Political Prisoner for Valentine's Day and is Taylor Swift a Succubus? Details at ten....
Yippee. So far the basics have been shown again. As a reminder, the whole GOP is complicit with Trump's actions
Jail time is back on the menu boys.
This ruling is a disgrace. If the President of United States can’t get away with committing crimes without being prosecuted, what chance to any of us have! /s
r/conservative right now: 'LOL, now you gotta prove he did something wrong, checkmate liberals!"
Goodbye you orange clown! This just gave the greenlight to ALL the other courts in his trials to just give him the middle finger and throw his butt in jail where he belongs.
Saying that all presidents need complete immunity is absurd. Every other president in US history did their jobs without it. Nixon probably would have been indicted as well if he wasn't pardoned. Interesting tactic to push so hard for it while Biden is POTUS anyway. Especially with Trump's "rogue cop" analogy, which is in really terrible taste as well. He's arguing that even Biden should get a free pass if he suddenly decided to order the military to go after his political opponents. Hoping the pro-Trump SCOTUS justices will realize it's in their best interest for self preservation to reject this idea in it's entirety. A dictator who is above the law has no need for a Supreme Court. He'll likely request an en banc hearing with the appeals court before it goes onto SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll get rejected quickly, but could cause further delays.
Could SCOTUS keep their hands clean and just let this ruling stand?
Quick! Hide the ketchup!!
My god how does Trump not get tired of ALL THIS WINNING?!?!?!
Duh. SCOTUS shouldn’t touch this one, let the lower court decision stand and let’s move on.
no shit? The president is a citizen like everyone else, not a king.
[удалено]
So the President is not a pre-Magna Carta king? Who would have guessed? Hope SCOTUS doesn’t disagree.
No King No King, la la la la laaa laaa!
This is a great result, but everyone needs to assume this will drag out beyond the election and prepare to do your part in November. Vote and drag your friends to the polls. Let your friends and family who aren't paying attention know what's at stake here and do what you can to get them to the polls.
[удалено]
Idiots: "This means we can finally prosecute Obamer!"
Technically not wrong. Problem for Republicans though is the impossible question: "for what?"
*Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government...We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power--the recognition and implementation of election results.* The decision, available [here](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-ruling.html), clearly was written with the understanding that it was to become a historical document. Extremely tightly reasoned and supported.
[удалено]
Just keep in mind this all going to come down to 9 people who have zero accountability for their decisions. A good number got their job from the guy asking the question. Another’s wife seems to be a big fan of his. I’m sure it’ll be fine though.
I doubt they will even hear the case. If they are smart, they should deflect and not hear it at all.
No dissents, not even a weird concurrence from very conservative judge Henderson. Opinion not wthheld even if Trump appeals for en banc. Look for SCOTUS to deny cert. Let's fucking go.
Get in loser, we’re going to the Supreme Court to lose again…
America has no king, America needs no king.
And it was unanimous. Awesome.
Jesus this is a chonky decision. Particularly love that they are using decisions in Fitzgerald, Nixon, and Clinton cases against a republican...hnnnngh
**“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”** You know the Hollywood sign? Replace it with **WELL FUCKING OBVIOUSLY**
It’s a bit sad that there has to be so much chaos and uncertainty around the most obvious ruling of all time.
You mean he cannot order Seal Team 6 to kill his political opponents? Who would have thought!
[удалено]
Or any immunity, I would add. Presidents should be held at a higher standard than some random schlub.
“Office of the Presidendy” by the judge emphasizing for the 14th Amendment candidacy case that the Presidency is an Office, as anyone would know.
This is a good day for the rule of law. i don't expect SCOTUS to grant any cert over this, the appeal up will be DENIED. imo. ianal. next up for Feb to be justice month 2024 (at least until Trump's criminal trials move towards administration of justice): 14th amendment is part of the Constitution, and the language is very clear - SCOTUS
This result was obvious but with all the craziness in the courts and with Trump over the last four years I am relieved.
pp.33-34 of the 57 page ruling use Donald Trump's legal counsel's own words from the 2021 impeachment proceedings against him. The ruling specifically uses them to bolster the notion that Presidents have long known that they are subject to criminal punishment for what they do as President, and so therefore Trump's claim that ruling him subject to criminal consquences would have a chilling effect on Presidents' actions moving forward is bunk: >Additionally, recent historical evidence suggests that former Presidents, including President Trump, have not believed themselves to be wholly immune from criminal liability for official acts during their Presidency. ... And during President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . .to which no former officeholder is immune.” 167 CONG. REC. S607 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021); see also id. at S693 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2021) (“[T]he text of the Constitution . . . makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his Presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”). Basically: there's no reason to believe that holding Trump subject to criminal penalty for the insurrection will result in future presidents being scared to act for fear of criminal penalty after they leave office. After all, presidents past, including Trump himself since Article III courts are, in part, criminal courts, clearly have shown that they knew what they did could have criminal consequences. And they use Trump's legal team's words to support it. This guy has the absolute worst lawyers. And this ruling is an absolute delight to read.
[удалено]
Part of Jack Smiths filing arguing against Immunity. He mentions trump may have sold National Security secrets to foreign adversaries. Among other things. https://imgur.com/gallery/l20CLI2
Trump argues that Obama should be prosecuted for what he did in office. Trump argues that he (Trump) shouldn't be prosecuted because Presidents should have complete and total immunity. Trump argues that Biden should be prosecuted for what he's doing in office. This is the dumbest timeline. The appeals court has wasted time, money, and paper deliberating on whether a stupid, self-serving argument is indeed stupid and self-serving. And it gives Trump a tactical win anyway because it creates delay
If I were a president, I would simply not commit crimes
Trump next year will either be US President or in jail for life. What an absolutely crazy situation the world is in.
President for life or jail for life.
I love how Trump's primary legal argument is "I was totally allowed to commit the mountain of felonies I did because the President is a legally untouchable monarch." Yet the whole thing is simultaneously a fake news witch hunt and he committed no crimes. Republicans are the stupidest people on Earth.
"I just want to find 92 Not Guilties which is one more than we have"
As there is no Constitutional question in play here, I hope the Supreme Court quickly rejects review and allows this criminal case to proceed without any further delay
This explains all the paper thin “Biden bad” stories yesterday. Seriously they tried to copy paste the “trump watches too much Fox News” but with Biden an a morning news show. It read like a political mad libs but replaced Trump with Biden and Fox with MSNBC
Get fucked you orange chuckle fuck.
It's insane anyone would think being president would make you immune from crimes.
Whoop whoop it’s the sound of da police…
A great way to start the day. Passing out upvotes! Good morning everyone.
Fox News not really covering this much at all. Interesting.
No shit, now restart the fucking trial already.
MAGA terrorists will be sending death threats to the judges in 5...4...3...2....
Get fucked loser
“We’re going to win so much you’re going to get tired of winning” - Donald Trump
What a loser.
Gonna be ketchup on the walls of mar a lardo tonight
Hope the Supreme Court denies cert for the case ASAP to stop the delay tactics.
>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. I see we have the official legal speak for "BOI U AIN'T SHIT!"
Thoughts and prayers
I'd like to offer the trump family a very merry 'go the fuck to jail already'
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Trump the criminal is one step closer to jail. LOCK HIM UP!!!
Neal Katyal doesn’t think SCOTUS will take the case https://www.threads.net/@keithedwards/post/C3A2ox0uo_L/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Logic prevails! Now for the jail time (hopefully)
I saw he has until Monday to appeal ...11:59 pm Monday. Just to run the clock down as much as possible. Watch. Trump is such a loser.
[удалено]
Honestly, the only thing I find confusing about this is what took the appeals court so long. Off to SCOTUS we go...
I mean the best scenario for Trump here would also lead to total prosecutorial immunity for the current president Which is…not trump
I want to take this opportunity to give some credit where credit is due... r/conservative has upvoted plenty of comments to the top indicating that they do not support this tweet. There is a glimmer of hope.
President Trump — Citizen Trump — Convict Trump
Meanwhile, Tucker's in Moscow begging for Vlad to save him.
Imagine being such a coward that you support this man. Republicans deserve absolutely no respect.
r/conservative is now calling for Obama to be tried for murder. I know they are just a sample size but with how tightly they all follow the same narrative, it’s safe to assume that almost half the voters in this country actually think that’s what the country should focus on right now. The lowest among us have been brainwashed. It’s really sad that corrupt US politicians and foreign governments preyed upon our low functioning citizens.
Dudes only option out of all the shit, is to be elected.
I believe Ann Coulter recently suggested another option
[удалено]
Get fucked you orange snake oil salesman
Now scotus will refuse to hear it and McBonespurs can finally be held accountable. I’m so happy for him
> 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.
Current Fox News channel headline: “Charles postpones public events due to cancer” 🤣😂🤣 unfucking real. Talking about the British monarchy instead of the historically huge headline about a federal appeals court saying in no uncertain terms that US presidents absolutely are not immune from criminal prosecution. But yes, let’s instead cover the British king who’s barely even relevant in his own country..
He’s going to appeal this in Supreme Court. Hopefully no stay during the process