Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules

[swag]

Source: CNN

CNN
—
Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.

“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,” the court wrote.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals?cid=ios_app

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Beat by a second

Appeals court denies Trump immunity in DC election case


Published Tue, Feb 6 202410:05 AM ESTUpdated 4 Min Ago

Former President Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity from prosecution on criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Trump is expected to quickly ask the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.

The legal battle over Trump’s immunity claim stems from the criminal election interference case being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Trump is charged in that case with four counts of crimes including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. He has pleaded not guilty.

(snip)

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/trump-election-case-appeals-court-denies-ex-president-immunity.html

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Off to SCOTUS.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. It's *possible* that to slow it down to the max - he goes to "en banc" first

ETA - NPR's article mentions that -

(snip)

Tuesday's decision comes at a crucial time for both Trump and the federal case against him. Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination and continues to insist — without basis in fact — that he won the 2020 presidential election. He almost certainly will appeal the ruling either to the full D.C. Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(snip)

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06/1223904739/trump-immunity-ruling

[brooklynite]

11. At this point he has no "right" to appeal...

Either an en banc review or SC review would require granting of Cert.

His record to date hasn't been very successful.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. His pseudo lawyers do anything they want

whether it is legally valid or even makes sense or not.

"Due process".

[brooklynite]

18. You miss the point...

His lawyers can do anything they want. The Courts can reject the request without a hearing.

[machoneman]

72. Yes! This ruling gives cover to the SC to ignore the appeal by turning down his lawyer's plea. We win!!!!

[RobinA]

84. I'll Feel Relief

when I see "cert. denied"

[BumRushDaShow]

117. Did you just read what you wrote?

The Courts can reject the request without a hearing.

The "operative words" are CAN REJECT but that doesn't mean that they CAN'T ACCEPT.

He had another case out of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals late last year for the same issue dealing with "immunity" for the E. Jean Carroll case, and a reconsideration of the "no immunity" Ruling was denied. He opted not to go to the SCOTUS before that trial started, and we saw the $83 million result.

[Bobstandard]

129. SCOTUS will take the case. 2 reasons

They will affirm the Appeals Court ruling but with a bunch of chin music that make it seem the decision was theirs and that they stood up for democracy and the rule of law. Basically stealing some glory for themselves

The conservatives on the court still want to help Trump, so they will take their sweet time, giving him the delay he loves.

Win-win

[BumRushDaShow]

135. Alternately -

(and I have seen them do this) there are 2 cases, the "14th Amendment" one and the "immunity" one.

I expect they will affirm the Appeals "no immunity" cases (there were 2 although one in the 2nd Circuit didn't get to the SCOTUS before the trial started - i.e., the E. Jean Carroll one).

So acceding to the "immunity" thing, they might go opposite and get "literal" with the "14th Amendment" one and claim it was applicable to the Civil War era, with an "actual war", and allow ballot access.

(I only speculate because I have seen Roberts "allow" the ACA to exist on one hand and then "disallow" provisions of the VRA on the other)

[Bobstandard]

168. Good point

Hadn’t thought of that. Good thinking.

At some point I find myself shutting down to all the nefarious tracks the various questions can take. It’s wearying

[brooklynite]

144. Did you read what I wrote previously?

Trump made several Cert petitions to the Supreme Court in 2020; they were all rejected.

[BumRushDaShow]

146. 2020 is NOT 2024

PA was the subject of a pile of the GOP's insane filings, both state and federal, with many of them incoherent, and some so bad that they were even dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. The "immunity" one might fall in that type of category.

I doubt they would bother with the "immunity" case(s) but the "14th Amendment" one has all kinds of District and Appellate Courts with different Rulings... and since it is explicit to "the Constitution", then it is a perfect venue for the SCOTUS to take up.

[brooklynite]

151. We're not talking about the 14th Amendment case...I've never assumed that would be viable.

We're talking about Trump's ability to get the Immunity ruling considered at higher Court levels.

[AdamGG]

139. Hopefully the pseudo SCOTUS doesn't want to hear it

[BumRushDaShow]

153. Did you miss the headlines?

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-insurrection-provision-keeps-trump-off-ballot/

You can even listen in this Thursday -

Keep up!

[AdamGG]

164. Whether Dump is immune from prosecution and whether states can remove him from the ballot

are two completely different issues.

[BumRushDaShow]

165. Yes I know

The issue was the person I was replying to was insisting that because his cases done in "2020" had been rejected by the SCOTUS, then any cases now would be rejected as well. Yet the SCOTUS *is hearing arguments* for one of 45's cases this week.

Capiche?

[SWBTATTReg]

141. Yes, he can't appeal it!

[ShazzieB]

156. My profound hope is that he will not be granted either an en banc or a Supreme Court review.

I don't have the expertise to guess what the chances of either are, but that's what I've been hoping the whole time we've been waiting for this ruling.

🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

[Novara]

69. I think that is incorrect.

The way I read it, the decision is stayed until the 12th unless he appeals to the SCOTUS. If he appeals to the full appeals court first, the decision goes into effect and Chutkan can proceed.

They're trying to speed up the inevitable appeals process.

[BumRushDaShow]

78. Chutkan could "proceed" but the issue would still be unresolved

and will continue to rear its ugly head while the appeals process continues, with all the nightmarish spinning about whether the full D.C. Circuit (which I doubt but the media will continue to float the possibility) could reverse, and then we're on to the SCOTUS regardless.

IIRC we went through this same exercise with "Executive Privilege" last year and finally someone (45) decided to end the appeals.

There is already an appeal for "immunity" for the E. Jean Carroll case (out of the 2nd Circuit) - https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-rejects-donald-trumps-request-immunity-e-jean-carrolls-defamation-suit-2023-12-13/

That is headed to the SCOTUS as well.

[TexasBushwhacker]

119. And any sensible person, with these ongoing

legal problems, would not put themselves out as being qualified to hold the most powerful job in the US.

Presidential candidates are given a thorough physical to prove that they are healthy enough to do the job. Trump's legal woes have AT LEAST as much affect on his suitability for office as his physical health.

[BumRushDaShow]

121. The operative words being

"sensible".

[TexasBushwhacker]

122. Of course, but I'm hoping some independent voters will be swayed

I remember when Trump was running in 2016. I heard so many people say they were voting for Trump because "we need a change". They didn't say they liked him or that he was the most qualified. Just that "we need a change". Well all saw what we ended up with. In 2016, over 5% voted for 3rd party candidates. In 2020, less than 2% did. We had 66% voter turnout in 2020 vs 2016. Regardless of the saber rattling on the right, I just don't see how anyone could think Trump is more qualified now than he was 4 years ago.

[BumRushDaShow]

127. I think the fact that Biden got 7 million more popular votes in 2020

(and that was DURING A PANDEMIC!) suggests a possible similar or higher turnout and range of votes (particularly with Roe on the table now).

[sprinkleeninow]

134. We certainly 'got a change', dint we?

😖

[forgotmylogin]

145. So does he demand escalation to a supervisor (Supreme Court)...

Or does he make it take longer by going full D.C. Circuit first, then Supreme Court? (I'm only assuming he can do both?)

Since he's trying to run out the clock is he gonna make every lengthy appeal, or go straight to his cronies he appointed?

He's got Haley annoying him, and he may want to be declared fully valid ASAP which would likely knock her out unless she wants to grudge-spoil him and run third-party.

[AllyCat]

59. Where the Six Tarantulas will do his bidding.

[Polybius]

123. Two out of those 6 didn't do his bidding two weeks ago

In the Texas razor wire case. I think the same thing will happen this time, only it'll be a 7-2 loss for him.

[ShazzieB]

157. I think you're probably right about this.

I assume the 2 in that 7-2 prediction would be Alito and Thomas, and I agree with that as well.

[chowmama]

169. What are the chances the Supreme Court decides not to hear it

and lets the lower court ruling stand?

It would be the sneakiest thing John Roberts ever did. He's good and sick of the crazies ruining his 'legacy' while showing publicly that he's outnumbered and not in control of his people. This case would just be another opportunity for humiliation. He wants to play it like he's a moderate, rational conservative and, no matter how this case goes, it's not going to look good for him in the history books.

Oh, well - he's probably not that sneaky. Or ballsy. But wouldn't you love to hear the screaming from Cheetolini and the flying monkey brigade?

[Scalded Nun]

2. News worth waking up to. Lunatic raving...3.2.1..

[orleans]

25. WOMP WOMP

[usaf-vet]

57. Is it time to buy shares in Heinz?

[MLAA]

4. Excellent.

May the appeal be made quickly and the Supreme (in name only) Court refuse to take the case.

[myohmy2]

27. +1...

....

[Wednesdays]

51. My money is on him appealing en banc first.

See post #6, above.

[MLAA]

61. Good point, thanks!

[NJCher]

87. I don't see this as

Unusually complex or important* (except to trump), so I don't know about that. Hey, he's going to do it regardless, so I guess it doesn't make any difference.

*requirements for en banc

[onenote]

103. I believe these are his options.

The DC Circuit's mandate is stayed until February 12. If between now and then, Trump goes directly to the SCOTUS with a petition for a writ of certiorari, the mandate will be withheld pending resolution of the petition. If its denied, the mandate then issues. If its granted, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to stay the Ct of Appeals decision.

On the other hand, if he goes for rehearing en banc, the mandate will issue unless the court of appeals agrees to hear the case en banc in which case the stay will be imposed. It is more likely than not that the court will refuse a request to rehear the case. If the court denies the rehearing en banc request, the mandate will issue until the Supreme Court ( assuming Trump goes there after the denial of rehearing en banc ) decides otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

154. That won't help him much because of the SECOND ruling today

The second document, the Mandate, severely limits tRump's options for delay.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218657364

[Blue Owl]

5. Somewhere a pantload is filling up rapidly

[llmart]

7. LOL!

Also, he's on the phone calling his buds on the SCOTUS to bribe them and/or blackmail them.

[brooklynite]

22. The Supreme Court has rejected every one of Trump's Cert requests...no reason to expect a change now

[llmart]

28. Doesn't mean he won't try.

He's in desperation mode.

[twodogsbarking]

8. Ha ha.

[FalloutShelter]

35. HAHA

?si=c1kDz1S2HVXKByOa

[bluestarone]

9. AWESOME!

Now asshole Cannon will say she will wait for SC to hear appeal. (MY GUESS)

[24601]

33. Wrong Judge. Cannon is the judge in the classified documents/obstruction of justice case. Those occurred in Florida

after leaving office and were not the subject of this appeal.

[bluestarone]

37. She was stalling because of this.

DELAYING!

[Blue Idaho]

166. So many trials...

So many crimes…

[LonePirate]

10. I am sure he already has two more appeals ready to go here.

I'm guessing he will appeal or ask for en banc review of this decision by the full court. That will eat up more time which is his goal anyway. That could take days or weeks or months to make a decision one way or another. From there, the obvious SCOTUS appeal from either him if he loses the en banc review or by Smith if TFG somehow wins the en banc decision, which seems unlikely given the unanimous decision against him. Regardless, it's all about delaying and putting off a final SCOTUS decision until after the election. If he wins the election, everything becomes moot and that's what he is gambling on right now.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. The court's opinion seems to be written to facilitate denial of cert by higher courts

My quick scan noted language citing precedent that “final ruling is unreviewable”.

The en banc court includes these three judges, and I’m pretty sure SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch this case if they don’t have to, and would be grateful for any and all tools included in today’s ruling that help them deny cert.

[FakeNoose]

132. Thanks for this explanation ...it really makes my day!

[ShazzieB]

158. Very appropriate gif - love it!

[euphorb]

41. In a separate order issued today, the court said that a request for an en banc hearing would NOT delay the trial.

[Wednesdays]

58. Good to know. Thanks! nt

[JohnnyRingo]

43. "...until after the election."

And of course, we'll have to go through the whole "stolen election" and refusal to concede allover again.
Even if he loses two to one, he'll deny it and call up his supporters, in the country and in Congress, to rise up and install him in office.

There's trouble brewing.

[Wednesdays]

64. A second insurrection won't go the way the first did.

We -- meaning Democrats, capitol police, the National Guard -- will be ready this time.

[JohnnyRingo]

70. We can hope.

Of course they'll cry "Deep State" stealing the WH.

[NJCher]

93. not to mention

many of his followers are locked up and even if they get out, will be on probation. Not likely to want to go back.

[LiberalFighter]

108. I wonder how many Republican members of Congress will be guided by Capitol police somewhere else

if another insurrection is attempted?

Or barring that making sure Democratic members of Congress are given better protection.

[Conjuay]

77. That wouldn't be so terrible

If he had the least inclination of what he's supposed to do in the office.
BTW.did he ever return the art works he took from our embassy in Paris?

[Scrivener7]

94. It's a guarantee he'll pull some shit. My hope is this: this time our guy is in charge,

so whatever egregious crap the sick fuck is planning will blow up in his face this time and get him arrested.

[JohnnyRingo]

148. You are correct that if I see it coming.....

...so does everyone else.
Slap him down and thank him for the audition, but we're going in a different direction..

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. The appeal appears to be written to set the stage for denial of cert en banc and by SCOTUS.

If that is the case, then we’re off to the races, and the J6 trial can begin in May/June.

BTW, the court gave Trump until 2/12 to file his appeal, otherwise the stay is lifted.

[bearsfootball516]

13. Which means we could have a conviction in July/August

And that basically all but tanks his chances of winning in November.

[Shrek]

19. Which means Haley would be nuts to drop out no matter what happens in SC n/t

[TwilightZone]

36. That's why she's still in.

Any normal cycle, she would have dropped out.

The problem the GOP has is that they changed the rules a few years ago to make it really difficult to change horses at the convention, ironically in a bid to protect Trump from unfaithful electors.

Plus, a lot of their base wants Trump to be the nominee, even if he's a convicted criminal.

[Walleye]

44. OK, if he was elected after being convicted of crimes, couldn't we just impeach him right away?

After all they’re trying to impeach President Biden over something he might’ve done but didn’t do as vp

[bearsfootball516]

49. Sure, but you may not get enough Republican senators on board for removal.

[TwilightZone]

53. Sure, we could impeach him, assuming we have the House.

The question is whether or not even a criminal conviction - or a president in prison - would be enough for the GOP to convict. I'm not entirely confident they would, though they might decide that it would be a good time to cut the cord, especially if the public is overwhelmingly supporting conviction.

If the latter is the case, though, assuming he's convicted, he shouldn't win the presidency in the first place. If they would support removal from office, one would think they wouldn't put him in office to begin with.

[Unwind Your Mind]

67. Right and...

Even if he were removed by some miracle, what horrible cretin will he have chosen as VP?

So many hideous possibilities

[LudwigPastorius]

79. President Comrade Carlson?

The mind reels and the stomach heaves at the thought.

[Unwind Your Mind]

109. Ack I didn't even think of that

My thoughts went to Kari Lake or Madge maybe ick

[Polybius]

128. Lately, Tim Scott has moved up

He would be a slight improvement over Trump.

[ShazzieB]

159. What about Elise Stefanik?

She's certainly been trying hard enough lately.

I suspect she'd be better at playing the lapdog/syncophant role than either Kari or Madge, which might be a point in her favor with him.

[Polybius]

126. Let's say he's convicted in July but people vote for him anyway in a legit election

He'll get zero Republican Senate votes, and maybe not all Democrats will even be on board, since it was the will of the people. Plus, it's possible his VP might be worse (Tucker).

[Polybius]

125. If he wins a legit election and the people knew he was a criminal...

Should we still impeach him if that's what the people wanted?

[Walleye]

143. Good point

[Polybius]

124. A "conviction in July/August" is too late though

He will get the delegates to win the nomination by April.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. If not July/August, certainly by fall

Which puts the GOP convention in a dilemma…I’m sure this scenario is why Haley has stayed in the race.

[bearsfootball516]

30. Absolutely.

Assuming a conviction happens, timing is everything. If it happens before the convention, they can try to get the states to put Haley up. But if the conviction happens after the convention and Trump is the official nominee...they may just be screwed.

[Justice matters.]

113. Or if he's disqualified to run for office...

because arguing to "let the voters decide" to the SC is like arguing to "let the confederates decide" back then, and they cannot let that happen!!

[Polybius]

130. Trump will have the nomination by April

How would a July conviction help her if it's already locked up?

[Fiendish Thingy]

137. Because the convention is in July

You can bet there would be a floor fight if he’s convicted, even if it is ultimately unsuccessful.

[Polybius]

150. True, but why should Haley get it?

Just because she didn't drop out? If they strip Trump, I don't think they would give it to get. They'd have to get a Trumper without a criminal record, such as DeSantis. But who knows, July is a long time away.

[LiberalFighter]

110. I think that is why the ruling took longer than expected. They wanted it as ironclad as possible. nt.

[slightlv]

136. Why that long a wait?

If the courts deny cert and refuse to hear Trump appeals, and the March 4 date is still open under Chutkin, why can't she reassign it to *rump? I know she's wanted to keep the trial as much on track as possible... and not delayed. Why wouldn't this be possible if there are no more delays for additional hearings?

[Fiendish Thingy]

138. She has already scheduled another trial for April

So May would be the earliest.

[jaxexpat]

14. How'd it go? 2 outta 3 or 3 outta 3?

Up next, The Supremes. Somebody wake up the Ross girl, please.

[Shrek]

23. Unanimous according to CNN n/t

[Scrivener7]

96. Nice.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Next stop is a request for en banc hearing by the full appeals court, then SCOTUS

Last edited Tue Feb 6, 2024, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

But this opinion appears to be written to facilitate denial of cert by both higher courts.

EDIT: just read that stay will be lifted 2/12 unless Trump appeals directly to SCOTUS, so guessing he skips the en banc step.

[jaxexpat]

50. That's helpful in a "I like democracy" kind of way.

[ShazzieB]

160. The article says it was unanimous.

The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel who issued the ruling Tuesday includes two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and one, Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. This is a per curiam opinion

Last edited Tue Feb 6, 2024, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Here is a link to the opinion which I am now reading
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

[Shrek]

29. Bi-partisan ruling

One of the judges was appointed by Bush 41.

[iluvtennis]

20. YASSS!!! Been checking everyday for 3 weeks this ruling.

[brooklynite]

26. I trust that the people who were complaining that the Court was "slow-walking" this have changed their opinions?

We not only have a ruling that was unanimous, but one which makes a granting of Cert extremely unlikely.

[TwilightZone]

47. I wouldn't count on it.

They'll just find another part of the process to complain about. I nearly took a break from this place because the complaining is so incessant.

I get the importance of timing, but this ain't Law and Order, and it's simply not necessary for the same people to make the same complaints ten times a day and on every relevant thread and on many irrelevant ones. It accomplishes nothing.

[ShazzieB]

161. I know, right?

When I see those posts, I have to stifle the urge to reply with something like, "Oh, so you think we should all just give up right now? Somehow I doubt Jack Smith would agree!"

[Bobstandard]

95. The one doesn't obviate the other

Despite a tight, positive ruling, a glance at the calendar gives some support to the “slow-walking” argument.

[SKKY]

31. Thank god! I was getting very, very nervous about how they would rule...

...for such a seemingly obvious case, they sure took their own sweet time.

[Turbineguy]

32. One step closer to the slammer.

[Tom of Temecula]

34. Trump is going to jail

There was a lot of speculation that the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would not issue its ruling on the fat traitor's immunity claims until they could do so unanimously. That would make their call bulletproof should it go to the US Supreme Court. This decision here was 3-0. The string has begun to run out. Trump is going to jail.

[Wild blueberry]

38. Hot damn!

Excellent news!
Thank you.

[Raven123]

39. Unanimity in the decision AND the opinion

I have heard that this would seem to make it less likely he would get an en banc hearing, as there is no daylight between the judges.

[ancianita]

48. The Appeals Court has sent it immediately to SCOTUS and skipped any en banc request. If SCOTUS

refuses to hear tfg's appeal it goes straight back to Judge Chutkan.

[Raven123]

52. Thank you. Hadn't heard that. Good plan on their part

[dweller]

80. Wasn't this what Jack Smith wanted in the 1st place ?

In asking the SCOTUS to take it up w/out 5th circuit ruling ?

So now it’s there


✌🏻

[ancianita]

83. I believe so. BUT it's the DC Circuit

not the 5th Circuit. Jack Smith and Chutkan will be able to carry on by the end of February, beginning of March.
And the Manhattan schedule is still officially tentative, and so the judge will probably defer to the federal case.

[ancianita]

40. YAY FINALLY! Now we can be sure their unanimity writeup will convince SCOTUS.

My timeline theory is holding.

[Xipe Totec]

42. There's no vaccine for insurrection nt

[TwilightZone]

56. There could be, however, an injection for insurrection, though that might be a bit extreme.

For the record, I'm against the death penalty, but I couldn't pass up the black humor.

[ShazzieB]

162. I'm against the death penalty, too, but I always appreciate good black humor!

[highplainsdem]

45. Great news!

[Mz Pip]

46. It's a good day.

Can’t say I understand how the way the ruling is written makes appeals difficult but I sure how that’s right.

Let’s get this show on the road and make quick work of it. Fit the toad with an orange jumpsuit before the end of summer.

[getagrip_already]

54. Did the ruling addess the stay?

One of the options was to lift the stay and send it back. Since the argument was brought up that this case was not entitled to interloculotory appeal.

It can still be appealed, but the case would proceed.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

99. Yes

I discuss the stay issue on this thread
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218656994

[The Magistrate]

55. Pleasant To Learn, Sir

"Mad or sane, rebels must hang. Your Excellency knows this."

[PennRalphie]

60. He's going to go bankrupt

On attorneys fees with these cases. His cult can give him as much as they want, he’s spending it on hairdressers and attorneys. This is fantastic news.

[calimary]

62. Only one thing to say:

YAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!!

[WestMichRad]

63. Nice to hear good news!

TFG will soon be a man with convictions!

[StarryNite]

66. Good one!

[live love laugh]

65. It alludes to "any" immunity while in office. Guess that part'll have to be addressed later.

[Vogon_Glory]

68. I enjoyed the fact that the court cited the example of President Clinton

I remember just how hard the Republicans worked to try to not only impeach him but ruin him as well. Today’s decision is like the effects of those efforts to “get” Bill Clinton coming around to bite—Donald John Trump.

[moniss]

71. Now get this back

on the calendar pronto.

[republianmushroom]

73. About time, thank you appeals court.

[johnnyfins]

74. Just throwing this out there...

How long before he cuts a deal? No jail time, but he is barred from office for the rest of his life?

[RobinA]

92. That Works For Me

I just want him nowhere near the Oval Office. The minute he can't run he's done. Lame Duck Donald. No power.

[Scrivener7]

98. Does Smith have the authority to make a deal like that?

If so, that would be amazing.

[LiberalFighter]

112. IMO not good enough. He needs to be convicted.

[samnsara]

75. turned to fox to get their take on it and...

..they are yakking about the border issue and gangs of migrants on mopeds attacking people

[RobinA]

97. Those Central Americans

are resourceful! Driving across the desert on mopeds. Amphibious mopeds? They have to cross a big river, I hear.

[Scrivener7]

102. What I saw was the video of a guy in a jeep with a "white supremacy edition" sticker on it attacking people.

And then the guys with the gay-hate t-shirt attacking that jeep guy. Not a moped in sight.

They seemed confused.

[liberal N proud]

76. Wonder if they hid the ketchup?

[barbtries]

81. i don't know why they took so long.

this has to be a no brainer in a nation that claims to be a nation of laws and not men.

but bringing it up unfortunately may have given donald j motherfucker the time to get to the election without a criminal conviction. it is utterly maddening.

[appleannie1]

82. Best news I have heard all year. Hope the SC finds the same.

[ShazzieB]

163. Or simply declines to hear it.

That would save a lot of time.

[SpankMe]

85. He also doesn't have a heart. Or a brain. n/t

[RANDYWILDMAN]

86. TFG is stalling

let's go SCOTUS, swiftly decline to hear this garbage case and move on !!!

[SergeStorms]

88. SO UNFAIR!!!!

THESE LIBERAL LEFT WING JUDGES SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES for persecuting a completely innocent person LIKE MYSELF! I WILL APPEAL ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT, where I'm certain I WILL GET A FAIR RULING, and NOT because I appointed ONE THIRD OF THEM, but because I'm completely innocent of all charges and EVERYONE KNOWS A PRESIDENT, LIKE MYSELF, HAS COMPLETE IMMUNITY FOR ANY AND ALL CRIMES (EVEN THOUGH I WAS THE MOST HONEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!) COMMITTED WHILE IN OFFICE!!!!!
SO UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!

Although I'm sure his "truth" will be something along those exact same lines.

[Scrivener7]

89. BOOM! YES!!!

[Efilroft Sul]

90. I hear Dubai is wonderful this time of year.

Keep that jet fueled, Donnie.

[sakabatou]

91. Has he whined about this yet?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

100. Read the appeals court ruling on Trump's immunity claim in Jan. 6 trial

THE TRUMP CASES
Read the appeals court ruling on Trump’s immunity claim in Jan. 6 trial

By Washington Post staff
February 6, 2024 at 10:59 a.m. EST

Read the full ruling by the federal appeals court, which on Tuesday unanimously rejected Donald Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential power and ruled that he can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

If you’re unable to read the full text on mobile, the full pdf is available here.

{snip}

THE TRUMP CASES
Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution, appeals court rules

By Rachel Weiner
Updated February 6, 2024 at 11:43 a.m. EST | Published February 6, 2024 at 10:12 a.m. EST

A federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that Donald Trump can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential immunity and moving the case one step closer to a jury.

“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 panel of three judges wrote. “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.”

The ruling comes days before the Supreme Court considers another untested question raised by Trump’s candidacy — whether the former president is an insurrectionist barred by the Constitution from returning to the White House because of his actions around Jan. 6.

{snip}

Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

By Rachel Weiner
Rachel Weiner covers federal courts in Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Va. Twitter https://twitter.com/rachelweinerwp

[slightlv]

101. I dont understand the withhold the issuance

Of the mandate til Feb 12. What does that mean and why is it there? Could someone break this down for me very simply. My brain seems to be having difficulty wrapping itself around this bit of news.

I want to be very happy and celebratory towards it. Lord knows we've waited Long enough for what should have been a response to such a simple question... at least to a layman like me.

Forgive the typos. I'm on my phone. Me and tiny keyboards are not good friends!

[Marthe48]

104. I was driving home and heard the news on CBS radio news

I whooped and hollered all the way up my street! And my window was down! Another blow to traitor!

[Brainfodder]

105. Future cell occupier just playing long stall game, based on his shitty defense in courts so far?

Watching the Republicans so desperate caz we democrats want actual services is hella fun now a bit?

[imavoter]

106. Hallelujah n/t

[Traildogbob]

107. There is only one

“No immunity” that will bring Trump to justice and begin to make America great.
That would be he has “no immunity” to Covid, it attacks his fat ass and even the millions of doses of hydrox he bought with our tax dollars, will not save him and he fucking dies a painful miserable death striving to breath, and not able to talk with a tube down his facial anus.
Then I will believe, God is truly blessin America….and “His” planet that took 7 days of hard labor to create.
No 6, he Partied on the 7th.
It’s time for us to party.

[pandr32]

111. Hopefully, he is melting down to nothing.

I'll bet those around him are backing away or outright running.
My mental image while I am dancing around the house.

[Bird Lady]

114. this is all good.

Now watch the Supreme Court go through arcane gyrations to overturn it.

[Torchlight]

115. Gonna be tough for anyone to paint this as anything other than a really bad turn of events for trump

I figure I'll hear a few weak excuses in the coffee-room today, maybe a "but what about the potential for XYZ???!!!" or two, and of course, the go-to for one fella I work with, "I don't care! Ain't nothin' ever gonna happen to him!"

Every week, they move the goalposts more and more as the walls close in further and further.

[elleng]

116. YES!!!!

[MayReasonRule]

118. SCOTUS Prediction: No Stay No Certiorari

Here's to that reasoned outcome!!

[onecaliberal]

147. Please... from your lips.

[appleannie1]

120. I just read the entire thing.

Even I could understand most of it. They listed more than a handful of different cases that went to Supreme Courts of the past showing precedents for their decision. If nothing else, they made it difficult for the SC to decide they got it wrong. I think there is a good possibility that the SC will deny to take it up and leave the decision stand. That way none of them can be singled out by the MAGA crowd.

[samsingh]

131. this will go to Supreme Court - but hopefully they will decline to hear it

it will keep postponing the trial

[samsingh]

133. kick

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

140. One interesting word buried in the text...

"The appeals ruling said: “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.”"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-immunity-appeals-court/index.html

It identifies the President as an officer of the US, which may be used in Thursday's SC hearing.

[ificandream]

142. Of course you know next stop for Trumpty Dumpty is SCOTUS.

God, please make him run out of money!

[riversedge]

155. #1

[ificandream]

149. Direct link to the opinion.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/D.C.-Cir.-23-03228-dckt-_000-filed-2024-02-06.pdf

[MorbidButterflyTat]

152. This is why

Marge and Rapey McForehead are in front of cameras desperately claiming, "No insurrection!"

How utterly pathetic!

[SomedayKindaLove]

167. Citizen Trump

Was he always just a Citizen Kaine reboot? Can’t wait for the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington remake.

Today’s ruling seems like a huge victory for my 4th grade civics textbook.

My guess is the new title goes to his head and he starts trying to make citizen’s arrests.