Current Events > Appeals court denies Trump immunity in 2020 criminal election case

(+) Yeah! (+)

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

Now, let's see how the SCROTUS plays it.

Short excerpt:
Donald Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution for efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election, a federal appeals court said in a unanimous ruling Tuesday.
A three-judge appeals panel flatly rejected Trump's argument that he could not be charged in the case because he was president at the time of the alleged crimes.
We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter, said the panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The ruling is the latest major legal loss for Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
He is expected to quickly ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision or ask the appeals courts entire judicial lineup to re-hear the case.

Holy shit!

I was NOT expecting this. Very happy right now. I highly doubt the Supreme court goes against this either

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/802f34e7.jpg

solosnake posted...

I was NOT expecting this.

Really?

uh oh

Watch the MAGAs screech about the Appeals Court being "corrupt" for ruling that...*checks notes*....a president shouldn't have immunity from being prosecuted for crimes

SCOTUS needs to weigh in. This decision creates only more questions and muddies the water. This is too important of an issue for SCOTUS not to step in and ultimately decide this question.

I seriously doubt the supreme court is gonna rule in favor of presidential immunity, but i KNOW its not gonna be unanimous lmao

uwa_ej posted...

SCOTUS needs to weigh in. This decision creates only more questions and muddies the water. This is too important of an issue for SCOTUS not to step in and ultimately decide this question.

I agree that SCOTUS needs to take action to put this to bed once and for all, but what does this muddy?

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I seriously doubt the supreme court is gonna rule in favor of presidential immunity, but i KNOW its not gonna be unanimous lmao

*cough* Thomas *cough*

Any judge on any bench who would try and support anyone having complete immunity from prosecution should immediately be tossed.

uwa_ej posted...

SCOTUS needs to weigh in. This decision creates only more questions and muddies the water. This is too important of an issue for SCOTUS not to step in and ultimately decide this question.

This decision doesn't create more questions at all. It's very thorough and addresses all of Trump's claims directly.

uwa_ej posted...

SCOTUS needs to weigh in. This decision creates only more questions and muddies the water. This is too important of an issue for SCOTUS not to step in and ultimately decide this question.

This shit should have been decided 3 years ago. Trump should be on criminal trial by now. The whole thing has taken FAR too long

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I seriously doubt the supreme court is gonna rule in favor of presidential immunity, but i KNOW its not gonna be unanimous lmao

They only need two to join Alito and Thomas.

Edit: Three, obviously.

darkace77450 posted...

They only need two to join Alito and Thomas.

They would need 3 to join Alito and Thomas.

solosnake posted...

This shit should have been decided 3 years ago. Trump should be on criminal trial by now. The whole thing has taken FAR too long

uwa_ej was simping for Trump in another topic, they probably believe he should have full immunity.

darkace77450 posted...

They only need two to join Alito and Thomas.

thatd still be a 5-4 decision opposing presidential immunity, would it not?

lol Trump

CableZL posted...

They would need 3 to join Alito and Thomas.

Yep, corrected. Thanks.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

This user was simping for Trump in another topic, they probably believe he should have full immunity.

ive never simped for trump in my life. Prove it or shut the fuck up. I probably hate trump more than anyone on this board

Hope he gets ducked from sea to shining sea.

solosnake posted...

ive never simped for trump in my life. Prove it or shut the fuck up. I probably hate trump more than anyone on this board

Relax, I was talking about the person you were responding to.
I'll edit it so there's no confusion.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

Relax, I was talking about the person you were responding to.
I'll edit it so there's no confusion.

oh, my bad then. lol

Mans said "FUCK no, I don't like Trump!"

solosnake posted...

oh, my bad then. lol

No worries, I wouldn't want to be accused of simping for Trump either.

uwa_ej posted...

This decision creates only more questions and muddies the water.

What part of this 'muddies the water' and 'creates more questions'?

At bottom, former President Trumps stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches

I hate that I'm lacking faith in SCOTUS to uphold the immunity denial as they should.

ItsNotA2Mer posted...

uwa_ej was simping for Trump in another topic, they probably believe he should have full immunity.

It kinda tracks that their active post count at the time of this post is 1...

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Watch the MAGAs screech about the Appeals Court being "corrupt" for ruling that...*checks notes*....a president shouldn't have immunity from being prosecuted for crimes

"the president should be immune to prosecution, right? ... so what about Biden?"
"NOT LIKE THAT!"

I don't what questions this ruling even creates.

mystic_belmont posted...

I don't what questions this ruling even creates.

This ruling doesn't create new questions it answers the old one... which for everyone save Trump and MAGA was not a question at all.

Question: "Does the president have the right to overthrow American Democracy?"
Answer: "Get out of here with this bullshit and send the guy to jail already"

If the 14th amendment section 3 does not apply to the President, then Jefferson Davis could have lost the Civil War and then run for President.

How does that make any sense?

Dark_Arbron posted...

"the president should be immune to prosecution, right? ... so what about Biden?"
"NOT LIKE THAT!"

It would explain why they keep going after Hunter, tbh.

mystic_belmont posted...

If the 14th amendment section 3 does not apply to the President, then Jefferson Davis could have lost the Civil War and then run for President.

How does that make any sense?

This ruling is the immunity case, not the disqualification case.

There are so many cases because Trump may be the most prolific criminal of all time.

mystic_belmont posted...

If the 14th amendment section 3 does not apply to the President, then Jefferson Davis could have lost the Civil War and then run for President.

How does that make any sense?

Davis was singled out by the amendment enforcement and he was one of the few that was never reinstated by Congress.

I don't think the Supreme Court would really entertain the idea of presidential immunity. Even if Thomas and Alito were in favor of it they would remember that Biden is the current president and change their opinion

DrizztLink posted...

It would explain why they keep going after Hunter, tbh.

Maybe they just like dick from the forbidden laptop?

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Watch the MAGAs screech about the Appeals Court being "corrupt" for ruling that...*checks notes*....a president shouldn't have immunity from being prosecuted for crimes

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d18aca2b.jpg

MrAntisocial posted...

I don't think the Supreme Court would really entertain the idea of presidential immunity. Even if Thomas and Alito were in favor of it they would remember that Biden is the current president and change their opinion

This is kind of what I don't get with the Trump, MAGA, GOP argument here.

Trumps own lawyer basically admitted that he was arguing the fact that a sitting president should have immunity to have his politically rivals murders.

Joe Biden is the sitting president, you guys are his political rivals and you're arguing that a President should be allowed to murder his rivals.
....
....
....
No one on the right sees a problem.

hmnut7 posted...

This is kind of what I don't get with the Trump, MAGA, GOP argument here.

Trumps own lawyer basically admitted that he was arguing the fact that a sitting president should have immunity to have his politically rivals murders.

Joe Biden is the sitting president, you guys are his political rivals and you're arguing that a President should be allowed to murder his rivals.
....
....
....
No one on the right sees a problem.

They'll likely argue that Biden stole the election, and thus is not protected.

But if so, then Trump is barred from running again, as he is the current President and has served two terms.

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."

Their entire defense is basically just a threat. Is there a law against that?

If the president has total immunity, does that mean Biden could just rock up to a speech smoking a huge joint?

mystic_belmont posted...

They'll likely argue that Biden stole the election, and thus is not protected.

But if so, then Trump is barred from running again, as he is the current President and has served two terms.

I'm not sure the court would do that since Congress certified the result of the electoral college

Trumble posted...

If the president has total immunity, does that mean Biden could just rock up to a speech smoking a huge joint?

Why waste total immunity on something so petty? Tossing Trump, his cronies, leaders and major mouthpieces of the right wing noise machine, the most offensive (R) governors, and congressional Republicans into Gitmo would be much more to the point. God knows no innocents would be caught in such a purge.

But, as tempting as it is, it really shouldn't be done. Rule of law is important.

mystic_belmont posted...

They'll likely argue that Biden stole the election, and thus is not protected.

But if so, then Trump is barred from running again, as he is the current President and has served two terms.

Lmao what nobody thinks that.

solosnake posted...

Their entire defense is basically just a threat. Is there a law against that?

The president is immune from lawsuits and prosecution related to their duties as President. It's why ordering the military to be deployed and kill enemy combatants does not cause the President to be charged with murder.

Now if he does something outside his job, like for example order the breaking and entering of a political rivals campaign office, well that is likely to land them in hot water.

Fox news is saying that we are less than 48 hours away from The supreme court overturning the colorodo decision. Ugh

solosnake posted...

Fox news is saying that we are less than 48 hours away from The supreme court overturning the colorodo decision. Ugh

Not like he's going to win Colorado anyway. I get its the principle and all. But waste of resources.

solosnake posted...

Fox news is saying that we are less than 48 hours away from The supreme court overturning the colorodo decision. Ugh

That's a lie. IIRC, there will be oral argument at SCOTUS in that case later this week.

SCOTUS does not decide cases on the spot during oral arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrJRYVG8eg

oh wow, House republicans also unveiled a resolution to declare Trump did not engage in insurrection today.

SauI_Goodman posted...

Not like he's going to win Colorado anyway. I get its the principle and all. But waste of resources.

I disagree. With a threat like Trump and the Republican menace, all legitimate ways to oppose him should be pursued.

And the facts of the matter are indeed that we have a provision of the constitution that disqualifies insurrectionists from holding office, and Trump is an insurrectionist.

If the corrupt Republican SCOTUS majority flushes what little remains of its credibility down the toilet to rule that Trump is not disqualified, that's also a win.