It is one thing to make an argument that he is not guilty of any crime related to Jan 6th.....it is quite another to argue that it don't matter even if he stormed the Capitol himself...he is immune.... Thankfully his lawyers are dumber than him.
Conservative Judge Shreds Trump’s Immunity Claim: Presidency Does Not Grant License to Break Laws https://dailyboulder.com/conservati...sidency-does-not-grant-license-to-break-laws/ On Tuesday, appeals court Judge Karen Henderson, the sole Republican appointee among the three overseeing Donald Trump’s immunity hearing, challenged Trump’s assertion that his presidential duties allowed him to break the law. As the most experienced jurist on the panel, Henderson’s stance in this case holds significant weight and serves as a signal to other judges who may face similar considerations, including the Supreme Court. Expressing skepticism that Trump acted within his official duties, Henderson made it clear she is not buying the former president’s argument that he was faithfully executing his presidential duties when he directed a mob to the Capitol to disrupt the electoral vote certification, calling the arguments presented by Trump’s attorney, John Sauer “paradoxical.” “I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” Henderson remarked, as reported by CNN. Having dealt with various cases involving the American presidency, Henderson has extensively written on the subject and how courts should approach its protections. In a previous Trump case challenging Congress’ access to his tax returns, Henderson, surprisingly, questioned whether there should be special considerations if Trump were to run for office again (which he is currently doing). Ultimately, the tax returns were released with the court’s approval. In her concurring opinion on that case, Henderson emphasized that the Executive Branch faces more significant burdens that warrant closer scrutiny. She had also previously considered immunity issues surrounding the presidency in a DC Circuit panel regarding a congressional subpoena of Trump’s former White House counsel, Don McGahn. In that instance, Henderson acknowledged that while absolute immunity around the presidency couldn’t shield McGahn entirely, some protections around the presidency could limit his responses to Congress. Highlighting the reach of criminal investigations and the inability to evade lawsuits for unofficial acts with temporary presidential immunity claims, Henderson’s perspective adds nuance to the ongoing debate on the scope of presidential powers.
A federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump’s claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election. The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office? Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:20 AM ET https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-immunity-appeals-court.html
BREAKING: Appeals court rules Trump is not immune from prosecution Good luck with Aunty Ginni and Uncle Clarence.
Trump now has confirmation he will need to do more rallies, and ignore more Republican debates with Haley (she's now going to be on stage by herself)... Just to raise more money so that his supporters will have to pay for his growing legal fees that will come now that he has no immunity. In other words, he's now just "citizen Trump". wrbtrader
Update on the betting markets Odds of Trump losing DC appeals case stays at 100%...no change from day one Does not deserve a headline
The DC Appeals Court ruling is so airtight that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the case and simply let the Appeals Court ruling stand. Appeals court 'made it easy' for SCOTUS to reject Trump's immunity claim https://www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2667181002/ CNN's Paula Reid on Tuesday said that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's ruling against former President Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity left him with very little wiggle room for getting out of criminal prosecution. In particular, she said that the ruling was crafted in such a way that it made it very unlikely that the Supreme Court would even take up the case. "The Court of Appeals, while they have been knocked for taking so long to come out with this decision, they really are setting it up for the Supreme Court to make it easy as possible for them to not hear this case," she said. "They are giving them a timeline that overlaps with this question, these oral arguments about ballot eligibility." She then proceeded to quote passages from the ruling that she said showed it appeared ironclad. "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," the ruling stated. "He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role -- the counting and certifying of electoral college votes -- thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress." Reid then commented that this is "an incredibly strong opinion" that "really sets it up for the Supreme Court to perhaps not take up this question." Watch the video below or at this link.