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

submitted by [deleted] from washingtonpost.com

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Wheels of Justice turn, albeit ever so slowly.

[–]twolanterns 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

what the dems count on

like investigations into biden being delayed for years

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah, I really didn't expect an American court to rule that presidents are completely above the law and cannot be tried for crimes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It will be interesting to see how the appeal, and SCOTUS ruling goes. I'm thinking there are dues that are coming due from Trump's appointments.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think the SCOTUS will do one (or both) of two things:

  1. Create a definition of "insurrection" that applies to Jefferson Davis's actions but not Donald Trump's;

  2. Find that the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-executing and that disqualification from office requires an act of Congress.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've read lots of opinions from postings by legal scholars. Defining insurrection hasn't been a problem so far, courts have convicted all those charged and found guilty in the J6th insurrection. Legal scholars would disagree with your second point; the amendment would have included such language were that the case. To be honest, I think SCOTUS is going to take a pass, primarily because the Roberts court doesn't want to be perceived as meddling in the next election like happened in 2000.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Defining insurrection hasn't been a problem so far, courts have convicted all those charged and found guilty in the J6th insurrection.

But those two parts of the sentence have nothing to do with each other.

For example, for his role in the events of January 6, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, was convicted of Seditious Conspiracy, Obstruction of Congress, Obstruction of Law Enforcement, and Conspiracy, whereupon he was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Meanwhile, Richard Barnett, who took a stun gun into Nancy Pelosi's office and then took a selfie in her chair, was convicted of Civil Disorder, Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building, and Theft of Government Property, and was sentenced to four and a half years in prison.

You'll notice the missing word in both of the paragraphs above: "insurrection." No one has been convicted of "insurrection" because insurrection is not the name of a Federal crime.

So what exactly is "insurrection"? Well, it's definitely "fighting for the Confederacy" - we know the Framers of the Amendment meant that. But we don't know what else they meant. So this is one the SCOTUS really is probably going to have to weigh in on.

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's good to force Supreme Court to rule on it. Obamas guy holder said presidents are immune which is why W Bush couldn't be charged for ordering torture.

Nixon v Fitzgerald grid a president is immune from civil litigation.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a judge-shopped 3-judge panel in DC rules against orangemanbad

I sleep

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who needs immunity when no crime was committed?

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds like time to prosecute all previous presidents for the crimes they committed while in office. And there are none who did not violate the constitution.