|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:01:23 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Judges Karen Henderson and Michelle Childs pressed John Sauer on comments Donald Trump uttered while in office, when he conceded that no former officeholder is immune from investigation and prosecution. Senators might have relied on that to acquit Trump in the impeachment that followed the January 6 insurrection, Henderson said. Sauer replied that he disagrees with the judges’ interpretation of that line, which has been memorialized in the congressional record. He says the term “officeholder” would pertain to lesser government officials, not the president, and, in any case, Trump was referring to being investigated generally.
Judge Karen Henderson moved on to what acts are official acts for a president, saying, “I think it’s paradoxical to say his constitutional duty to say that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the law”. Sauer replied that a president’s actions can never be examinable by the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:03:18 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Judge Karen Henderson gets into what the appeals court’s options are going forward. Trump attorney John Sauer says he thinks the judges should remand the case back to the lower district court, with instructions to go through the indictment and consider whether each alleged act is an official act, or private conduct. Sauer’s position is that private conduct can be prosecuted, but officials acts cannot, and that all the acts in the indictment are official acts.
The judges are now hearing arguments from special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors. Attorney James Pearce is arguing for the government.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:04:17 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Justice department lawyer James Pearce tells the court that it has the authority to assume it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and decide the case on its merits. Pearce’s arguments comes after some anti-Trump third parties had said the DC circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. If the judges had agreed, it would clear the way for Trump’s trial to continue. Judge Florence Pan asked Pearce to elaborate. Pearce says doing justice means “getting the law right”. Even if it was true that the court lacked jurisdiction, he argues the judges should decide the issue on its merits.
Judge Florence Pan asked the government if this all boils down to whether Trump is right on his interpretation of the constitution’s impeachment judgment clause, which is that he can only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted. Prosecutor James Pearce said that is basically the situation, but that Trump’s interpretation is wrong both textually and practically. If a president sells pardons or assassinates a political rival and is acquitted in an impeachment trial, under Trump’s interpretation, there would be no further accountability. That’s both incorrect and scary, Pearce said.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:05:43 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Defense and prosecutors wrap up arguments in Trump immunity appealArguments have just finished before the three-judge federal appeals court that will weigh whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for trying to block Joe Biden from taking office because the actions took place while he was president. If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Should they rule against the former president, his lawyers may appeal the issue to the supreme court.
One of the most striking arguments of the just-concluded appeals court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity in the 2020 election subversion case came right at the beginning. Judge Florence Pan wanted to know if Trump’s attorney John Sauer thought a president would be immune from prosecution if he, in his official capacity, ordered the military to assassinate a political rival. While it was never mentioned, the argument harkens back to Trump’s claim from 2016 that his supporters love him so much he could shoot somebody on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose votes. Sauer went on to argue that a president can only be prosecuted for official acts that Congress impeached and convicted them for. Trump was impeached by the House for the January 6 insurrection, but not convicted by the Senate. Here’s the back-and-forth:
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:07:02 GMT -5
(The Guardian) As the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell and Cameron Joseph report, the three judges who heard from Donald Trump’s lawyers about why he should be considered immune from charges related to overturning the election were skeptical of their arguments: Donald Trump’s arguments that he can’t be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results because it involved actions he took while still president appeared unconvincing to a federal appeals court on Tuesday, which repeatedly questioned such an expansive view of executive power.
The three-judge panel at the US court of appeals for the DC circuit expressed skepticism with the principal contention of Trump’s lawyer that the former president enjoyed absolute immunity from prosecution, and could only be charged if he had been convicted in an impeachment trial.
Such an interpretation of executive power would mean presidents could hypothetically self-pardon, sell military secrets or order the US Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate political rivals and escape accountability simply by claiming they were official acts, suggested Florence Pan, the circuit judge.
Trump’s lawyer initially sought to dodge whether presidents could be criminally prosecuted in such scenarios, but eventually offered a “qualified yes” – though only if Trump had been impeached and convicted in the Senate first.
Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush circuit judge appointee, also seemed leery of Trump’s position. “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,” she told Sauer during her questioning.
Trump attended the court hearing in Washington. The decision that the DC circuit reaches, and how long it takes to issue a ruling, could carry profound implications for the viability of the scheduled March trial date that has been frozen pending the outcome of Trump’s appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 9, 2024 15:07:59 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Trump: 'Most people agree that we're entitled ... to immunity'In remarks to reporters in Washington DC after appeals court judges expressed skepticism at his claims of immunity , Donald Trump doubled down on his argument he should not face charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election. “What a sad situation it is. I want to thank you, everybody, for the fairness. We’ve been covered very fairly. Most people agree that we’re entitled, as a president, to immunity,” Trump said.
Trump then shifted to recounting all the ways in which Joe Biden failed as president. It was as good a summary as any of how the former president will campaign against the current one, assuming Trump, as expected, again wins the Republican nomination. Trump kicked his diatribe off by remarking on Biden’s, “horrible job he’s done at the border, where our country is being destroyed”, eschewing his recent rhetoric that has been compared to things white supremacists say. He next shared his thoughts on Biden’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan. “The lowest moment, I think, in the history of our country was Afghanistan, the way we withdrew, not that we withdrew, but the way we withdrew with shame, we surrendered,” Trump said. Left unmentioned was his own administration’s role in paving the way for the pullout, which has left lasting damage on Biden’s approval ratings. Despite presiding over a botched response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, a key message Trump will bring to voters in the months to come is that the country and the world were less racked by crisis and hardship during his presidency, and he used his remarks to press that point. “You wouldn’t have inflation but much more importantly, you wouldn’t have had the Ukraine situation with Russia, you wouldn’t have had the attack on Israel. You’d have a much different economy right now, have a great economy and we would be respected all over the world, the way we were just three years ago,” Trump said.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Jan 23, 2024 17:26:56 GMT -5
(The Guardian) A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s request that it reconsider his appeal against a gag order imposed against him in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The move paves the way for a potential final challenge to the US supreme court. The decision by the US court of appeals to deny Trump an en banc rehearing – where the full bench of judges consider the matter – marks the latest setback for the former president after an earlier three-judge panel also rejected his appeal. For months, Trump has been attempting to free himself from a limited protective order entered by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the criminal case in Washington. The order prohibits him from making inflammatory statements that could intimidate trial witnesses or poison the jury pool. The gag order came after special counsel prosecutors complained that Trump’s brazen public statements attacking them, court staff and potential trial witnesses could chill witness testimony and impede the fair administration of justice.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 6, 2024 17:14:58 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Federal appeals court denies Trump immunity claim in election subversion trialA federal appeals court has rejected Donald Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted for charges related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election because the alleged misconduct occurred while he was acting is his capacity as president, Reuters reports. The three judges hearing the matter at the Washington DC-based US court of appeals ruled unanimously against the former president. They had appeared skeptical of the immunity claim last month, when an attorney for Trump made his case before the court.
Donald Trump’s trial on federal charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 election was supposed to start in less than a month, but last week, the judge delayed it, because the question of whether he was immune had not been resolved yet. Here’s more on that: A US judge has formally postponed Donald Trump’s trial on federal charges that the former president sought to overturn the 2020 election results.
The trial was due to start on 4 March in Washington before the delay ordered from the federal judge Tanya Chutkan.
Trial delays in general are not unusual in court cases. The delay in Trump’s trial in particular stems from an appeal by the ex-president that claims he is immune to prosecution for actions taken while he was in the Oval Office.
Chutkan had indicated in January that Trump’s original trial date – chosen last summer – would not hold because the case had been frozen by the former president’s appeal.
The judge has prohibited prosecutors from filing motions while the appeal is pending and made clear that Trump’s legal team would get a full seven-month period to prepare for the trial. Any time between December and the end of the appeals process would not count against that preparation period, Chutkan has also said.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 6, 2024 17:16:55 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Appeals judges reject Trump argument that presidents have 'unbounded authority to commit crimes'In their decision, federal appeals court judges Florence Pan, Karen Henderson and Michelle Childs were sharply critical of Donald Trump’s arguments, saying that he essentially wanted to make presidents immune from accountability: 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.
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. Trump will appeal immunity ruling, campaign saysDonald Trump will appeal the court ruling denying him immunity from the federal charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election, his campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement. He argued that, if the decision is not overturned, all future presidents will face retaliation for actions they took while in office. Trump is the only former president to ever have been criminally indicted. Here’s Cheung’s full statement: If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function! Deranged Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Trump for his Presidential, official acts is unconstitutional under the doctrine of Presidential Immunity and the Separation of Powers. Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic. President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 6, 2024 17:32:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 6, 2024 17:34:37 GMT -5
(The Guardian Elise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair who is widely viewed as a contender to be Donald Trump’s running mate, echoed his campaign’s talking points as she condemned the failure of his immunity claim. “The precedent set today by the DC Circuit’s decision means that future presidents who leave office will likely face politicized prosecutions by the opposing party,” Stefanik said in a statement. “The President of the United States must have immunity, like Members of Congress and federal judges, which is necessary for any presidency to function properly. I fully support President Trump’s efforts to appeal this unconstitutional ruling to the Supreme Court, where I expect a thoughtful decision to overturn this dangerous precedent.”
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 28, 2024 21:52:43 GMT -5
(The Guardian) Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim in 2020 election caseThe US supreme court has agreed to decide Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution on charges brought by a special counsel involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court has agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments the week of 22 April. A decision is likely to come no later than the end of June.
The supreme court’s announcement that it will decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution adds a new hurdle to a trial focused on the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. In a statement, the supreme court said it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”. The court said it would hear arguments and issue a ruling on the immunity claim. In the meantime, the case is on hold, meaning no trial can take place.
|
|
|
Post by Webster on Feb 28, 2024 21:53:22 GMT -5
(The Guardian) The US supreme court will decide whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted on election interference charges, indicating it will move quickly in the immunity case. Trump’s appeal to the nation’s highest court marks the final challenge the former US president can make on the immunity issue related to his federal criminal case. Trump’s team had thought for months that the appeal would probably fall short on the law but would be an effective way to delay the impending trial, which had been due to begin in early March. The court on Wednesday agreed to decide Trump’s claim of immunity on charges brought by a special counsel involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, again thrusting the nation’s top judicial body into the election fray as Trump seeks to regain the presidency. The justices put on hold the criminal case being pursued by special counsel Jack Smith and will review a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing Joe Biden’s election victory over him. Trump’s lawyers had requested a stay of that ruling, warning of dire consequences for the presidency absent such immunity. Trump has made it no secret that his overarching legal strategy is to seek delays, ideally beyond the 2024 election in November, in the hopes that winning re-election could enable him to potentially pardon himself or direct his attorney general to drop the charges.
|
|