The judges also questioned the attorneys about whether they should even render a decision on his claim of immunity and instead allow the case to move forward in the trial court.

The judges also questioned the attorneys about whether they should even render a decision on his claim of immunity and instead allow the case to move forward in the trial court.

Federal appeals court judges on Tuesday questioned former President Donald Trump broad claim of immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that resulted in a chain of events that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The all-woman three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said nothing to suggest they would embrace Trump’s immunity argument, although they raised several options on how they could rule.

The court could issue a ruling that decisively resolves the immunity question, allowing the trial to move quickly forward, or alight on a more narrow ruling that could leave some issues unresolved. They could also simply rule that Trump had no right to bring an appeal at this stage of the litigation.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    36·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand how you can be skeptical about this. If he has immunity from committing an act of sedition and breaking his oath to defend the constitution, then there is no basis for the rule of law.

    • clearedtoland@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      There’s an interesting nuance Trump’s defense seems to be arguing: that a president can’t be prosecuted for “official actions,” only personal ones by extension of the separation of powers. Otherwise, any president could be prosecuted for some crime (e.g. “Biden’s mismanagement of the border”).

      I think it’s a load of crap, although an interesting reach. The judge’s line of questioning seems to agree but they’re also concerned about opening the floodgates. Their best bet is to delay, delay, delay and that’s what they’re doing.

        • clearedtoland@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          11 months ago

          not a lawyer but qualified immunity basically shields government officials from being sued for their misconduct. They can still be prosecuted but there’s no remedy for the harm they’ve caused.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      6·
      11 months ago

      I’ve heard that notion posed several times. IANAL, but just because Ford and Nixon both thought he needed a pardon does not necessarily mean that he actually needed a pardon. Those are two different things; it is possible that Ford and Nixon were both wrong on the necessity. (Edit: Of note, I don’t think they were wrong, but I’m also not a federal judge, so what I think doesn’t matter, in the same way as what Ford and Nixon thought didn’t matter.)

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      11·
      11 months ago

      If they do than Biden can do the unthinkable. These folks think the Dems are just gonna hand them their dictatorship by transferring power. That will never happen

      • bloopernova@programming.devEnglish
        9·
        11 months ago

        Dems are acting helpless to resist the republicans. They won’t do a thing. They’ll stick to the rule of law even though the judges are corrupt.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          5·
          11 months ago

          What I mean is the only move rule of law can make at this point only ensures that either justice is done or that Biden can use the authority to make the necessary changes

          Checkmate assholes ♟️

      • Bridger@sh.itjust.works
        7·
        11 months ago

        Expect the SC to torture Logic to the point that they can render a decision that gives trump what he asks for but denies the same for biden

        • modifier@lemmy.ca
          6·
          11 months ago

          That’s tricky though. Once the basis for The Rule Of Law has been dissolved (and we should be clear that, at base, this very concept is on trial), the SC isn’t even worth their Robe budget anymore and Biden has no real reason to consult them further. They would be writing themselves out of relevance.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          There’s just no way that doesn’t simultaneously and irrevocably disenfranchise or neuter themselves in the process. They’re gonna bail on it and defer to whatever Appeals court that has the penultimate say on the matter

          • bloopernova@programming.devEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            They’re not rational actors. They are there to cement the republican party’s power over the USA. They absolutely will make conflicting rulings because nobody can stop them.