EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[highfigh]

If Trump was smart, he would have created a legal defense fund, like Clinton- he wouldn't have to pay much out of pocket.

 

[isolar8001]

Yah beat me to it!

Appeals panel rules against Trump on presidential immunity

A three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling that deemed former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution as a former executive, blocking his effort to toss his election interferen…

thehill.com

The big question is whether or not the Supreme Court will agree to review the decision.

>>>If, however, the Supreme Court does accept the case, the crucial question will become how quickly the justices act in asking for briefs and in scheduling arguments. Should they move rapidly to hear the case and issue a decision, there remains the chance that a trial on the election charges will occur before the general election in November.

But if the justices take their time, it is possible a trial could be put off until after the election. And were that to happen and Mr. Trump were to win, he would be in a position to ask his Justice Department to dismiss the case or even seek to pardon himself.<<<

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity

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?

www.nytimes.com

Only 4 of 9 justices on the Supreme Court need to agree to grant cert, so it is certainly possible this will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Just granting review would be a victory of sorts for Trump because it would lead to more delay, which might give him the chance to dismiss the case if he's elected.

Getting near the final nails in his oversize coffin.....that decision will be upheld.
It's also looking more likely that SCOTUS just may go along with kicking him off ballots.....otherwise they are condoning criminal activity.

Saw what's left of his hair on a Fox interview via web clips.
Elvis wasn't 80 percent bald.

 

[isolar8001]

Begging just a few minutes after getting slammed.

'I have no immunity!' Trump begs fans for cash after court rules he can be prosecuted

Former President Donald Trump blasted his MAGA base with a cash demand just moments after a D.C. appellate court slapped down his presidential immunity claim.Trump’s all-caps message hurls accusations against the Justice Department, the Biden administration and the federal court system, all of...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

Begging just a few minutes after getting slammed.

'I have no immunity!' Trump begs fans for cash after court rules he can be prosecuted

Former President Donald Trump blasted his MAGA base with a cash demand just moments after a D.C. appellate court slapped down his presidential immunity claim.Trump’s all-caps message hurls accusations against the Justice Department, the Biden administration and the federal court system, all of...

www.rawstory.com

MAGA: Sure. How much?

 

[isolar8001]

Good day Trumpy...Good day. The hits just keep on coming.

Judge Demands Trump Explain His Accountant Allen Weisselberg's Apparent Lies

Trump accountant Allen Weisselberg is apparently working out a deal addressing lies he told on the stand in the New York bank fraud trial. Now Trump is in even more trouble.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

Not surprisingly, Trump is apparently going to argue immunity in the Florida documents case even though it is crystal clear this is a losing argument.

>>>Donald Trump’s legal team is outlining how he intends to fight the classified documents case against him in Florida, including by claiming presidential immunity, despite a significant defeat on that issue in the election subversion case in Washington, DC. . . .

The attorneys also say they expect to file arguments on presidential immunity in the case, a defense that was decidedly tossed out by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the same day as Trump’s filing in Florida. . . . a new argument of presidential immunity in Florida could be examined by Cannon and the appeals court above her separately from the DC case.<<<

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/07/politics/trump-immunity-defense-classified-documents/index.html

This is obviously a delay tactic. Although the issues in the 2 cases are not identical, Trump's immunity argument in the Florida case is even weaker (in my opinion) than his argument in the DC case.

It's almost certain that this will be a win for Trump in terms of delay, but a loser in terms of the legal outcome. Regardless of what judge Cannon decides, the losing party will appeal, and the 11th Circuit will undoubtedly hold that Trump does not have immunity. I can't imagine the Supreme Court would go the other way, but this is all about delay, not serious legal arguments.

Somewhat ironically, Trump's delay tactics are aided by the fact that no president in history was dumb enough to do the things Trump did and then argue absolute immunity as a defense.

The delay tactics are getting ridiculous.

 

[davidscott]

At least he doesn't have total immunity now.

 

[Dude#1279435]

The delay tactics are getting ridiculous.

Ridiculous yes, but surprising no.

 

[mtrycrafts]

At least he doesn't have total immunity now.

Partial immunity?

 

[Mr._Clark]

Partial immunity?

As of right now, based on the Fitzgerald case, Trump does have absolute immunity from civil liability with regards to official actions taken in his role as president.

>>>In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.<<<

Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There was some speculation that the courts might rule that Trump's actions on January 6 were official acts taken in his role as president, and Fitzgerald civil immunity would be extended to criminal liability. As I see it, the considerations in Fitzgerald are significantly different. For one thing, if Fitzgerald would have gone the other way, every president could face thousands if not millions of civil actions by disgruntled citizens.

In contrast, there are very few government entities that can bring criminal charges and it requires sufficient evidence to trigger a grand jury indictment. And of course criminal immunity would create a situation in which the president could order the military to kill his political opponents and all members of congress (so they can't impeach him) and kill his entire cabinet so they can't invoke the 25th amendment.

As judge Chutkin said about Trump in a prior case: "Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judge-who-said-presidents-arent-kings-to-handle-new-trump-case

At any rate, Trump is well on his way to having the most losing Supreme Court decisions with his name on them of any former president in history.

 

[Mr._Clark]

As of right now, based on the Fitzgerald case, Trump does have absolute immunity from civil liability with regards to official actions taken in his role as president.
. . .

According to this article, Trump could experience a cash crunch in part because the NY case might limit his ability to sell real estate, and because he might get elected president and again use his position as president to delay civil actions by creditors attempting to collect.

>>>The self-proclaimed billionaire real estate tycoon is about to be caught in a trap of his own making, forced to front a massive amount of cash and possibly liquidate assets—while potentially unable to access the money, because the court order could limit his ability to tap his Monopoly board of properties. . . .

Ironically, Trump’s position as the leading 2024 Republican candidate actually makes matters worse for him, experts said, because the way he used his four years in the White House to block civil cases make him a radioactive borrower. Trump hid behind the presidential seal and employed the Department of Justice to delay E. Jean Carroll’s rape defamation case against him for years—something that proved instructive for any potential lender now.<<<(emphasis added)

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

 

[cpp]

So now Trumps political life goes to the 6-3 republican US Supreme Court, I wonder how this plays out.

 

[Mikado463]

So now Trumps political life goes to the 6-3 republican US Supreme Court, I wonder how this plays out.

fingers crossed the 'six' can see the forest for the trees ......

 

[cpp]

fingers crossed the 'six' can see the forest for the trees ......

I sure hope so. That would put this to rest once and for all.

And interesting article of WHAT If's https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/05/predicting-the-fallout-if-the-supreme-court-throws-trump-off-the-ballot-00139381

 

[mtrycrafts]

fingers crossed the 'six' can see the forest for the trees ......

I would think only 5 might but doubt it. Thomas is a mess with his wife's insurrectionist activity, and he does not recuse himself from current Trump cases.

 

[Mr._Clark]

So now Trumps political life goes to the 6-3 republican US Supreme Court, I wonder how this plays out.

Kagan is well left of center, but even she seems skeptical of the Colorado decision:

>>>“The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Justice Elena Kagan asked Jason Murray, the lawyer representing the six Colorado voters who filed suit to keep Trump off the ballot.<<<

5 takeaways from Supreme Court arguments in Trump’s ballot case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday about whether former President Trump could be banned from the ballot this year. The case stems from a December ruling by the Colorado Supre…

thehill.com

I did like this exchange:

>>>Mitchell, the Trump lawyer, said an insurrection “needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States.”

“A chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?” Jackson shot back.<<<

Cameras are not normally allowed in Supreme Court oral arguments but I did find a rare bootleg photo of the argument after Jackson was done with it:

 

[Mr._Clark]

Jackson is apparently sympathetic to the argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the president:

>>>“Why didn’t they put the word president in the very enumerated list in Section 3,” Jackson asked Jason Murray, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “The thing that really is troubling to me … they were listing people that were barred, and ‘president’ is not there.”. . .

While questioning Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, Jackson homed in on the point — and implied she views the argument as a strong one.

“Do you agree that the framers would have put such a high and significant and important office sort of smuggled in through that catchall phrase?” <<<

https://thehill.com/homenews/4457029-supreme-court-trump-insurrection-ketanji-brown-jackson/

Personally, I'm hoping the Supreme Court does not overturn the Colorado decision on this basis. It would mean that no President could ever be barred from office for insurrection, no matter how clear it is that the President engaged in insurrection, regardless of whether or not the president had been criminally convicted for insurrection. It would also mean Congress could not enact legislation to implement the 14th Amendment to prevent insurrectionist Presidents from holding office.

In contrast, if the case is tossed on the basis that only congress (not states) can pass laws to block insurrectionist presidents, it would still leave this option open. As I see it, even if Trump wins this case, we need to keep that powder dry. Even those who believe Trump is nothing more than lovable fluffy orange teddy bear should recognize that a future president might not be as innocent and lovable as Trump.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Yah beat me to it!

The big question is whether or not the Supreme Court will agree to review the decision.

>>>If, however, the Supreme Court does accept the case, the crucial question will become how quickly the justices act in asking for briefs and in scheduling arguments. Should they move rapidly to hear the case and issue a decision, there remains the chance that a trial on the election charges will occur before the general election in November.<<<

Only 4 of 9 justices on the Supreme Court need to agree to grant cert, so it is certainly possible this will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Just granting review would be a victory of sorts for Trump because it would lead to more delay, which might give him the chance to dismiss the case if he's elected.

Not surprisingly, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to take the case, and also requested . . . . drum roll . . . more delay.

>>>In court papers filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, Trump said he would soon file his appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. In the meantime, he asked the high court to issue an emergency order keeping the trial proceedings on hold until any appeals are resolved.

Only four justices must vote to take up Trump’s eventual appeal. But the former president’s emergency request to pause his trial proceedings, known as a stay, will require five votes.<<<

Trump urges Supreme Court to delay Jan. 6 case amid immunity appeal

Former President Trump on Monday urged the Supreme Court to keep his federal election subversion criminal trial on hold as he appeals a ruling that he doesn’t have immunity from the charges. Trump’…

thehill.com

 

[Trell]

 

[Mr._Clark]

Today's episode of "Trump has his A$$ handed to him court" is brought to you courtesy of Judge Karen Steyn.

>>>LONDON -- Former U.S. President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay a six-figure legal bill to a company founded by a former British spy that he unsuccessfully sued for making what his lawyer called “shocking and scandalous" false claims that harmed his reputation.

A London judge, who threw out the case against Orbis Business Intelligence last month saying it was “bound to fail," ordered Trump to pay legal fees of 300,000 pounds ($382,000), according to court documents released Thursday.<<<

Trump is ordered to pay legal fees after failed lawsuit over the Steele dossier

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay legal fees to a company founded by a former British spy that he sued for making what he claimed were false claims that harmed his reputation

abcnews.go.com

I wonder if Trump's next book will be "The Art of Losing Money by Filing Loser Lawsuits"?