Presidential Immunity
This is a complicated subject and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.US presidents definitely have a certain amount of legal immunity whilst carrying out the duties of their office and for good reason: if every Tom, d*ck and Harry were allowed to file civil suits against the president every time they disagreed with a statement, or decision, the president would not only be inhibited from free speech in the form of discussion and debate, but would soon be too bogged down with legal challenges to carry out their presidential duties.
Having said that, Article II, Section 4 provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The very existence of the impeachment provision surely means that presidential immunity is not absolute.
However, there appears to be some contention about when a president is and is not liable in criminal, or civil settings depending upon the action, the time of the action, statute of limitations, etc. Presidential immunty is relevant with respect to the civil and criminal cases currently faced by Donald Trump.
A civil suit was brought against Trump in 2021 by two police officers and about a dozen members of congress seeking damages for injury sustained during the January 6th breach of the Capitol. An appellate court consisting of a three judge panel has just unanimously ruled that Trump can be held civilly liable.
The ruling asserts that "The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints."
With this statement the appellate judges have bypassed any issue of actual liability, but have stated their ruling is only about the extent of presidential immunity.
The ruling went on to say, "We answer no, at least at this stage of proceedings." This means that their decision can be appealed, but if upheld these particular complainants may continue with their civil suit against Trump.
The appellate judges argued in their ruling, "When a first term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an offical presidential act. The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of that office."
This ruling perhaps has wider implications with respect to Trump's other suits, namely his criminal indictments in Washinton DC where he stands accused of conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presdential election. Trump's defense currently centers upon his presidential immunity, but if his actions are deemed a part of his campaign, that defense becomes moot.
Comments (30)
America is covering legal ground that has not been tested like this before. He (Trump) is throwing so much shit against the wall, looking for a loophole to escape criminal charges, the wall has turned brown.
This popped up on my news this morning:
Judge rejects Trump immunity claim in federal 2020 election case
America is covering legal ground that has not been tested like this before. He (Trump) is throwing so much shit against the wall, looking for a loophole to escape criminal charges, the wall has turned brown.
This popped up on my news this morning:
Judge rejects Trump immunity claim in federal 2020 election case
It's appears to be more a case of trussed up like a kipper than finding a loophope.
As for freedom of speech, it is not absolute:
Either Trump's legal team is utterly incompetent, or Trump's only hope is using the publicity and any delays to get himself re-elected. They're certainly not showing any signs of a valid defense, or proper conduct.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Judge Wallace's ruling regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment goes to the Colorado Supreme Court. It's unlikely that her evaluation that Trump did engage in insurrection will be overturned given that centers on stated fact. Judge Wallace directly witnessed the evidence and testimony, therefore Colorado Supreme Court is unlikely to challenge it having not.
However, the ruling that the presidential office is not an office, or that the presidential oath does not oblige the president to uphold the constitution is a point of interpretation, rather than fact. Those concepts may, or may not be overruled.
It has been suggested that the bizarre incongruity of finding Trump's actions met the criteria of insurrection, but ruling that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone except the president may have been a function of fear and intimidation.
One of Trump's lawyer has stated that prosecuting Trump in the Georgia case is ‘election interference’ if he becomes the GOP nominee.
You may remember Trump announced he was running for 2024 long before it was time to make the announcement. I believe that did 2 things. Start the ball rolling on (grifter) campaign funding and use any excuse any legal action against him would be election interference.
He's doing both.
One of Trump's lawyer has stated that prosecuting Trump in the Georgia case is ‘election interference’ if he becomes the GOP nominee.
You may remember Trump announced he was running for 2024 long before it was time to make the announcement. I believe that did 2 things. Start the ball rolling on (grifter) campaign funding and use any excuse any legal action against him would be election interference.
He's doing both.
His announcement was preceded at least by Corey Stapleton on the 11th November 2022, candidates can announce at any time and it looks like most candidates who register are never even heard of.
Trump's timing does look a little contrived though, I agree. I wonder if he would have run if it weren't for his legal woes.
This type of circus is just a time killer in hope that the storm will past without a drop of rain,,
This type of circus is just a time killer in hope that the storm will past without a drop of rain,,
The new and improved POTUS in 2024 is **drumroll**
Donald Trump.
Nothing will stop this, even if he is in prison, he will be the next POTUS.
The new and improved POTUS in 2024 is **drumroll**
Donald Trump.
Nothing will stop this, even if he is in prison, he will be the next POTUS.
How do you think that will pan out given the US would then have to be presided over via 300 minutes of phone calls and 4 hours of visiting per month?
Can you foresee any consequences arising from presidential governance in absentia?
Without a mobile phone, or internet access?
Or are people expecting that Trump will still be above the law even as a convicted felon in a federal prison?
The American people could make a case that their govt has made the world an unsafe place for Americans to travel and live in, this is what the young American people are feeling after reading Bin Laden's letter to the US govt..
Maybe the American people are happy with being targets for the people's that the US govt/military has pissed off and treated unfair for so many years..
This type of circus is just a time killer in hope that the storm will past without a drop of rain,,
Whilst I agree that the US hasn't been held accountable for it's war crimes and other destructive conduct (neither has the UK and many other countries), I see that as a seperate subject from the one I raised with this blog. Maybe I'll get to that one day, but it would require a lot of reading and research on my part.
I disagree that holding Trump to account for his actions is just a time killer. It's an existential issue where the US system is under threat.
Whilst I agree with you that many parts of that system warrant change, Trump and the Republican extremists are attempting to create change in the opposite direction from that which I would like to see for the American people. I'm particulary concerned for the welfare of non-white and other already oppressed citizens, including women.
Whilst I agree that the US hasn't been held accountable for it's war crimes and other destructive conduct (neither has the UK and many other countries), I see that as a seperate subject from the one I raised with this blog. Maybe I'll get to that one day, but it would require a lot of reading and research on my part.
I disagree that holding Trump to account for his actions is just a time killer. It's an existential issue where the US system is under threat.
Whilst I agree with you that many parts of that system warrant change, Trump and the Republican extremists are attempting to create change in the opposite direction from that which I would like to see for the American people. I'm particulary concerned for the welfare of non-white and other already oppressed citizens, including women.
I see the people that are going after Trump as trying to make him use as money as possible in the court system and sink him that way..
Chances are knocking for the US in their country right now, like going after the Israeli lobby group AIPAC while Israel is on the ropes..
Or are people expecting that Trump will still be above the law even as a convicted felon in a federal prison?
Why don't you think indivduals in government should be held accountable if they break the rules, or laws?
Post conviction bail, unlike pre-trial bail is not a constitutional right. Although most states allow it, it's rarely granted when long sentences are involved and there is a flight risk.
In the case of less serious crimes and shorter sentences, it's usualy only granted if the lower court has made an error that is likely to result in reversal in the defendant’s favor, or the error is so constitutionally egregious that the defendant deserves a new trial.
Given the level of interlocutory appeals in Trump's cases to evaulate constitutional law, it's perhaps unlikely there will be any grounds to appeal that which has already been comprehensively reviewed through the appellate system.
An error likely to reverse any conviction is perhaps also unlikely given the calibre of prosecutorial team and their lawyering.
The only way I can see Trump getting post conviction bail is if the justice system, or individual players therein are too afraid to imprison him for their own benefit, but if that were the case, why would he have been indicted and held to account in the first place?
I haven't been following the case and no idea the final outcome but while becoming an elected leader may be an effective defence, it's quite elitist and something of a gamble, not your average get-out-of-jail-free card. Can't see a convicted felon being allowed to become a leader, though, surely. Mind you, just Googled that, and yes not a problem.
Talking of which, and this is NOT a blog hijack, mild interest only, did you know the first ever lottery is popularly supposed to have been to raise money to fight the Spanish Armada, in QE1 times, and one of the prizes was just that, a get-out-of-jail-free card? Back in those merry Tudor days they could have done a brisk trade with "keep your head on your shoulders" cards, think on.
I haven't been following the case and no idea the final outcome but while becoming an elected leader may be an effective defence, it's quite elitist and something of a gamble, not your average get-out-of-jail-free card. Can't see a convicted felon being allowed to become a leader, though, surely. Mind you, just Googled that, and yes not a problem.
Talking of which, and this is NOT a blog hijack, mild interest only, did you know the first ever lottery is popularly supposed to have been to raise money to fight the Spanish Armada, in QE1 times, and one of the prizes was just that, a get-out-of-jail-free card? Back in those merry Tudor days they could have done a brisk trade with "keep your head on your shoulders" cards, think on.
As for the lottery, it would be a perfect Trump grift, especially if the same kind of voting ID disenfranchisement were applied to buying tickets.
Why don't you think indivduals in government should be held accountable if they break the rules, or laws?
The Arabs, Muslims and Persians people are not so friendly to western countries for the same reasons as African countries, exploitation and being ripped off..
The western govts laws and rules need an over haul of the fairness kind or else it will turn in a world war..
Individuals are only breaking rubbish rules that make the world an unsafe place for people of that country..
The Arabs, Muslims and Persians people are not so friendly to western countries for the same reasons as African countries, exploitation and being ripped off..
The western govts laws and rules need an over haul of the fairness kind or else it will turn in a world war..
Individuals are only breaking rubbish rules that make the world an unsafe place for people of that country..
Trump and others stand accused of trying to overturn the democratic system and replace it with an autocratic one. Trump has made many public overtures of his intent to continue on that path to dismantle the democratic republic, including removing the institutions that can hold his megalomania in check.
Do you think that there should be laws/rules in place and that they should be applied to stop dictatorial aspirations, or corruption?
Do you think if Trump becomes president again that he's going to be fair and kind to US citizens, or citizens of other countries for that matter?
Two D.C. courts on Friday shot down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims related to January 6 and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday ruled that being president does not equate to "a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."
"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," she wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."
Chutkan also shut down Trump's argument that the case presents a violation of his First Amendment rights, as his attorneys have alleged that his challenging of the election via claims of election fraud was a protected act of free speech.
"It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime," Chutkan observed. "Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process."
Story link here:
Two D.C. courts on Friday shot down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims related to January 6 and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday ruled that being president does not equate to "a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."
"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," she wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."
Chutkan also shut down Trump's argument that the case presents a violation of his First Amendment rights, as his attorneys have alleged that his challenging of the election via claims of election fraud was a protected act of free speech.
"It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime," Chutkan observed. "Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process."
Story link here:
If it does accept, it's likely to stay the prosecution for the duration of the process, potentially delaying the trial start date. That could threaten the aspiration to have Trump cleared, or convicted prior to the presidential election.
However, given the frivolity of the defense motions that prosecuting Trump breaches double jeopardy law due to his second impeachment, or that official-act civil litigation immunity extends to acts beyond the scope of presidential duties, criminal acts, or post-presidency, it's perhaps unlikely that the Supreme Court will review prior to the whole evidence being presented at trial. The proper and usual time for the Supreme Court's attention and possible intervention is post-conviction.
Trump and others stand accused of trying to overturn the democratic system and replace it with an autocratic one. Trump has made many public overtures of his intent to continue on that path to dismantle the democratic republic, including removing the institutions that can hold his megalomania in check.
Do you think that there should be laws/rules in place and that they should be applied to stop dictatorial aspirations, or corruption?
Do you think if Trump becomes president again that he's going to be fair and kind to US citizens, or citizens of other countries for that matter?
The western political system has let banks and big companies grow to big and these banks and companies end up controlling the govt, like big companies lets say from Briton they pay tax in the Canary or Virgin Islands now this isn't for the English people is it..
The African countries are cutting this sort of crap out of renegotiations with big mining companies, Briton has the biggest gold mining operation in Burkina Faso and they probably won't get back into Burkina unless they pull their pants up and play fair in the back yard of Africa...
The first drone strike that Trump authorised after his inauguration killed 22 civilians including 10 children under the age of 12. He described it as a 'win'.
In the midde of his presidency Trump pubicly introduced the idea that he might serve three terms in office, or much longer.
Trump made 30,573 false, or misleading claims whilst in office. That's an average of 21 public lies and manipulations every day.
Trump has stated that "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" is allowable because he wasn't made president as he demanded.
Trump has been found liable for s*xual assault.
Trump has said he can grab women by the pu**y and they just let him.
Trump has stated his intention to seek retribution against his critics through the DoJ. Right wing loyalists are looking to expand his powers should he become president again, as well as curbing the DoJ, FBI and ther federal agencies.
Trump has been found guilty of persistent financial fraud.
Trump has promised to pardon participants in the J6 attack on the Capitol who have been convicted. He has recorded a song with the 'J6 choir' consistin of some 20 of the incarcerated men.
Trump attempted to ban all Musim people from entering the US.
(that's just a handful of instsances off the top of my head.)
He will try ANYTHING to stall. If this is allowed, it would indicate the government is as rotten as T-Rump himself.
"Given the level of interlocutory appeals in Trump's cases to evaulate constitutional law, it's perhaps unlikely there will be any grounds to appeal that which has already been comprehensively reviewed through the appellate system."
That doesn't stop him from trying, does it? Isn't that what he did 90-some times during the previous election?
"The only way I can see Trump getting post conviction bail is if the justice system, or individual players therein are too afraid to imprison him for their own benefit,"
That's it. They're afraid of this slobbering monster and his armed minions. As Chat said, this is all new ground for the US legal system.
That doesn't stop him from trying, does it? Isn't that what he did 90-some times during the previous election?
That's it. They're afraid of this slobbering monster and his armed minions. As Chat said, this is all new ground for the US legal system.
I do think Trump is being treated favorably by the courts in as much as any other US citizen would have had their pre-trial release revoked by now under similar circumstances.
I, however, have an alternative perspective to the fear theory: I think the leeway he's been given and the depth of legal analysis involved at every stage is about leaving him with no grounds to sucessfuly appeal any future convictions. These prosecutorial lawyers and judges haven't been hit with the stupid stick and apart from Judge Aileen Cannon, they deserve credit for their competency.
I do think there may have been an intimidation and fear element to Judge Sarah Wallace's bizzarely incongruent rulings regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in Colorado, but that it was likely a personal issue. It wouldn't be surprising and it's even understandable given the threats that have been issued towards other officials by Trump supporters following Trump's media rhetoric.
I also think intellience and security in the event of a violent uprising will be better prepared in the wake of J6. For one thing, the convictions and lengthy sentences issued to the J6 rioters will likely intimidate the less organised, along-for-the-ride Trump supporters. The numbers weren't great enough to pull off a coup on J6 despite the lack of security and I'd hazard a guess a lot of those people didn't fully understand what they were getting themselves into. They do now.
That was perhaps demonstrated by the Trump supporters being out-numbered by the press when Trump was arrested and indicted. They might be happy to go out for a jolly and attend the relative safety of Trump rallies, but an uprising, or violent protest with potential life-ruining consequences is a whole other ball game.
Nothing in Trump's frivolous defense suggests that he has a leg to stand on thus far. The legal system is clearly going through the motions, literally and figuratively, but an observer's frustration and impatience shouldn't be mistaken for error in, or intimidation of the justice system.
The basic of political leaders is if they are ripping off other countries, they will most likely f*ck the people of their countries too..
Someone should investigate Billy Clintons time in office, i'm sure he would have a stories over and under his desk..
Trump was directly responsible for over a million COVID-19 deaths, now, one could realistically name that as genocide.