On 2/6/24 10:20 AM, mINE109 wrote:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf
We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted
interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests
that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude
that “[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by
our history and the structure of our government” compel the
rejection of his claim of immunity in this case. See Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. at 747–48. We also have considered his contention
that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal
liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as
President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent,
history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally,
we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is
barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order
of the district court is AFFIRMED.
End quote
David Corn explains:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/02/trump-immunity-federal-appeals-court-2024-election-january-6/
[quotes snipped]
The court said Trump has no special standing as a former president:
Trump argued that potential prosecution in the future could chill
presidential action. The court said, no way:
The court had a bit of a ha-ha moment, which many legal observers
anticipated, when it pointed out that Trump’s lawyers had argued during
his last impeachment that his actions related to the 2020 election were
not impeachable and that the appropriate venue for judging them would be
a courtroom. Gotcha, said the court:
Trump said that without total immunity, former presidents would be
mercilessly harassed. Unlikely, said the court, you’re the only
president to be federally indicted:
The court noted that Trump’s position made no sense. How could the guy
in charge of enforcing the law be above it?:
[Ruling] It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is
vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those
laws with impunity.
[Too good to snip]
What also doesn’t make sense, the court said, was a policy that would
allow a president to break laws just to overturn an election and stay in
power. That could be the end of democracy:
On the last page of its ruling, the court suggested that Trump’s
argument threatens the entire constitutional order and, if adopted,
could destroy the republic.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)