Isn't that what's going on right now? The DC case has been put on hold pending the outcome of the immunity litigation, correct? The trial will only go on once the Court(s) have weighed in.
Now we know what took the DC COA so long to rule...
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
Isn't that what's going on right now? The DC case has been put on hold pending the outcome of the immunity litigation, correct? The trial will only go on once the Court(s) have weighed in.
You are the one who posted the CA language where the court ruled facts important to immunity are allegations yet to be proven. Those facts must be resolved before the case moves forward. Just cuz some of those facts may overlap with some of the elements of guilt doesn’t matter.
Sort of, but not quite. What's being litigated right now is, as Bowl says, a legal question, or really a set of legal questions, as to how far immunity extends, and whether or not it's even applicable here. CO.H is hung up on demanding an evidentiary hearing, despite the fact that there is no need of evidence to answer the questions posed, as there is no question of fact to be resolved. The questions re: immunity are entirely technical and legal.
Back to square one. My original post criticized the CA for deciding immunity based on unproven facts.
Well you're right about that. Trump was the first and hopefully last American president to attempt to steal a presidential election. He was also our first mob boss president. We've never had a former president facing 91 criminal charges. And he's only the third president, to my knowledge, to have committed crimes while in office.
Richard "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon, was in fact, a crook. He didn't want to be prosecuted. Ford didn't want him to be prosecuted. They both knew Nixon wasn't immune from prosecution. That's why Ford pardoned him.
Bill Clinton lied under oath. That's a crime. He was worried about being prosecuted, he knew he could be prosecuted, and he knew he wasn't immune from prosecution. That's why, hours before his term ended, hours before he became Citizen Clinton and would lose the protection of "you can't prosecute a sitting president," he cut a deal with independent counsel. He admitted he gave false testimony under oath, he agreed to a five year suspension of his law license and he paid a #25,000 fine in exchange for an agreement by the independent counsel not to indict him.
In sum, the only two other presidents (besides Trump) who committed crimes and faced criminal prosecution knew full well that they did not have immunity from prosecution. Neither does your boy.
What facts are at issue re: immunity? Trump claims absolute immunity, facts be damned. That's a question of law, not of facts.
he claims absolute immunity for conduct within the scooe and authority of the office. That is why the court question about assassins was so f *cking dumb.
We still need a hearing about authority ans scope.
That’s naive. Official immunity for the office of president exists. The question to be resolved is whether Trump‘s conduct falls under immunity. That is a fact intensive inquiry and involves exactly what will be proven about Trumps conduct.
No, it's not. There are no questions to be resolved re: his conduct. The only questions are whether or not immunity applies to said conduct. Those are legal questions, not questions of fact. Which the COA dealt with admirably.
Yes, he stated a month or so ago that a president must have "total immunity" even if the president "crosses the line."
Well, they didn't, exactly. But it doesn't matter. They were resolving questions of law, regardless of whether or not the allegations were true. The truth of the allegations are immaterial.
Immunityb claims are questions of law where the facts are immaterial? I don’t think so
You can't just dismiss an actual court proceeding by claiming some broad generalization should hold.
Why not? Criticizing judicial opinions is part of a lawyers job description. .
So Trump has now proven to you, time and again, he isn't capable of hiring decent lawyers.
But you're confident he'll staff a competent cabinet.
Seems hiring lawyers at $2k/hr would be easier. Cabinet jobs top out about $250k/yr.
He's now claiming his lawyers charge him too much. Going forward he won't pay more than $750/hr.
Aren't those questions all determined based on the facts alleged in the indictment?
That’s what the CA did. They even acknowledged the facts were yet to be proven. Of course the indictment would not include exculpatory material. This is why there must be an evidentiary hearing on the immunity question.
I don’t think SCOTUS will buy Trump’s absolute immunity argument in this context. Nor will it adopt the CA ruling on no immunity. IMO, it will send the case back for a full hearing on immunity.
What disputed fact bears on whether Trump has immunity in that particular case?
I still don’t get it. You don’t analyze actual facts, you analyze the allegations. He’s alleged to have done X. So the defense has to be “even if you prove X, I have immunity from that so dismiss the case.”
That’s how it works in cases of qualified immunity, legislative immunity, and judicial immunity, I think.
I also don’t understand why the court’s question was dumb. He’s claiming absolute immunity from criminal charges for his official acts unless he’s impeached and convicted in the Senate for those acts. They were testing just how far the defense had to push that theory to win.
Last edited:
He's going to be mad I'm talking about him and not his argument, but this is what you get from CO.H. He decided the court was wrong because it ruled against Trump. Now he has to try to force some rationalization for that opinion. His arguments appear weak and confused because the opinion he's formed is such a difficult one to rationalize.
That's classic bad faith posting 101, and it's been CO's MO for many years now.
That’s not Classic bad faith posting. That’s a class at COH U!!! Got you all thinking and asking questions and working your way to some answers
I'm all for presidential immunity. As soon as the SC rules for Trump Biden should have him offed.
Would probably cost too much.
Ask Melania.
Obama ordered a drone strike upon a U.S. citizen trurned terrorist. IIRC, the strikw was in Yemen. I know it wasn’t in US soil. Is Obama immune from criminal prosecution?
How many times do I need to say on this forum that I wish Trump would get off the stage before you believe me? I’ve even donated to his opponent.
My criticism of the CA is strictly based on what it said and what that holding means long term for any president. I think Obama should have immunity for that drone strike on a U.S. citizen. The CA would deny it.
Don’t claim bad faith posting when you can’t make a cogent argument.
I don’t think he’s saying this because of Trump. I think he’s referring to cases he litigated previously and thinks this one operates like those.
I just don’t know what types of cases CoH is analogizing to.
But it is in no way analogous to Trump's behavior.
Don't let him drag you down this rabbit hole.
The CA opinion is not about Trump. It’s about the office of president. If this no immunity opinion stands as written, the authority and nature of the office will be forever changed. IMO for the worse.
There are dozens of immunity doctrines established by statute, common law and in the 11th Amendment. I’ve Litigated many. Presidential immunity is simply a version of official immunity. It can and should be absolute for discretionary acts within the scope of responsibility. Presidents (and many public officials) frequently make appearances in whole or in part intended to mobilize political support. I think that activity should be immune. The question here is whether Trump‘s conduct in question fell within that scope. That’s a very fact intensive inquiry.
I’ve litigated a lot of these issues, too (never presidential immunity). The conduct alleged is what you take into account, CoH. If what is alleged is inside the scope off duties, it’s barred. If not, it plays. That’s a legal issue.
It's not that complicated. Whatever you want to call it, inciting a...
Protest/ rally/ demonstration/insurrection in the Capitol
is NOT part of presidential duties.
It simply was not part of his job. Ordering a military action is central to the job as commander in chief, so the Obama example would be immune from prosecution.
Protest/ rally/ demonstration/insurrection in the Capitol
is NOT part of presidential duties.
It simply was not part of his job. Ordering a military action is central to the job as commander in chief, so the Obama example would be immune from prosecution.
That's exactly what it is - - a rabbit hole.
"[W]hen a US citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill US citizens, and when neither the United States nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should serve no more as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."
No US president has to be concerned about immunity in a case like that because he doesn't need it. He's acting in his role as CIC in taking out a threat to the homeland. I'm no expert on international law, the LOAC (law of armed conflict), or the Geneva Conventions, although the gentleman from Colorado will likely claim that he is. That said, I know enough to recognize that the Hague court would have little interest in a case like that and, on the off-chance that they did, US law as it pertains to presidential immunity would be of no consequence.
