The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[westwall]

Well, they were all watching FOX News w Tucker and believing every lie, all while being laughed at by...

Oh wait!

never mind

And here you are making my point for me, thanks!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case
December 1, 2023 - CBS News

The former president argued...presidents cannot be charged with a crime.

Washington — A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss the special counsel's 2020 election interference case against him on the grounds of presidential immunity.

Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after leaving office for alleged conduct during his time in office. The former president argued special counsel Jack Smith's four charges should be dropped on the basis that presidents cannot be charged with a crime.

"Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass," Chutkan wrote late Friday in a lengthy opinion, spurning Trump's arguments on historical, constitutional and legal grounds.

Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case

Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after leaving office for alleged conduct during his time in office.

www.cbsnews.com

"Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the 'outer perimeter,' but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President," they wrote. "In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump's efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And here you are making my point for me, thanks!

People like you were watching FOX News w Tucker, and believing every lie, all while being laughed at by the people who force feed you bullshit.

 

[BackAgain]

Sorry, but I don't think The Devine Right of Kings is included in or constitution.

Of course, we aren’t discussing the Divine Right of anybody. And note the correct spelling, you ignorant twat rash.

 

[BackAgain]

"Impeachment proceedings are remedial rather than punitive in nature, and the remedy is limited to removal from office. Because the process is not punitive, a party may also be subject to criminal or civil trial, prosecution, and conviction under the law after removal from office."

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Article 2, Section 4--". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."
This implies that the impeachment process is not tightly linked to the criminal law."

"Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7--"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office."

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

View attachment 880336

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/

So, you don’t read the brief.

Check.

 

[BackAgain]

Arguments like your loses many of us at this point here...

When one posts using juvenile name calling and ridiculously regurgitated insults...

When I want the advice and counsel of the dainty, I’ll send up a flare.

Until then, the dainty might as well keep its useless commentary to itself.

Once again, the dainty shows it can’t address the actual topic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case

Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after leaving office for alleged conduct during his time in office.

www.cbsnews.com

The most laughable part of the OP is this: "The more refined and nuanced positions made by the Trump legal team."

When what is claimed to be refined and nuance is laughed out of courts...? "Mr. Trump's attorneys filed a motion asking Chutkan to toss the case, contending Trump has presidential immunity from prosecution for actions performed within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility." - adding adverbs, and adjectives in filings seems to be something Trump himself must've demanded of the lawyers. It's how Mr. Trump speaks when questioned in depositions and under oath.

quotes:

Trump's attorneys stipulated the former president "emphatically denies the truth of any allegations in the indictment" and argued the conduct for which he was charged — largely that he allegedly worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and conspired to defraud the U.S. with six unnamed co-conspirators — was performed not just as a candidate for the presidency, but also as the sitting president. That distinction, they said, shields him from prosecution.

Like Trump's attorneys, Chutkan also referred to American history, but countered that the Founding Fathers, including George Washington — who she noted first established the transfer of power — valued the principle of peaceful succession, "a tradition that stood unbroken until January 6, 2021," she wrote.

"[Trump] may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,' Chutkan wrote Friday.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When I want the advice and counsel of the dainty, I’ll send up a flare.

Until then, the dainty might as well keep its useless commentary to itself.

Once again, the dainty shows it can’t address the actual topic.

"I made a bet. If Obama wins re-election, then I leave the Board." - Liability/Backagain

 

[BackAgain]

Except that impeachment is something that only congress can do to impeach or not impeach . It only removes the person from the position that he or she holds or As defined by the constitution or they get to keep their job.

Trump was impeached but was not removed from office

There is no jail time or fines


It is not a criminal or civil charge under the judicial system.

So it is not double jeopardy.

So, you either didn’t read the brief or you didn’t understand it.

Not an unexpected development.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't forget base stupidity. I have seen very few progressives anywhere who have an IQ above low average.

You simply can't expect not smart people to understand nuance.

They only understand the force of the brick through the window.

And they love being bullies.

It's what they are.

Ironically, they’re not even talented within their chosen arena.

 

[BackAgain]

You want people to read this, while you and your friends here ignore other filings and briefs?

signature: Simply accepting the case does not necessarily delay or hamper Trump’s prosecution. There is no legal reason to slow the proceedings in District Court while the Supreme Court considers the applicability of the obstruction statute. There is no reason to wait on the trial.

I don’t expect most of you libturds to read or even try to understand such matters. My post wasn’t directed at you willfully ignorant types.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don’t expect most of you libturds to read or even try to understand such matters. My post wasn’t directed at you willfully ignorant types.

Juvenile shit again.

now


People can read what Judges with real legal experience have to say:

The judge argued the Constitution does not completely immunize presidents from criminal prosecution tied to their office to avoid creating "the unaccountable, almost omnipotent rulers of other nations" that existed at the time of the nation's founding.

"A former President's exposure to federal criminal liability is essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law," the judge said.

Despite their client no longer holding public office, Trump's legal team argued that the unique and sensitive nature of the job requires that the president not be distracted by threats of legal action, a component of the legal theory that shields sitting presidents, not former presidents, from criminal charges. Such immunity, the defense team contended, encompasses all of the conduct that is alleged in the special counsel's indictment.

But the judge's opinion rejected that argument, instead contending that the threat of potential prosecution after leaving office might force a sitting president to grapple with certain situations "before deciding to act with criminal intent."

"That is a benefit, not a defect," she wrote

 

[White 6]

So, you don’t read the brief.

Check.

Cut and dried. No need. Remember, Republican lawyers aren't too bright to begin with. That is why they lose on these things, as the courts use the law and the constitution, instead of internet tripe, to titillate the faithful.

 

[BackAgain]

It is difficult to copy and paste from a pdf document.

So, for the sake of utility, here is a screen grab:

 

[BackAgain]

Juvenile shit again.

now


People can read what Judges with real legal experience have to say:



"That is a benefit, not a defect," she wrote

If you weren’t just a hypocritical little pissant, even an imbecile like you might be able to grasp that legal briefs often quote actual precedential cases. The Trump brief sure does.

But you have leave to remain mired in your ignorance. You don’t understand any of this anyway, the dainty; and I doubt that you’ll ever be able to do so.

 

[BackAgain]

Cut and dried. No need.

You won’t ever learn what you refuse to even consider.

Remember, Republican lawyers aren't too bright to begin with.

False.

That is why they lose on these things, as the courts use the law and the constitution, instead of internet tripe, to titillate the faithful.

The evidence of your error will be seen when the SCOTUS reviews the case.

 

[BackAgain]

Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case
December 1, 2023 - CBS News

The former president argued...presidents cannot be charged with a crime.

Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case

Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after leaving office for alleged conduct during his time in office.

www.cbsnews.com

The dainty cannot grasp that it is the rejection of his claim (as spelled out in the brief) which is the subject of the appeal.

Once again, libtards like the dainty insist on using the very matter under debate as some sort of premise for their position in favor of that very debated matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you weren’t just a hypocritical little pissant, even an imbecile like you might be able to grasp that legal briefs often quote actual precedential cases. The Trump brief sure does.

But you have leave to remain mired in your ignorance. You don’t understand any of this anyway, the dainty; and I doubt that you’ll ever be able to do so.

NA, na, na, na , na na poopie head!

See? I can post like you if I were urged to become a child again. But I left all that shit behind, after the 6th grade.

 

[BackAgain]

NA, na, na, na , na na poopie head!

See? I can post like you if I were urged to become a child again. But I left all that shit behind, after the 6th grade.

You can’t post like me, The Dainty.

You avoid facts and logic.

And you’re still proving it as in the above quoted post.

Helpful hint: one can often figure out the topic by at least reading the OP and linked material.

Best of luck.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can’t post like me, The Dainty.

You avoid facts and logic.

And you’re still proving it as in the above quoted post.

Helpful hint: one can often figure out the topic by at least reading the OP and linked material.

Best of luck.

Shane! Wait! Come back!