I was on the bus with Congresswoman Johnson at least twice during the 2016 National Convention. She was an amazing leader
Donald Trumps bold claims that hes immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election threaten to undermine democracy, special counsel Jack Smith warned a federal appeals court Saturday.
In a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith rejected Trumps contention that the criminal indictment of him for trying to reverse his loss at the polls three years ago is constitutionally invalid because he was serving as president at the time and also because he was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached for those actions.
Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendants sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office, Smith and his team wrote in an 82-page filing. The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.
While Trump has argued that allowing a prosecution such as the one he faces in Washington would chill future presidents from carrying out their duties due to the prospect of future criminal indictment, Smith contends that fear is overblown.
Multiple safeguards ultimately enforced by the Article III courts protect against any potential burdens on the Presidency that the defendant claims to fear, prosecutors wrote. Any burdens of post-Presidency criminal liability have minimal impact on the functions of an incumbent and are outweighed by the paramount public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/30/special-counsel-trump-immunity-claim-threatens-democracy-00133353
Special Counsel Jack Smith did not wait until a hour before the deadline to file this brief.
Here is a link to the filing
Trump doesn't have immunity from Jan. 6 civil suit brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, appeals court say
A DC Court of Appeals panel just held that TFG does not have immunity in another of the civil lawsuits filed against TFG under the KKK Act
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based its decision on a ruling in a separate case brought by two Capitol Police officers and a group of House Democrats that was handed down earlier this month. In its Dec. 1 opinion, the D.C. Circuit rejected Trump's claim that he is shielded from civil liability because his alleged actions in connection to the Jan. 6 attack fell within the official functions of the presidency.
In its unsigned opinion Friday, the three judges said the case before them is "indistinguishable" from the other dispute and said Trump's argument that he has immunity "fails."
"'Whether [President Trump's] actions involved speech on matters of public concern bears no inherent connection to the essential distinction between official and unofficial acts,'" Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Bradley Garcia and Judith Rogers wrote in their opinion, quoting from the D.C. Circuit's earlier ruling.
I will not be able to get this concept out of my mind any time I see video of a TFG rally.
This Texas law is clearly unconstitutional. The SCOTUS ruled against a similar Arizona law and Texas is hoping that the new TFG SCOTUS will overrule that decision.
The new legislation, which Abbott signed into law earlier this month, is unconstitutional and will disrupt the federal governments immigration enforcement operations, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton wrote in a letter to the governor obtained by Hearst Newspapers.
The letter says that if Abbott does not confirm the state will forgo enforcement of the law by Jan. 3, the United States will pursue all appropriate legal remedies to ensure that Texas does not interfere with the functions of the federal government......
The Justice Department points to a landmark Supreme Court ruling from 2012 that held that only the federal government has the power to enforce immigration laws. Abbott has cast the law as an opening for the high court to reconsider that ruling.
In that case, the high court struck down portions of an Arizona law that authorized police to arrest anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the federal government has broad discretion in setting immigration policy and that the state could not pursue policies that undermine federal law.
Profile InformationMember since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PM
Number of posts: 142,550
- 2024 (478)
- 2023 (2291)
- 2022 (3356)
- 2021 (1741)
- 2020 (1117)
- 2019 (859)
- 2018 (738)
- 2017 (102)
- 2016 (83)
- 2015 (42)
- 2014 (103)
- 2013 (68)
- 2012 (28)