Two significant rulings yesterday on the Malignant Loser's attempts to claim presidential immunity for his actions leading up to the January 6 insurrection:
"...President Trump moved in the district court to dismiss the claims against him, including on grounds of a President’s official-act immunity from damages liability. The district court largely rejected his claim of immunity, and President Trump now appeals. 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.
"We answer no, at least at this stage of the proceedings. When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official 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 the office. So, when a sitting President running for a second term attends a private fundraiser for his re-election effort, hires (or fires) his campaign staff, cuts a political ad supporting his candidacy, or speaks at a campaign rally funded and organized by his re-election campaign committee, he is not carrying out the official duties of the presidency. He is acting as office-seeker, not office-holder—no less than are the persons running against him when they take precisely the same actions in their competing campaigns to obtain precisely the same office..." -- page 4 of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan's ruling yesterday on whether the Malignant Loser had immunity from civil suits filed by injured police officers and Members of Congress for his insurrectionist remarks leading up to the January 6 Capitol sacking. The two other judges on the three- judge panel concurred in the ruling but had additional comments.
____________________
"...Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility”while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions. Immunity Motion at 8, 11–13 (formatting modified). The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold. 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. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office..." -- page 6 of U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling yesterday denying the Malignant Loser's claim of immunity in the January 6 insurrection prosecution.
The rulings, by two separate courts, bolster the government's position that the Malignant Loser is not above the law, should further appeals be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment