Has Donald Already Won His Immunity Case

>> YOUR LINK HERE: ___ http://youtube.com/watch?v=TX20xNlooRg

Has Donald Already Won His Immunity Case? • Is Donald Trump immune from criminal prosecution? Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide that question in the election-subversion case brought by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith. • The Court’s decision has the potential to forever alter the power of the presidency. But no matter how the court rules, the sad reality is that Trump has already won. • By delaying its opinion until the waning days of its current term, the Court will prevent the case from going to trial before the November presidential election. Should Trump win, he will be able to order his new Attorney General to dismiss the case altogether. That’s something you can count on as surely as tomorrow’s sunrise. • As many commentators have argued, Trump’s principal legal strategy in the subversion case, as well as in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and the state prosecutions brought in Georgia and New York, has never been about the merits of the legal issues involved. The game plan has always been about delay. And with the sole exception of the New York hush-money prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the strategy has worked to perfection. • In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s case against Trump has been indefinitely postponed while a state appellate court considers whether to disqualify Willis and her office because of a secret romantic affair she had with her top deputy. In the Florida documents case, progress has been stymied by an inexperienced and arguably incompetent judge who appears to be biased in favor of the former President. • But of all the delays, the one in the nation’s highest court is the most unforgivable. On December 1, 2023, federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has been assigned to preside over the subversion case in the event it ever goes to trial, rejected Trump’s immunity claim in a blistering forty-eight-page opinion, writing: • “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 . . . . [The] defendant’s four-year service as Commander-in-Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.” • Believing that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the immunity question, Smith responded with alacrity. On December 12, he asked the Court to review the immunity issue on an expedited basis and bypass the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, which would normally have first crack at reviewing Chutkan’s opinion. His request was quickly denied, causing the first significant delay in the litigation. • The case proceeded to the Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on January 9. On February 6, the three-judge panel assigned to the appeal, which included a very conservative Republican jurist first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, voted unanimously to affirm Chutkan’s ruling, holding: • “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” • The Supreme Court wasted little time in accepting Trump’s petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, but in a foreshadowing of further delays to come, it scheduled oral arguments for April 25, the last date for arguments in its 2023–2024 term. • When the arguments finally took place, the Court appeared poised to reject the claim of absolute immunity advanced by Trump’s lawyers. The Court’s six Republican Justices, however, seemed ready to provide Trump with a limited but still significant degree of protection for any “official acts” he may have undertaken as President to contest the results of the 2020 election as opposed to those he undertook in his personal capacity as a political candidate. • The Supreme Court addressed the distinction between a president’s official and personal acts in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 decision involving a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by a federal contractor against Richard Nixon. Fitzgerald held that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” in civil cases seeking damages arising from their official acts and acts “within the outer perimeter” of their official duties. Trump’s lawyers urged the court to apply the Fitzgerald standard to criminal law. • You can find more LA Progressive content here: • Website: https://www.laprogressive.com/ • TikTok: / laprogressive0 • Instagram: / laprogressive • LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/laprogressive • Facebook - / laprogressive • Twitter - https://x.com/LAProgressive • 00:00 Introduction • 08:22 Supreme Court • 10:43 Trump Immunity

#############################

New on site