Post from Truth Social

case, the three panel court wrote in its opinion that quote, "We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power. The recognition and implementation of election results, nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. So ruled the court and so they opined." Trump in a previous filing had made the argument that as president, he is immune from criminal prosecution. In fact, his argument is sound, it is consistent with the Constitution. And that's important, perhaps more important than the appellate court understands. Trump specifically argued that prosecuting a former president is in violation of Justice Department policy. How? Well, the DOJ has a long-standing policy against prosecuting current presidents. Trump also argued that because he was acquitted during the Senate's January 6th impeachment of him, he cannot be then criminally charged for the same actions as that would constitute double jeopardy. Trump's attorney John Sauer made the case during oral arguments that under such a standard George W. Bush and Barack Obama would be prosecuted after leaving office, or at least could be. "To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's box from which this nation may never recover. Could George W. Bush be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding for allegedly giving false information to Congress to induce the nation to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses? Could President Obama be potentially charged with murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens located abroad?" Both salient questions, and both, well, not rhetorical in point of fact, although they seem such. Nonetheless, the court ruled unanimously against President Trump and that argument today. It was also, as you noted from the excerpt I read, completely absurd how exactly did President Trump violate the rights of individual citizens to vote. In fact, we would argue his decision to and desire to investigate the election did the exact opposite. President Trump was trying to ensure that every legal vote counted in 2020. So what does today's ruling mean? First it means that for now, the criminal trial against President Trump for his actions on January 6th can proceed. That case had been indefinitely delayed by a lower court until the appellate court could issue a ruling on Trump's immunity. We don't know when that trial would begin or if it will be underway ahead of the election or if indeed it does move to trial. But this decision is of course not final. At least yet. The question of Trump's immunity does not end here. President Trump will appeal this court's decision and a Supreme Court denial of that appeal would make the DC court corruption all the more evident. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is known for considering the political implications of the court's implications of the court's decisions. So it's no guarantee that the Supreme Court would even hear Trump's appeal, not a guarantee. That in and itself would be a gross dereliction of duty by the high court. If that were to happen, the case returns to the district court with Obama appointed Judge Tonya Chutkin overseeing the case, ever so impartially. We can't say what will happen with this case, only time will tell. But we do know this. What we are seeing unfold is the very end.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.