Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case - ABC News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump had wanted the case dismissed based on a claim of "absolute immunity."
ByKatherine Faulders andAlexander MallinFebruary 6, 2024, 10:16 AM ET• 3 min read
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity as it pertains to his federal election interference case.
"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the judges wrote in their 57-page decision, saying that "Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct."
"We reject all three potential bases for immunity both as a categorical defense to federal criminal prosecutions of former Presidents and as applied to this case in particular," the decision said.
MORE: Trump immunity hearing: Special counsel lawyer warns of 'frightening future' if Trump wins case
The judges heard arguments in early January on Trump's efforts to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.
Last week, after waiting nearly a month for the appellate court's decision, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the March 4 start date for Trump's trial.
Trump, who in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation's highest office.
The former president, who attended the Jan. 9 hearing in person, has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the election interference charges as "a persecution of a political opponent."
The appeals court took up the matter after the Supreme Court in December denied special counsel Jack Smith's request to immediately take up Trump's claims of immunity, declining to grant a writ of certiorari before judgment -- meaning it would allow a federal appeals court to hear the matter first, which is what Trump's legal team had sought.
Smith had asked the Supreme Court to step in and quickly rule on the issue -- a potentially landmark decision that could, for the first time in American history, determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
The issue may still end up before the Supreme Court, depending on how the appeal plays out.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
BOOM!
bummer. now that seal team has to stand down... /s
The MAGAS? They got nothing. Zip!
just like trump's legal costs, if he can't be held accountable, his supporters will be...
And it is on to the Supreme Court
BOOM!
And expect the exact same result.
BAM!
Thus, no conviction before the election
BA BOOM BOOM BOOM!
More likely than not that SCotUS will not even take the case.
YOU'RE FIRING DUDS!
They would prefer not to, but at this point it is unavoidable.
I prefer Devastator bullets.
There is nothing requiring SCotUS to take the case. The Appellate Court opinion was thorough, well-reasoned and excellent.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
There is zero reason for the USSC to take a case involving settled law. I expect to see a pointed refusal from the USSC...
This isn’t “settled law.” In fact, as the court explicitly said, it’s the exact opposite.
Not in this case. This court said no. The USSC won't touch it!
[deleted]
[deleted.] The Court specifically said "The question of whether a former President enjoys
absolute immunity from federal criminal liability is one of first impression." If you understand what those words mean, you'd understand it's not "settled law."
The USSC won't touch it!
[deleted]
Why?
"Mommy!!!!!! The court said I am not immune to commit all the crimes I want!!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!"
They decide which cases they hear, Vic.
So you feel that presidents should be above the law? If laws don't apply to all of us, they apply to none of us.
Because I pointed out accurately what the Court stated, you think it means I believe Presidents should be above the law?
If laws don't apply to all of us, they apply to none of us.
Did I miss you demanding Biden be arrested for mishandling classified information?
Deflection is noted.
What crime, specifically, would one be charging Biden with here?
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
Storing classified docs in a garage obviously violates this law
[deleted]
The charge would be gross negligence or knowing intent to hold information relating to the national defense.
Knowing intent would be difficult to establish with Biden and Pence, so gross negligence would have to be the charge.
I, personally, would consider this to be gross negligence for Biden and Pence. They should have taken steps to ensure they returned all classified documents before leaving office. Nobody should ever do that, but I suspect if the government were to literally (no threshold) execute this law they would be indicting quite a few officials. As a matter of law, this clearly is not how our system has operated.
Trump not only has gross negligence, but he also has knowing intent. On top of that we have intentional obstruction. As I have noted in the past numerous times, if Trump had cooperated in the return of these documents there would be no issues. They would have been returned and the matter would not even be publicly known.
Trump technically (arguably) would have broken the law (gross negligence) as with Biden et. al. But like them, the matter would have been addressed with a focus on securing the documents rather than criminal charges.
But Trump went well beyond this and that is why he is in trouble.
The day the SCOTUS permits a president to commit whatever crime or crimes s/he wishes to do to the citizens of this country, I propose that year that every able-bodied America over 35 years of age should run for the office of President of the United States. Many can play stupid indulgent games just like Republicans. . . as a counterpoint. Let's see real CHAOS in the campaign cycle immediately.
The dude literally lied to the authorities of which he is/was one. Such contempt for the office he once held and government officials who once served him, but as fate would have it he needs that very office again to save his sorry, ridiculously contemptible. . . self from personal ruin.
Trump is a real piece of work. He will abuse himself of Reagan's motto: "I'm from the government and I am here to help." By, needing government to help him get out of extremely 'promising' court dates or a jail cell or worse: Prison!
I agree.
Trump not only has gross negligence
Great, but the question was what Biden would be charged with.
Did you not read my comment?
The appellate court denied Trump his 90 days to appeal.
Don't pretend they were fair.
[REMOVED]
You are wrong. There are 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari (which you are referring to as an "appeal") with the Supreme Court per Rule 13.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Court set a deadline of February 12 to apply for a stay of the Appellate Court decision or the case will return to the trial court to proceed.
Eminently fair and reasonable.
Helps to have an attorney on the forum
the appellate court also destroyed every legal argument trump's lawyers presented to advance their case.
Their legal arguments were worthless.
... just like their client.
and his supporters...
... a complete failure and total loss.
Good!
I don't think this makes a lot of difference as (1) it's going to be appealed to SCOTUS and (2) it doesn't get the trial in DC started anytime soon. The longer the trial waits the more it will seem to people that this is election interference by the DOJ.
The evidence that Donald Trump tried to subvert the 2020 election is overwhelming.
There most likely are stupid people who will believe Trump is being picked on, but hopefully clearer heads will prevail.
Way to not reply to what I posted.
The evidence as presented by the Jan 6th Committee was overwhelming, but one has to wonder what they did not show.
And that's why I posted what I did. If the trial is delayed until summer (which is possible as there will be two SCOTUS appeals now) will more people think that this is election interference by the DOJ? I think the answer is yes.
And please accept that nowhere in this am I defending that piece of shit. Personally I would love for Trump and Biden to have an immediate televised debate. Maybe that would convince enough idiots to not support either one of them and force the parties to bring forth better candidates.
Not necessarily "stupid", but most definitely "willfully ignorant".
Do you have even 1 shred of evidence that they withheld any evidence that would be germane? If so, please link it.
You're asking me to prove a negative, please explain how that is even possible. What I said is that one has to wonder what evidence they had that they did not show. Do you really want to say that in the 10 public hearings and the final report that the committee released all the evidence? We know they didn't.
Yes, one can rightly blame Republicans for that as they blocked the creation of an independent nonpartisan commission which would have been required by law to disclose much of the underlying evidence. But it's right there that a lot of evidence has not been released and won't be for decades if ever. As it's not been released, how do we know what is germane yet hidden for someone's benefit.
What evidence?
The evidence that Trump tried to subvert the election is overwhelming, and it exists both on video and on social media postings, and in the sworn testimony of trump white house insiders.
The claim to "unknown evidence" comes from people who are not familiar with the facts. Its not really a matter of opinion.
"peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Once again, you fail to reply to what I posted.
What you are saying here is that the evidence that was released is the ONLY evidence that matters, and anything that wasn't released was just not important or germane to the facts. That is the very definition of an opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong to state yours is fact.
Just tell us what sort of evidence that is "hidden" could change the facts. If you think there is such evidence, please tell us what you think it is, or might be.
We know what the evidence is against him, so what is the evidence in his favor?
No evidence from Trump has even been floated; we simply have Trump’s claim that everything he did was proper and covered by immunity.
If Trump can offer a persuasive defense, I will be quite surprised. It is of course possible, but given all we know about Trump and his behavior during his Big Lie, it is unlikely.
Bullshit. I am asking you to prove that they withheld germane evidence. That is not a negative and it is based on your claim. If you make a claim that is unproveable, you should never have made it.
Read my question, then look up the missing word that you are failing to address and doing your best to ignore.
Once again you can't reply to what I post. Let me try to make this as clear as possible. How am I supposed to know about what evidence that has not been released to the public states? All I said is that there was a lot of evidence from the Jan 6th Committee that was never released to the public and WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT EVIDENCE STATES. Yes, everything that was released in the ten televised hearings and what was released in the final report paint a rather damning picture of Trump. But that's not all the evidence and we just don't know what wasn't released. Who knows, there may be more evidence that proves Trump did mastermind this and should be prosecuted for insurrection and removed from the November ballot. I want the full picture, why don't you?
Why is that so hard to understand?
See 3.1.11
I never made that claim, I said there was a lot of evidence that has not been released to the public and I would like it all to be released.
You are pissing about the word "germane"? Answer this question then. How is anybody in the public arena supposed to know what evidence might be germane if it HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC? I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring what I posted in the first place. In no way was I defending Trump, in no way did I indicate that I felt what was released was wrong. What I said is that there is a lot of evidence that was not released and I would like to see it.
Who knows, there may be evidence in there that Trump truly did act in insurrection and should be indicted for that, taken to trial and put into prison, and removed from the November ballots. But without seeing that information that has not been released, how would anybody know?
See 3.1.4
You are the one who doesnt understand. You claim there is more evidence than the committee released. What is it? Does Trump have an explanation for why he sat watching tv for three hours while the riot was underway? He was asked that exact question a little while back by Meet The Press. His answer? "I'm not going to tell you that".
There was testimony from numerous people that white house personnel pleaded with him to do something. He did nothing. Why not? Because he wanted the riot to succeed.
This is only one example out of dozens.
You cant even describe the potential nature of such evidence. Sometimes there isnt two sides to the story.
You are trying to force me into making a defense for Trump and I never said anything about his defense. All I've ever fucking stated is that there is more that was not released. I'm just done with this as you don't want a conversation, you only want capitulation to your points.
Whatever. You have totally failed to make a valid point.
Three. Yours, mine, and the truth.
How does that apply to my post?
I believe that if Trump had any of the unreleased evidence that showed him in a good light that he would be very quick to release it and capitalize on it. As he does not have access to that evidence either the same answer can apply. He doesn't have it and we don't have it. I would love to know what else they looked at and what they chose not to release (and why).
how about a 40 watt bulb in an 8x10 room?
[deleted]
Yep...
I am sure the republicans on the bi partisan Jan 6th committee would not have allowed any evidence to be hidden that could show Donald in a good light. S/
You are wrong. Watch the January 6th Hearings. Get back to us. What? You never have and never will? Isn't that special?
So you are saying the republicans on the bi partisan Jan 6th committee would have allowed any evidence to be hidden that could show Donald in a good light. Finally.
Its possible in the same way that someone can jump out a 20th floor window and flap their arms and fly away. is possible.
We will eventually find out.
Clearer heads will prevail. MAGAs won't be any clearer than they are now, because they like the 'denseness' of the haze that they are ingesting to get 'high' on Donald Trump. He will let them down sooner or later. . . the question will be how hard the landing for each of them will be. Some will move on. Some will crash and burn. Some others will take their own lives as a protest. . . and the world will continue to turn as it has for the 'duration.' Trump for all his bluster and troubles will be a smear on himself and his family name. Going to the heights with the whole world looking in awe at him . . . and the fool tried to best the world at the games it invented!
"Personally" I suggest that you UNCHAIN Biden from Donald J. Trump in your remarks. Biden does not have any court date on the 2024 calendar of the courts or the legislature. It is unfair to talk about age anyway, because 'everybody' ages—just ask NTers of a certain age. The parties have 'spoken' even as they continue to 'speak' volumes about what their wishes are through the actions right before yours, mine, our faces.
And one as to ask why does MAGAs hold Trump up above reproach and any other GOP/Conservative? Why does the GOP/conservatives shitcan valid political thought when Trump says to shitcan it?
Well, I can answer whys: Because the GOP/MAGAs are Trump hosts, his 'army.' Donald, is He that is above all other republicans/conservatives . . . thus, Trump naysayers must flee before Him (them, and their swatting/phone pranks/hate speeches, censures, outright threats).
Trump demands loyalty especially from his lieutenants, underlings, and hanger-ons. . .even as He tasks his hosts to hold the line on every 'hill' and 'battle ground'. . .even as he expends them individually and collectively as "cannon fodder." They are His clean rags made filthy and tossed away. None of the hosts can escape the gaze that captures them mind, body, and spirit and pins them to Him.
And what you are suggesting is judges can't judge and juries can proper verdicts, because they have done so already to the satisfaction of many other judges and yet you invalid them all with a longing for something to date you have no reason to question or have expectation of seeing in action.
Through himself writing on social media and his lawyers entering court filings, Trump has been providing the best defense he can muster. . . and it is not persuasive enough to call a halt to individual proceedings. Of course, Trump hosts would love to just have one more 'turn' at this one or that one. I seem to recall that SCOTUS turned Donald Trump away during the fiasco that was/is "The Big Lie" when he tried to get SCOTUS to do him a 'transactional" (for their seats on the bench) and they practically let him "go fish."
Trump literally intended to come up to SCOTUS with bogus filings and explanations, de facto, turning the highest court in the U.S. into a corrupt court, because he put three justices on it. The highest court saw through the attempt then and it would serve the "Robert's Court" to remember that this time around too!
That has absolutely nothing to do with what you copy/pasted to reply to. Neither one of these two should be on the November ballot, we need better candidates. We very likely won't get them but as I stated if they were to have a televised debate right now then more people may see that they both need to be replaced.
When it comes to who to elect as POTUS, age is both fair and relevant to include in the conversation. Members here on NT may be older and may have some cognitive decline but they are not being called on to handle a government crisis or global issue so it's not right to compare those of us on NT to the President.
Yes, I understand the parties have their desires regardless of what citizens want. That's why the last sentence of what you copied/pasted is relevant.
Easy.
Trump controls the minds and wallets of all the racists, bigots, and misogynists' left in America. If they don't follow him like beaten dogs, they lose too much of their campaign financing.
political zombies.
Ouch! That has got to burn. Good Job!
To draw this out as long as possible it will be appealed first for a full panel before it goes to the SCOTUS. Of course the prosecution will try to hurry it along. The question will be what the judge does. She can order the case to proceed while the appeal process goes on.
True, but she's already removed the case from the calendar while the appeal process plays out. As the appeal process isn't done, would she even bother to put it back on the calendar? And the longer the wait is, the more it can seem like election interference.
One of the reasons they should televise them all.
I was just reading Trump's lawyers have until midnight next Monday to file an emergency appeal with the SCOTUS. Do you think the SCOTUS will take it up, or leave it? Trump can appeal any final case ruling so I'm leaning the SCOTUS may punt looking for something safer to rule on, if they need to.
Had to get through this hurdle to get to the SCotUS.
People predisposed to conspiracy already think this is strictly political and that Trump did nothing wrong.
True, and there are too many who already think that way. My concern is that the longer this drags on more people are going to be thinking of election interference by the DOJ and this administration. Trump has already been campaigning on it and his support among Republicans keeps going up. Not a good sign.
That's one of the reasons why I would kind of like to see Trump and Biden do a televised debate right now. Seeing those too asshats in action might convince enough people that neither of these two should be on the ballot and force the two parties to bring up someone better.
Another concern I have is the longer this drags on, the more Trump is in the news and the more he pushes it to his benefit. If he does win the Oval Office in November, I can't even imagine the constitutional crisis it would cause should he attempt to pardon himself.
He only needs to drag it long enough to get elected and have his cherry picked DoJ kill and bury it all.
At least that would avoid a constitutional crisis.
According to MSNBC and CNN we had at least 12 constitutional crisis in the 4 years Trump was president. I am sure we can survive another.
Additional hyperbolic misinformation will be flagged as trolling...
And we can trust them, right? They would never make shit up... sigh
Of course not, one of them is "The most Trusted name in News". Of course having Darth Vader do their commercials makes one wonder.
trump is the one stalling the legal progress at every turn, in every case.
why would biden want to legitimize anyone whose candidacy is in question and has 91 federal charges pending? at this date it would only benefit trump, and why do that during a campaign. besides, trump would never agree to standing in a soundproof booth with a curtain and kill switch on his mic...
it wouldn't be a crisis for long. fortunately for all of us, [deleted] probably be more concerned about his cultists that are already marching to the beats of his witch hunt victim drumset. he's got almost 9 months left to stir that pot of mentally challenged supporters into blind loyalty before the next election is called against him, if he can stay out of jail that long. they've previously demonstrated how well they handle bad news (facts) as a group and they've had a lot more time to organize since the last dress rehearsal. plus they're just as expendable to him, if not more so now, as the insurrectionist morons that stormed the capitol for him the last time. I expect trump to pull out every stop in an attempt to save himself from the inevitable, just like any criminal would...
Yeah he is. Doesn't change anything that I wrote.
Neither one belongs on the November ballot, but barring some miracle these two are going to be there. A televised debate might show enough people that neither one is worth their vote and then the parties can get some better candidates. Has nothing to do with legitimizing anybody as neither one deserves to be on the November ballot.
Would be nice to know what you are talking about rather than just the usual snarky argument. Why don't you state what I proved correct?
If we want better candidates these two need to debate like...tomorrow. I would like to see better candidates but I think we're stuck with the 2 old guys
I'm afraid you're right. It's a shame that we're stuck with these two. But hey, maybe Martians will land next week and shake up the entire world...
Trump, if elected, is almost certainly going to be negatively disruptive for the nation.
It will be a mess.
Especially since so many GOP politicians do his bidding.
True. But you could swap Biden and DNC in there and it's the same. Way too many politicians vote almost all the time with POTUS, provided they are of the same party. We need to get rid of both of them, but I'm afraid we're stuck with them.
Trump is an order of magnitude worse than Biden.
Yes neither should be PotUS but they are not equally bad. Trump is clearly far worse for the nation.
You cannot see that my answer affirms that it is not one-sided?
But it doesn't matter as neither one deserve our vote or the office.
[deleted]
Of course it matters. If one is facing a situation where neither candidate deserves our vote but one of them is going to be PotUS, it most definitely matters unless they are equally bad (and you comment implies that you do not think they are equally bad).
I see Trump as an order of magnitude worse for our nation than Biden. It seems obvious to me that the priority should be to ensure Trump is not elected, even if the only possible way left to do that is to elect Biden.
Or we could get hit by an asteroid....
Frying pan to fire?
You mean it's not?
No, it isn't.
Opinions will vary.
Only among the stupid and willfully ignorant.
The cases against Trump were being investigated before Trump declared his candidacy even though he declared extremely early. The fact that he declared early can be construed as cover for making the assertion of interference instead of the other way round. Personally, I think he needed somebody to help defray the litigation costs.
He is a scumbag who never should be allowed to hold public office again because, as should be plainly evident to anyone, he holds no respect for the spirit or word of the CotUS.
Again. Opinions will vary.
And who the stupid and willfully ignorant are is also an opinion.
Not in this case. You can protest till the cows give blue milk. The facts in this case are quite clear and the evidence is solid. No amount of nuh-uh is going to change the facts no matter how you or Trump want them to.
Yes, and that is your opinion
The super majority of comments in a forum are opinion. We all know that. It is pointless to endlessly repeat that platitude.
Your comments in this sub thread have been vague and devoid of any real substance. So what is your opinion; do you think Trump should be allowed to hold pubic office again?
Who do you recommend?
We will see soon enough who the other options are.
I am sure Gavin will be glad to hear that.
That is your opinion
You recommend we vote for someone other than Trump or Biden yet when asked for a specific recommendation you retort: someone other than Trump or Biden.
Obviously, people are interested in who else they could reasonably consider for PotUS. Plenty of people (per the polls) want a choice other than Biden or Trump. So when someone repeatedly recommends people vote for someone other than Biden or Trump, the natural question is 'who do you recommend?'.
Apparently you have nothing to offer.
This is now the first time you have answered my question in response to it being asked by me.
I agree. That is a good answer right now. If the GOP would get their collective act together, they could nominate her instead of Trump.
If she does not get the nomination and we are stuck with Biden v Trump, one of those two old men will be PotUS. I will do what I can to prevent the traitor and likely convicted felon from securing the power of the presidency.
And that is a perfectly reasonable way to operate. If Trump has no realistic chance to win, I will vote my conscience too and that will be for someone I would like to see as PotUS.
But if Trump has a chance to win, I am going to use my vote to help prevent him from winning.
That question has been asked and answered several times before and you did not like/accept my answer. Why would I go down that same road again? Why would you ask the same question again if you know you will not like/accept the answer?
It is a pathetic ploy to avoid answering a question by falsely claiming that you already answered it.
The fact that you spend time writing an excuse rather than simply answering the question illustrates this. Nothing but dodging and deflecting.
Take a stand.
That question has been asked and answered several times before and you did not like/accept my answer. Why would I go down that same road again? Why would you ask the same question again if you know you will not like/accept the answer?
I'm quite interested in watching this. It is possible that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, and by doing so score a point towards its not being considered biased in favour of Trump. If they DO hear the case, then should they decide against Trump it will have the same effect as not hearing the case. But if they decide in favour of Trump I am sure that it will score points for those who feel that the SCOTUS has become a useless biased piece of shit.
It is possible that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, and by doing so score a point towards its not being considered biased in favour of Trump
six weeks or so ago: the attorney prosecuting trump:
it would be nice, for once, if the left could ever stick to an argument, ever. Whatever the court does, they scream bias towards trump,
I provided my opinion as to whether or not the SCOTUS could be considered biased. As well, since I'm neither a leftist nor a rightist I opine depending on how I feel about an issue, and don't follow party lines or current ridiculous fashion, such as "woke". I was wondering that if the SCOTUS refuses to hear it, then does not the existing decision of the Appeals Court set the precedent as having been the final arbiter of the issue?
I've now seen that my first possible scenario didn't happen, and I read an opinion that if the decision to disallow States from making that decision is a nine-justice unanimous decision that would negate bias as well. Let's see where this goes.
As the great Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over." As the last sentence in the article says. "The issue may still end up before the Supreme Court, depending on how the appeal plays out." So whooping and hollering for joy at this time may be a tad premature. I personally prefer to wait and see.
We get it...
I'm not a Trump supporter, so I would not know. I don't like Trump but I dislike Biden even more.
Yet, you support Trump here regularly regardless of how you claim to vote...
Your message comes through clearly!
[ This flagged comment and the previous one stand. Flag or respond, but don't do both. ]
Please feel free to quote where I have ever stated I support Trump and do be specific.
Very true.
Please do not flag a comment that you already responded to
thanks
Understood.
Still waiting for a answer that cannot be answered.
strict rules ...
Unsurprising. Seems rather obvious that Trump was just being a shithead arguing for absolute immunity.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Trump being a shithead won't change voter's opinion of Biden. And 2024 will be a referendum on the incumbent Biden.
His lawyers were really arguing for time. That is the important thing in this election.
So that Trump might get to pardon himself?
GTFOOH!
the most delusional cultists believe in that possibility, but this ruling helps to cut that legal theory off at the knees.
This was expected, the next step is to request that the same court consider the case en banc and not just a 3 judge panel, we shall see how much more time that takes.
After that then the SCOTUS can consider if they will take the case or not.
Being appealed to SCOTUS is no guarantee they will hear it , especially if they feel all lower court proceedings and rulings were correct.
Which is why I think they didn't allow it to be fast tracked to them in the first place when smith requested it, this way they can say the accused was afforded the due process of law and the courts totally.
Sanity prevailed.
I cannot imagine for one second that the Supreme Court of the United States will overrule this Appellate Court opinion.
The idea that a former president is totally immune from prosecution is absurd.
It has long been settled law that nobody, even a President, is above the law. Until now nobody imagined testing the limits like Trump has. So far his life story is of a man getting away with everything unchecked...
It would have been easier and saved a lot of time had trump just not broken the law in the first place, but...elect a criminal and this is what ya get.
>>ff thru commercial from 3:09 to 4:39
Liberal Redneck - DC Circuit Court Rules Trump Has No Immunity
"I think that might be a you thing"
No immunity? Maybe he should have worn a mask.
That's funny.