Election meddling case got rejected by court
Trump’s claims of immunity in the election meddling case are rejected by the appeals court. The court dismisses Trump’s argument that the case involves actions he took while in office and he cannot be criminally prosecuted. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court declined to support such an expansive interpretation of executive power, rejecting Donald Trump’s argument that he is immune from criminal prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results because the allegations concerned actions he took while in office. A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit specifically disagreed with Trump’s assertion that he could only face prosecution if he had previously been found guilty in a Senate impeachment trial.
The unsigned but unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel stated, “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power.” “In essence, the actions of the former president Trump would dismantle our division of powers by putting the President above the jurisdiction of all three branches,” the opinion stated. “We cannot accept that the President’s office elevates its former occupants above the law indefinitely.” In theory, the case and jurisdiction are returned to the trial court following Trump’s defeat. Nonetheless, the unfavorable decision opens the door for Trump to file additional appeals, which might cause a few weeks or months to pass before the US District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s trial in Washington, which is scheduled to begin on March 4. The special counsel Jack Smith filed a federal election interference case against Trump last year, alleging that he attempted to overturn his loss in the 2020 election by obstructing Congress on January 6 and advancing fictitious electors.
The trial judge denied the motion, which led Trump to file an appeal with the DC circuit. By requesting that the US Supreme Court decide the case directly, the special counsel attempted to avoid the possibly drawn-out appeals process; however, the court sent the case back to the appeals court. Trump’s loss was all but inevitable after his appellate attorney, John Sauer, continually appeared defensive during last week’s oral arguments before the panel of three judges, Michelle Childs, Karen Henderson, and Pan. Pan, who expressed disbelief at Trump’s interpretation, pointed out that, in theory, presidents could self-pardon, sell military secrets, or order the assassination of political rivals without ever facing criminal prosecution. Sauer had to deal with this during the hearing. The panel also questioned whether Trump’s 2024 stance differed from his 2021 position during his second impeachment trial, when his attorneys urged the Senate to find him not guilty, arguing that the Justice Department ought to determine whether Trump participated in insurrection over the Capitol attack on January 6.
Leave a Reply