Trump J6 Case Mysteriously REMOVED from DC Court Docket

a reply to: Threadbarer

Here is the opinion for anyone interested in reading it.

Oh dear.

a reply to: Threadbarer

I suppose knowing that he did in fact have the election stolen from him does make this ruling problematic. But folks would have to accept facts as facts, and that doesn't seem to be happening currently.

Anybody else find joy in the DC Circuit, nowhere in their Opinion and Order, establishing that Trump did in fact incite an Insurrection?

J6 was consistently labeled as a rally; even with the added language that it turned violent and that they "breached" the building, it was NOT classified as an insurrection.

A damn good attorney would pick up on this and further appeal other cases with the language contained in this O & O, but time will tell what his attorney will do.

a reply to: dothedew

It wasn't their place to rule on that at this time. They were simply ruling on whether or not Trump's actions were protected by Presidential immunity. They ruled that they were not.

a reply to: Threadbarer

It wasn't their place, but their language can be used. Judges through their Opinions make findings of fact about all sorts of issues that are, at time, unrelated to each other let alone the issue at hand.

In certain situations depending on what findings they make, further cases and appeals can be filed.

They didn't find that he incited an erection (pun intended). No judges essentially have, yet a lot of cases against him are hinging on that idea without it ever being established legally. It's just more ammunition, more of a paper trail.

I have appeals in my state going on that involve similar findings (or lack thereof) of fact from different courts that flip flop, one is dependent on the other, etc. that work in the appellant's favor.

a reply to: network dude

But folks would have to accept facts as facts, and that doesn't seem to be happening currently.

Why does that happen all the time with the Leftists?

Is there some special award they get for going through life denying facts?

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: network dude

But folks would have to accept facts as facts, and that doesn't seem to be happening currently.

Why does that happen all the time with the Leftists?

Is there some special award they get for going through life denying facts?

I honestly think it's a coping mechanism. Deep down the know Biden is going to loose. he's a vegetable, not a good one, he's like Kale. Yucky, abrasive and not good at all. But they can't bring themselves to accept that it's likely going to be Trump. If they can lie to themselves for just a few more months, then when the truth is unavoidable, they can act as if it's a complete surprise and they were blindsided. I don't know what that does for the psyche, but it's interesting to watch.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: network dude

But folks would have to accept facts as facts, and that doesn't seem to be happening currently.

Why does that happen all the time with the Leftists?

Is there some special award they get for going through life denying facts?

I honestly think it's a coping mechanism. Deep down the know Biden is going to loose. he's a vegetable, not a good one, he's like Kale. Yucky, abrasive and not good at all. But they can't bring themselves to accept that it's likely going to be Trump. If they can lie to themselves for just a few more months, then when the truth is unavoidable, they can act as if it's a complete surprise and they were blindsided. I don't know what that does for the psyche, but it's interesting to watch.

I enjoy watching the Liberal’s never ending, slow motion car crash.

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is ass bad as the Carroll case. He has not been convicted of anything, found guilty of anything, the Senate investigated, he was impeached and the FBI released a report that there was no insurrection.

Yeah. This will not help any sitting president moving forward.

They gave an opinion.

The Clause simply does not speak to such matters. But the weight of historical authority indicates that the Framers intended for public officials to face ordinary criminal prosecution as well as impeachment.

a reply to: matafuchs

Once again, the DC Circuit are not ruling on a case here. This is a ruling on an appeal Trump's team filed based on Judge Chutkan denying Trump's motion that the J6 case be thrown out on grounds of Presidential immunity.

That all that's been ruled on here. Whether or not Trump's argument of Presidential immunity was sufficient and compelling enough to have this case dismissed. It's been decided that it wasn't.

He's more than welcome to argue Presidential immunity when this goes before a jury.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbarer

This is ass bad as the Carroll case. He has not been convicted of anything, found guilty of anything, the Senate investigated, he was impeached and the FBI released a report that there was no insurrection.

Yeah. This will not help any sitting president moving forward.

They gave an opinion.

The Clause simply does not speak to such matters. But the weight of historical authority indicates that the Framers intended for public officials to face ordinary criminal prosecution as well as impeachment.

Like if a president ignores his responsibility to secure the border? I wonder if Joetato can be arrested for that on January 21, 2025? I sure hope Trump doesn't hold a grudge. Especially since using the justice system is now the way you deal with political choices that are difficult.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Once again, the DC Circuit are not ruling on a case here. This is a ruling on an appeal Trump's team filed based on Judge Chutkan denying Trump's motion that the J6 case be thrown out on grounds of Presidential immunity.

That all that's been ruled on here. Whether or not Trump's argument of Presidential immunity was sufficient and compelling enough to have this case dismissed. It's been decided that it wasn't.

He's more than welcome to argue Presidential immunity when this goes before a jury.

And I'm sure Joetato can argue to the prosecutor from Trump's AG about how he should have the immunity denied to Trump.

a reply to: network dude

Immunity only applies to official acts. Trump's lawyers failed to show that Trump was acting in an official capacity.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Immunity only applies to official acts. Trump's lawyers failed to show that Trump was acting in an official capacity.

Then you have nothing to fear. It's all in the bag. Trump can be charged with all kinds of things, and the rules will adjust accordingly for all others. You must be proud. Hold on to that.

a reply to: network dude

Please show us where in the Constitution it lists holding political rallies that devolve into an attack on the Capitol as part of the President's official duties.

a reply to: Threadbarer

I thought being president was a presidential duty. Was he no longer president when he had that rally? Remember, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince Trump's DOJ in about a year. And this ruling kind of helps them, not you.