U.S. federal court panel rejects Trump argument he's immune from 2020 election prosecution
CBC
A federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting the former U.S. president's claims that he is immune from prosecution.
The highly anticipated, unanimous decision from a bipartisan panel marks the second time in as many months that judges have spurned Trump's immunity arguments and held that he can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the judges wrote. The panel rejected the argument that presidents in the future would face an increased risk of prosecution.
The trial date in Trump's federal election interference case carries enormous political ramifications, with the Republican primary front-runner hoping to delay it until after the Nov. 5 election. If Trump defeats President Joe Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases or he potentially could seek a pardon for himself, plunging the country into unprecedented territory.
The appeals court took centre stage in the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court last month said it was at least temporarily staying out of it, rejecting a request from special counsel Jack Smith to take up the matter quickly and issue a speedy ruling.
The legally untested question before the court was whether former presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office for actions taken in the White House related to their official duties.
The Supreme Court on Thursday will be considering another legal issue stemming from a failed bid to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Biden. Colorado courts have ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on state ballots as he engaged in insurrection as defined by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
WATCH l The unusual 'incumbent' presidential campaign:
Trump's lawyers argued before the federal panel that his post-election efforts, including badgering his vice-president Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election, all fell within the "outer perimeters" of a president's official acts.
But Smith's team has said that no such immunity exists in the U.S. Constitution or in prior cases and that, in any event, Trump's actions weren't part of his official duties.
Read the appeal panel ruling:
"At bottom, former president Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches," the three judges wrote.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, rejected Trump's arguments in a Dec. 1 opinion that said the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."
Trump's lawyers then appealed to the D.C. appeals court, but Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first, in hopes of securing a fast and definitive ruling and preserving the March 4 trial date. The high court declined the request, leaving the matter with the appeals court.













