A three-judge appeals court panel rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune to criminal charges. Read its decision, with Times analysis.
  • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
    33·
    5 months ago

    I especially loved this little bit… “impeachment acquittals are often unrelated to factual innocence”, then the panel quoted “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Anyone else note an undertone of disdain for acquitting him from both impeachments? 😆

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      83·
      5 months ago

      I can’t see any court agreeing with their arguments on this. Impeachment is not a legal process, it is a political process. One does not need to have committed a criminal act to be impeached and acquittal in an impeachment hearing does not mean no crime was committed.

      • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
        10·
        5 months ago

        Their ruling wasn’t about the impeachments, it was about whether or not Trump could be held criminally liable as a former President. Trump’s team tried to make the argument that he couldn’t be held accountable for actions taken while in office because he wasn’t successfully impeached first, and the panel ruled that not only was he NOT “in office” when the offense took place, but as you noted the impeachment proceedings were not a legal trial and were of no concern to any court issue… but they still managed to get in a jab about the real reasons why he wasn’t impeached despite a mountain of legal evidence.

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        6·
        5 months ago

        Impeachment is not a legal process, it is a political process

        Literally says this in the Constitution.

        Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

        — Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 paragraph 1 US Constitution.

        And this extends from historical basis that in days of yore political power was granted from a liege to a vassal on fief. But there existed the ability for political power to be withdrawn, a person struck from their liege’s court, and that would in turn automatically have them lose any title to their fief. That is a loss of political power could also mean a complete loss of your way of life.

        The US wanted a clear barrier between political career and personal liberty. This is why Santos is still a free man even though he got kicked out of the House (though that might change soon enough). The two are different processes and they mean different things. Just like if Trump goes to jail but hasn’t been disqualified, he’s entirely able to run for office.