A photo of Donald Trump with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs resurfaced after Combs’ homes were raided by feds after trafficking allegations.
— (🥪,🐱) (@ribsauce) March 26, 2024
In a unanimous decision, the DC appeals court ruled that former President Donald Trump does not have immunity from prosecution. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin discussed some of the key highlights from the court’s decision during an interview with anchor Ana Cabrera.
The court strongly rejected Trump’s argument for total immunity. They made it clear that accepting his argument would effectively shut down the entire government. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that Congress could not legislate, the executive branch could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. The court emphasized that the office of the presidency does not place its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.
Trump had argued that the impeachment judgment clause protected him from prosecution. However, the court pointed out that this clause actually served as strong evidence against his claim of immunity. The clause stated that judgment in cases of impeachment should not go further than removing a person from office but also added that if convicted, the party shall still be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment. The word “nevertheless” in this context played a significant role in the court’s decision.
The court also relied on real-life historical examples and statements from Trump’s political allies to support its decision. It cited examples of individuals who had been subject to criminal proceedings before impeachment. Impeachment is not solely a solution for former presidents but also applies to officials like Article Three lifetime tenure judges.
The court referenced footnotes 12 and 13 on page 49 of the opinion to highlight their thinking. They pointed out that over 30 senators had made statements on the Senate floor, stating that impeachment is not available for a former president. This historical context and the words of these senators were contrary to the position taken by Trump and his lawyers during the appeal.
In summary, the DC appeals court’s unanimous decision rejected Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution, emphasizing that the presidency does not grant perpetual immunity and that historical examples and the impeachment judgment clause supported this ruling.
“The argument Trump’s trying to make, that this just opened up a whole can of worms if he isn’t given immunity. Did the judges here effectively shut that down?” Cabrera asked.
“I think they did. Ana, in two ways,” Rubin replied, adding:
One, they essentially said that if they were to accept his argument of total immunity, and I’m looking at the opinion now on page 40, that it ‘would effectively shut down the entire government’ that presidential immunity I’m reading here on page 40 against federal indictment would mean that as to the president, ‘Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.’
Ana, the other thing that I want to bring to your and our viewers’ attention is that Trump made a calculated, risky move here in his arguments. He argued that a provision of the Constitution, known as the impeachment judgment clause, was part of what protected him from prosecution.
However, this court is saying on page 41, the strongest evidence against his claim of immunity is that same clause, the impeachment judgment clause, because it says that judgment in cases of impeachment shouldn’t go further than essentially removing a person from office, but that if convicted, the party nevertheless shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment.
You know, I note going through an opinion like this, one of the things a lawyer like me does is look at the footnotes first, because you can learn as much from the footnotes as you do from the main texts. And indeed, footnotes 12 and 13 on page 49 are really illustrative of their thinking, because they’re saying Trump has said that he can’t be prosecuted because he wasn’t impeached and convicted. But in this footnote, they say the history of the United States is replete with people who have been prosecuted pre-impeachment.
Because, remember, impeachment is not just a solution for former presidents. It applies to people like Article Three lifetime tenure judges. And they cite a number of examples here, that there have been hundreds of officers in the United States who have been subject to criminal proceedings for offenses for which they could have been impeached, but were not.
They also say, again, going back to the Senate debate and that second impeachment, that there were over 30 senators who made statements on the floor saying impeachment is not available for a former president. Our Constitution teaches that.
And the right solution here, where impeachment is not available is prosecution. And they have a note where they cite to the senators by name who made statements to that effect and count them up. So this D.C. circuit is literally taking names with respect to the evidence that they cite. It’s not just a litany of case law, but real life examples of senators whose floor statements are contrary to the position that former President Trump and his lawyers took in this appeal.
