Podcast Summary
DC Court of Appeals Rejects Trump's Argument for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution during Impeachment: The DC Court of Appeals ruled against Trump's argument that he has immunity from criminal prosecution during impeachment proceedings, setting a precedent that could impact his ongoing criminal cases.
Former President Donald Trump's argument for requiring impeachment before criminal prosecution was rejected by the DC Court of Appeals. Trump, who is facing multiple criminal charges in different jurisdictions, argued that he had immunity from criminal prosecution due to the impeachment process. However, the judges found that this argument was not a valid double jeopardy immunity claim. Trump's position was criticized during oral arguments, and the judges' decision established a precedent that could be used against him in future cases. This ruling has significant implications for Trump's other legal arguments, as it sets a precedent that could be applied by federal and state judges in ongoing criminal proceedings. Overall, the decision underscores the principle that no one, including a sitting or former president, is above the law.
Trump's Impeachment Immunity Arguments Dismissed: A federal judge ruled that there is no legal bar to trying a former president for crimes committed during their time in office, rejecting Trump's arguments based on the impeachment judgment clause and double jeopardy immunity.
The argument made by Trump's legal team that he cannot be tried for crimes related to his time in office due to the impeachment judgment clause and double jeopardy immunity was not persuasive to the court. The impeachment judgment clause only applies to removal from office, and there is no prohibition against criminal prosecution. The argument made by negative implication, that Trump must first go through an impeachment process and be convicted by the Senate before being tried in a criminal court, was deemed ludicrous and unworkable by the judge. The judge questioned how such a process could be carried out in a timely manner, especially if the crime was discovered in the waning days of a president's term. Ultimately, the court ruled that there is no bar to trying a former president for crimes committed during their time in office.
14th Amendment argument against impeachment not valid: The 14th Amendment does not grant Trump immunity from criminal prosecution following impeachment, and the discussion also covered Hims.com making ED treatments more accessible.
The argument against Trump's potential impeachment based on the 14th Amendment and the US Constitution's impeachment clause does not hold water. The clause only restricts the penalties that can be imposed by Congress following an impeachment conviction to removal from office and disqualification for future office. It does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution, which is what Trump is currently seeking. Furthermore, the clause applies to individuals under the laws of the United States, and Trump's argument that he is not subject to these laws has been previously debated. The discussion also touched upon the topic of ED treatments and how Hims.com is making these treatments more accessible and affordable for men, allowing them to seek help discreetly from the comfort of their own homes.
Impeachment doesn't grant absolute immunity to former presidents: The Constitution's impeachment clause does not provide former presidents with immunity from criminal prosecution after impeachment and removal from office.
Former President Trump's argument for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution after impeachment is not supported by the text and purpose of the impeachment judgment clause in the U.S. Constitution. The clause's use of the word "nevertheless" in the 18th century context means "without hindrance or obstruction," indicating that criminal liability is not limited even after an official is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. The framers of the Constitution knew how to explicitly grant immunity, as they did for legislators under the speech and debate clause, but chose not to do so for the president. Courts have rejected Trump's interpretation, which relies on a negative implication, as a tortured interpretation that runs counter to the text, structure, and purpose of the clause.
Hamilton's Federalist Paper 69 did not shield presidents from prosecution after impeachment: Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 69 clarified that presidents can be prosecuted for crimes post-impeachment, contradicting Trump's claim of immunity.
Alexander Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers, specifically in Federalist Number 69, did not support Donald Trump's argument that a president cannot be prosecuted for crimes until after an impeachment trial and conviction. Instead, Hamilton used the word "liable" to emphasize that a president is subject to impeachment, trial, conviction removal, and afterwards subject to prosecution and punishment without regard to the impeachment verdict. The next sentence in the same essay, which Trump often overlooks, stresses that the president should not be like the king of Great Britain, who was considered sacred and inviolable. The DC Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court's interpretation of this clause could be detrimental to Trump's legal arguments in various cases, such as those related to election interference and Mar-a-Lago.
DC Court of Appeals Criticizes Trump's Argument in 57-Page Decision: The DC Court of Appeals heavily criticized Trump's legal arguments in a 57-page decision, which could be used against him in various legal cases, including Mar-a-Lago and Georgia election interference.
The DC Court of Appeals heavily criticized and attacked Donald Trump's argument in a 57-page decision, which will now be used against him in various legal cases, including the Mar-a-Lago criminal prosecution and the Georgia election interference case. The decision, which bears Trump's name, will be a significant reference point whenever Trump tries to use impeachment, indictment, and conviction as legal principles. The Supreme Court will hear an oral argument on the matter on February 8th, and we will provide updates and analysis on Legal AF on the Midas Touch network and our podcast. If you find this information valuable, please engage with us on Instagram @midastouch to stay informed about the most important news of the day.