... The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican....
The article implies that the ruling against TRE45QN is unanimous, hah, but I don't think it comes out and says so.
... The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican....
The article implies that the ruling against TRE45QN is unanimous, hah, but I don't think it comes out and says so.
The unanimous ruling, which had been expected given the skepticism with which the three judges on the panel greeted the Trump team's arguments, was unsparing in its repudiation of the claim that a former president could be shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office.
“Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the 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,” the judges wrote.
... The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican....
The article implies that the ruling against TRE45QN is unanimous, hah, but I don't think it comes out and says so.
The unanimous ruling, which had been expected given the skepticism with which the three judges on the panel greeted the Trump team's arguments, was unsparing in its repudiation of the claim that a former president could be shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office.
“Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the 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,” the judges wrote.
Thanks! The article was updated. I had even searched the word "unanimous" rather than just rely on my incompetent reading comprehension. Since a Repub joined in it will be a little more difficult for the full appeals court or SCOTUS to overturn the ruling.
Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise that a sitting POTUS does not have carte blanche to commit crimes, and only the ex-PINO criminal enterprise would dare suggest it.
It runs on a rapid fire loop at the link. That's hilarious that normally prim special counsel Jack E. Smith posted it
Katy Tur, paraphrased: In its scathing 57-page ruling there is not a single sentence that sympathizes with TRE45QN. Instead, it thoroughly dismantles every argument that his moronic legal team put forth.
It runs on a rapid fire loop at the link. That's hilarious that normally prim special counsel Jack E. Smith posted it
Katy Tur, paraphrased: In its scathing 57-page ruling there is not a single sentence that sympathizes with TRE45QN. Instead, it thoroughly dismantles every argument that his moronic legal team put forth.
I think it's possible The Supremes could even pass on this.
Some of the talking heads agree with you. The panel says that's the only option, ruling out a hearing before the full appeals court. They've only got a week to appeal to SCOTUS. We may know soon.
... “If Donald Trump thought presidential immunity from criminal prosecution existed while he was president, he would have not have been so polite with Vice President Mike Pence in begging him to overturn the presidential election,” said O’Donnell. Pence ultimately opted for democracy over his then-boss, despite pressure from Trump to flip the result.
Trump would “have by late morning of Jan.6 put a bullet in Mike Pence’s head thereby automatically moving up president pro tem of the Senate, who was Chuck Grassley, to preside over the electoral vote count and Chuck Grassley would have absolutely counted those votes any way Donald Trump told him to,” he added.
Sweet, the odds of at least one criminal conviction this year just jumped dramatically. Also, accountability for campaign finance crimes is a particular obsession of mine. I was filing complaints 30 years ago.
I almost always check 
If it stated the source, I missed it.