Appeals court rules Trump doesn’t have immunity from civil suits over Jan. 6 riots

[mystery-ak]

 Appeals court rules Trump doesn’t have immunity from civil suits over Jan. 6 riots
by Ella Lee - 12/01/23 10:43 AM ET

Former President Trump is not immune from civil lawsuits blaming him for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an appeals court ruled Friday.

The appellate court was asked to decide whether Trump’s false claims of election fraud and rallying cry for supporters to gather at the Capitol and “fight like hell” was outside his presidential responsibilities, meaning he could be held liable for it under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

A three-judge panel affirmed unanimously that Trump’s post-election efforts to subvert the 2020 election results were done in his capacity as a presidential candidate — not a president.

“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote in an opinion.

The appeals panel noted that Trump himself recognized his campaign to win re-election was in his personal capacity, citing a motion Trump filed “in his personal capacity as candidate for reelection to the office of President” with the Supreme Court when challenging election administration in several battleground states.

Presidents can carry out their official duties without exposure to civil liabilities, but when they are not acting in that capacity, the protection doesn’t carry over, the panel ruled.

“The President…does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities,” Srinivasan wrote. “And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the President.”

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4337301-appeals-court-rules-trump-doesnt-have-immunity-from-civil-suits-over-jan-6-riots/

[libertybele]

Ouch -- this could really sting.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Stephen Miller
@StephenM

Many likely don’t appreciate just how radical and dangerous it is to revoke the doctrine of presidential immunity. In effect, this gives any single far-left judge, jury or prosecutor a veto over the actions of the democratically-elected president.

It means a Letitia James or a James Comey alone decides what a president can or cannot do in the fulfillment of his duties.

The fact that such a persecution may initiate after a president has left office is irrelevant: future presidents will now exercise their office within the narrow confines of this anti-constitutional anti-democratic framework.

A President is the embodiment of the state and the voter. So when he becomes liable for his exercise of speech as president it is, in fact, the whole American people who have been robbed of their sovereign authority — authority transferred yet again to the unelected, unreformed and unaccountable.

Conservatives not speaking out against these travesties are clearly uninterested in conserving this Republic.


9:18 AM · Dec 2, 2023

[Smokin Joe]

I'm an oil industry worker.

Virtually every action taken by the current office holder has affected me, and not for the better.

Can we talk about suing the current pissant in chief?