(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Community Live Bloggers: audio of Trump's Appeals Court hearing 930amET Tuesday 1/9/2024 [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-01-09 Community Live Bloggers and DC Court of Appeals audio coverage. www.youtube.com/... Kagro in the Morning: http://netroots-main-1.stream.creek.fm:8000/stream www.c-span.org/… The two Democratic appointees are both recent additions to the court nominated by President Joe Biden. They are Judge Michelle Childs, who was considered for the Supreme Court opening that ultimately went to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Judge Florence Pan, who previously served as a federal district court judge and as a local judge in Washington. The all-woman panel includes two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee. The senior member is Judge Karen Henderson, a long-serving appeals court judge appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990. implicit versus explicit language using Midland Asphalt supreme.justia.com/… “No historical materials support the defendant’s broad immunity claim,” Smith wrote in court papers. The fact that President Richard Nixon sought and received a pardon after resigning from office as a result of the Watergate scandal “reflects the consensus view that a former president is subject to prosecution after leaving office,” he added. The special counsel’s office argues that the well-established concept of presidential immunity from civil liability for official acts does not extend to immunity from criminal liability. They argue that Trump’s role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity in a civil case. “The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our nation for many decades to come and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers. Trump is making the sweeping argument that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any “official acts” taken while in office. Furthermore, his lawyers argue in their briefs that prosecuting Trump over actions for which he was already impeached and acquitted in the Senate following an impeachment proceeding would be a form of double jeopardy. hypothetical about the pardons sales and government secrets in terms of “official acts” ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival criminal actions that could be considers official acts “The Founders” blather and double jeopardy issues Hours before today’s appeals court argument, Trump posted a five-minute video that featured the following line: “To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora’s Box from which this nation may never recover.” His lawyer D. John Sauer just began his argument with the exact same words. A coordinated message? Trump lawyers D. John Sauer, Will Scharf and Emil Bove have been spotted in the building. They were accompanied by Stan Woodward, lawyer for Trump’s Florida co-defendant Walt Nauta. Woodward is not representing a party in this case. Trump plans to be in court for 2 days the week before Iowa. His campaign is fine with that. Ahead of the hearing, we gathered an all-star team to discuss the merits of Trump’s appeal and how the D.C. Circuit might rule. Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower sat down with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic, Stanton Jones, counsel for American Oversight, which has filed a fascinating amicus brief that questions whether the appeals court has jurisdiction to decide the case in the first place, and Matthew Seligman, counsel for a group of former Republican officials who have filed an amicus brief in opposition to Trump’s claim of immunity. Matthew is also the co-author of a forthcoming book on presidential elections called, “How to Steal a Presidential Election.” shows.acast.com/... www.lawfaremedia.org/... Two dozen conservative attorneys wrote to the court, saying that “nothing in our Constitution, or any case, supports former President Trump’s dangerous argument for criminal immunity.” But it’s a question that has never been debated before, because Trump is the first ex-president to be charged with a crime. Trump does not have to be in court for Tuesday’s hearing but arrived to the courthouse Tuesday. Judge Karen L. Henderson kicked off oral arguments with questions about an assertion made not by Donald Trump or the special counsel but an outside group, American Oversight, which argued that the D.C. Circuit couldn’t review Trump’s immunity challenge until after trial. Judge Florence Y. Pan and Trump attorney D. John Sauer got into a prolonged back and forth over whether presidential immunity extends to all of a president’s actions that would technically fall under executive duties. “Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” Pan asked. Sauer said that a president could only be prosecuted for such an action if the Senate first impeached and convicted him. Pan also asked whether a president could sell pardons or nuclear secrets without being prosecuted. Sauer responded similarly. It’s a reference to a 1989 Supreme Court decision in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that someone can prevent a trial through appeal only if their “right not to be tried … rests upon an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee” — for example, the “double jeopardy” protection from being tried twice for the same crime or the “speech or debate” immunity enjoyed by lawmakers. Trump is making a double jeopardy argument, but based on the impeachment clause of the constitution, not the Fifth Amendment. Judge Michelle Childs pressed Trump attorney J. Dean Sauer on that question. Sauer said that reading the 1989 decision that narrowly was not in line with precedent, including in the D.C. Circuit, and that any claim based in constitutional immunity should be heard before trial even if there’s no “explicit” language backing it up. Steve Vladeck, a national security and constitutional law expert at the University of Texas, agreed with that interpretation. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/1/9/2216325/-Community-Live-Bloggers-audio-of-Trump-in-a-court-930amET?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/