Post #17298 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

I don't recall the lower court being asked to make that distinction (but then I don't read the transcripts).

Was there a motion by the defense to rule that Trump's all the charges were for official national purposes, as opposed to private desires of a candidate?

They didn't specify. The defense moved to have the charges dismissed because all of Trump's actions were official, within the "outer perimeter" of his authority, and therefore all immune. The lower court denied the motion, and the appellate court upheld that decision - both courts ruling that no criminal immunity was available to the President.

They never reached the question of whether the acts in the indictment were official or not. They just ruled that no immunity existed - at all.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-c...
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.ns...

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.