Ben Meiselas: ‘Appeals Court Sends POWERFUL Message That Has Donald Trump PANICKED’

Source:Medias Touch- left to right: U.S. Federal Judge William Pryor & Defendant Don.

Source:The New Democrat

“MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how a new ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a lower courts ruling against Donald Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has serious implications against Donald Trump for his immunity claims.”

From the Meidas Touch

“A federal appeals court has rejected former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ attempt to move his Georgia election interference criminal case to federal court.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, delivered by a conservative jurist appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush, is a resounding blow to arguments raised by Meadows that his case should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties in the Trump White House.

“At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate,” wrote Chief Judge William Pryor.

“So there is no ‘casual connection’ between Meadows’s ‘official authority’ and his alleged participation in the conspiracy,” Pryor added.

Pryor said that the federal removal statute at issue “does not apply to former federal officers,” but that even if it did, “the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related Meadows’s official duties.”

Pryor was joined in his opinion by Circuit Judges Robin Rosenbaum, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Nancy Abudu, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

Moving the case to federal court could let Meadows get the charges dismissed altogether by invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

Meadows has the option of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court or asking the full appeals court to hear the case.

Meadows was the first of five defendants to file motions to move the case to federal court, and the appeals court’s decision in his case will likely make it difficult for his co-defendants to successfully move their cases to federal court.”

From CNN

“In Blassingame v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump marched on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to forcibly prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump allegedly incited that action by, among other things, encouraging attendance at the January 6 protest and urging the crowd to “fight like hell” and “take back [the] country with . . . strength.” The plaintiffs in this case, U.S. Capitol Police officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, sued Trump for damages for the harm these actions caused them. Among other things, the officers allege that Trump’s unlawful conduct caused them to suffer both physical and emotional injuries.

Trump filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity and therefore cannot be held liable for the events on and leading up to January 6. CAC filed an amici curiae brief in the D.C. District Court in support of the plaintiffs on behalf of law professors who are experts in constitutional law, executive immunity, and separation of powers principles. Our brief argued that Trump is not entitled to absolute presidential immunity.

Our brief made two key points. First, it explained that absolute presidential immunity does not shield a former president sued in his personal capacity from damages liability for unofficial conduct. The Supreme Court has determined that absolute presidential immunity protects a president from private suits for damages challenging official acts, and it has held that that immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official responsibility. But the Court has made clear that such immunity does not extend beyond the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. In other words, there is no absolute immunity for a president’s unofficial acts. Our brief argued that Trump’s conduct in allegedly inciting a riot at the Capitol to forcibly disrupt a session of Congress fell far outside the outer perimeter of his official responsibility and therefore does not warrant immunity.

Second, our brief argued that the separation of powers concerns and public policy considerations underlying the Supreme Court’s immunity precedent further compel the denial of Trump’s claim for absolute immunity. The Supreme Court has explained that under separation of powers principles, courts must refrain from reviewing a president’s official actions in private suits for damages, as the threat of such litigation could inhibit the performance of his official functions. Trump, however, sought to invoke the immunity doctrine as a shield from damages liability for private conduct that allegedly sought to preserve his own private interests by forcibly interfering with Congress’s official functions. To apply the doctrine of presidential immunity in this case would therefore been a perversion of the separation of powers. And the public interest rationale for presidential immunity lies in ensuring that an official may act without fear of personal liability in fulfilling the responsibilities of his public office. That rationale is inapplicable when an official is pursuing his own personal agenda. Thus, our brief argued that neither of the rationales underlying absolute presidential immunity justifies application of that doctrine in this case.

On February 18, 2022, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision.

Echoing arguments we made in our brief, the court rejected former president Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from all claims in the litigation.”

From The Constitution

Alina Habba: “The Supreme Court is looking at presidential immunity, which is a protection for President’s so they operate without being prosecuted or persecuted and attacked when they come out of office. But what has happened is that he (meaning Donald Trump) is being prosecuted, persecuted, and attacked and they’re ignoring presidential immunity. So finally on January 16, the Supreme Court is going to take it up and going to look at it real hard and going to say, look, we have no business attacking someone who was in his scope of the presidency, was doing his job, was protecting the election, was doing the things that a President should do. Instead they call him an insurrectionist, they can’t beat him in the polls.”

This latest statement from Alina Habba, is in the 1st minute of this Medias Touch video, that I copied word for word for anyone who reads this post. I went into her (so to speak) last week on The New Democrat as far as why she has no business representing a high profile politician Donald Trump, especially in criminal, as well as civil cases:

“My post about DJT’s lawyer Alina Habba from back in November still stands here. She’s not up to the task, doesn’t have the experience, the knowledge, the professionalism, to defend a client at the level of Donald Trump, when you are talking about a former President of the United States and now serial criminal defendant.

DJT needs much better legal representation. But Alina Habba might be the best of what’s left to even consider representing a man who not only commits felonies on a regular basis, but who leaves incriminating evidence against him all over the place, either thinking he’ll never get caught, or convicted, or he’s simply above the law and has some constitutional right that no other American citizen has.”

It’s one thing to either go o national TV as a lawyer, speaking for your client and either lying, or simply not knowing what you are talking about. It’s another thing to do that in court. But in Alina Habba’s case (who really needs to be back in law school as a student, if any law school would accept her) she has the unique talent to quite frankly bullshit both national TV audiences, as well as U.S. Federal courts and act as if she’s in moot court back in law school and was too busy partying or drinking the night before, to prepare for her case and to do her homework.