Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok: 'Donald Trump RIPPED TO SHREDS by DC Appeals Court'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: U.S. Judge Florence Pan & Defendant Don.

"LegalAF hosts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok report on the oral argument before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with Donald Trump’s claim of absolute presidential immunity which was denied at the district court level. As predicted, Trump’s lawyers were grilled by the judges on their baseless and dangerous claims." 

From the Meidas Touch

"Special counsel attorney James Pearce delivered a fiery response to questions about the implications of Trump's indictment, calling it an "extraordinarily frightening future" if a president were to be granted complete presidential immunity.

"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce said. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders a SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act. I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."

Judge Karen Henderson asked Pearce how the court could rule regarding presidential immunity in a way that "would stop the floodgates?"

"I want to push back a little bit against this idea of a floodgate." Pearce responded, arguing that Smith's indictment of Trump was not risking a continuation of "tit-for-tat" prosecutions that could cascade into the future." 

From ABC News

From what my colleague Fred Schneider wrote today: 

"I think pretty much everyone whose not in the MAGA movement in America, (which is about 70% of the country) has predicted that Donald Trump would not lose his presidential immunity claim at the appeals court. 

I think the only question here is how big of a loss would it be. Would it be 2-1, with perhaps Judge Karen Henderson voting no and expressing a strong dissent to the decision. Would she vote no, but without giving an official dissent to the decision. Or would it be a strong 3-0 decision against the former President, with a strong, unified opinion against the former President's immunity claim, giving the Supreme Court some cover here and raising the possibility that they wouldn't even take Donald Trump's appeal here, because no new ground had been raised here and they know he would definitely lose. But perhaps the Trump's Justices don't want to make that official decision against him.

Based on Judge Henderson's questioning of Donald Trump's lawyer John Sauer, I think we're looking at a strong 3-0 decision against the former President (not former King) and they'll have a strong, unified opinion against the former President's presidential immunity claim. But as I keep saying, I'm not a lawyer." 

From The New Democrat

Michael Popok: "The Judge's aren't buying the impeachment argument (Donald Trump's double jeopardy claim) and are troubled whether they even have jurisdiction as far as if they can't even rule on this yet. I'll just wrap it up this way, Ben. They are going to as we think, they are going to rule against Donald Trump. I think it will be 3-0. I don't think it will go back to Judge Chutkan for anything. And I think the loser will have to take an emergency writ up to the Supreme Court." 

Ben Meiselas thinks that the Washington appeals court will rule against Donald Trump on jurisdiction grounds. Meaning that the appeals court doesn't think they should be ruling on this case, until Donald Trump is convicted.

Ben Meiselas then goes on to talk about President Richard Nixon in 1974, who resigned the presidency before he could get impeached and convicted by Congress. Well, that goes to one of Donald Trump's arguments having to do with double jeopardy, since the former President was impeached, but then acquitted by Congress back in 2021. 

But then Meiselas also mentions that President Gerald Ford pardoned President Nixon after Nixon was already out of office, in September of 1974. But if any President has presidential immunity from prosecution while as President, why wold any President ever have to be pardoned for anything at all? 

I think this is very simple. Donald Trump and his lawyers don't have any constitutional or legal case, for why their client should be immune for anything while as President, or as a former President. They might as well just argue that Donald Trump is immune from civil litigation or prosecution, simply because he's Donald Trump. Because that's the quality (if you want to call it that) of their arguments right now.

You can also see this post on WordPress.