Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Federal Court HITS TRUMP with CRUSHING BLOW

Episode Date: December 2, 2023

In a crushing blow to Trump, the DC Circuit Court ruled Trump does not have absolute presidential immunity in civil cases regarding the Jan 6th attacks. Former Prosecutor and Legal AF Host, Karen Friedman Agnifilo reports. Get up to 50% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi, I'm Pete Davidson. People are always asking me, Pete, how do you always keep elevating? And to be honest, I have no idea. Is it my swive nature? My incredibly brilliant brain. Or maybe it's new smart water alkaline with antioxidant and a higher pH.

The skin does look glowing. Hey, thanks, creepy radio announcer, dude. All good, Pete. Elevate how you hydrate and keep it smart. Like me! With smart water alkaline. Metrolinx and cross-linkes are reminding everyone to be careful as Eglinton Cross-Town LRT train testing is in progress.

Please be alert, this trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals. Be careful along our tracks, and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. So many of us think one day we'll find a way to buy our first home. But what if there was a faster way to turn one day into one day soon? Introducing the Questrade Tax-Free First Home Savings account.

Contribute up to $8,000 a year, tax deductible, and watch your investment grow tax-free. Now there really is a faster way to save for your first home with the new Questrade First Home Savings account. Learn more at Questrade.com. For your holiday season, real Canadian Superstore has more legendary ways to save than any other major grocer.

Until December 6th, get a free Jumbo Point Settle when you spend $300 or more. Plus, PC Oplum & Members can get select PC or no name cheese at $3.99. Conditions apply, see fly for details. Your business has grown fast, from opening your first location to planning an expansion in no time.

And with your business platinum card from American Express, you can access spending power and payment flexibility to fuel your growth. Sarah, the contractor is here with the plans. American Express, don't do business without it. Terms and conditions apply if it mx.ca slash business platinum. The Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a very, very powerful decision in a civil case today with respect to the issue of presidential immunity. So there's a little known case that has been going on for a couple of years now since

January 6th, brought by capital police officers who were there that day, as well as representatives who were trapped in the chamber. And they brought a civil case against Donald Trump and others, but this particular appeal really just had to do a Donald Trump and one discrete issue, which is presidential immunity. And it was argued about a year ago, and the decision came down almost to the day a year later. And frankly, it's a crushing blow for Donald Trump, and it could mean a lot for Tanya Chetkin in the criminal case because don't forget she too is also trying to decide this issue of presidential

immunity because Donald Trump is taking the position that he's absolutely immune both criminally as well as civilly like meaning he can't be sued for damages because he's president of the United States and he was acting in his job as president when he's being for what he's being charged for. Now, now what he's basically there is there is a presidential immunity doctrine and what that doctrine basically says is if you're doing your job as president in the civil context you can't be sued for doing your job, right? Even if you get it wrong, even if you, you know, get it wrong and ultimately ends up being a crime

actually or being some kind of civil, you're doing something that could normally hold you civilly liable. If you were acting in good faith, doing your duty as the president. You will be immune from civil damages because you were doing your job at the time. That's to emphasize and encourage presidents to behave without fear, without, you know, to be a vigorous advocate for the American people. And so one question that this addressed is whether or not and what the limits are, whether or not they have absolute immunity, the answers no. And what are the limits of this presidential immunity in the civil context?

Now, again, it's complicated because it's, what does this mean for Tanya Chudkin in the criminal case, you know, I personally think because she is the district court level, and then this is the circuit level, which is the interim appellate court in between the Supreme Court and the district court. And so this is the law of the circuit. Again, they were very clear that this only applies in

civil cases, but they very much, I think, if I were Tanya Chetkin, and I was a federal judge and who is about to render a decision on whether Trump has presidential immunity, I think I would absolutely look to this for guidance. And it just seems a little coincidental that it's coming out right now after a year, after the oral argument.

And I think maybe it's because they knew that she's going to be considering this issue. And so they were giving guidance about how they're thinking about the issue of presidential immunity and the limits and the parameters. Nobody dissented, which was interesting. And Judge Katzis, who is a Trump appointee, concurred.

So it was only a three-judge panel. And it'll be interesting to see if this goes to the full panel of appellate judges, which is called on-bong, or whether it'll just go straight to the Supreme Court, but it will definitely be addressed for sure. And let's just talk a little bit about what the decision said. They talked about, first of all, the case Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which established President's absolute immunity from civil damages. And these are again the ones that are predicated on his official acts. And this is so he can

fearlessly and impartially discharge the singularly weighty duties of the office that comes from the case. However, the president does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities, and when he acts outside the function of his office, he does not enjoy immunity from damages, liability, just because he happens to be the president of the United States. And then in a subsequent case, Clinton versus Jones, well, it was was Paula Jones if you recall, who sued Bill Clinton for some kind of sexual something when he was governor of Arkansas. The Supreme Court made it clear that the

immunity does not extend to unofficial or private actions. So this particular case is called Blasting Game and Hempi versus Trump. And it was about the riot on January 6th. And the question is, was the riot and the time leading up to it within the scope of his duties? Now, you know, and that's the one question that came before this appellate court, right? They said there were other issues too, but this is the one that was appealed

and it was about Trump. And what the plaintiffs alleged in this suit was that in Trump's final month in office, he conspired with political allies and supporters to obtain his second term, despite his defeat. I.E. he tried to steal the election. He made false claims.

He filed these meritless lawsuits. He pressured state officials to reverse the outcome. And it all culminated in this 70 plus minute speech on January 6th at the Rally sparking the ultimate riot at the Capitol and that's you know That's what they are all saying Was not within his presidential duties and they should be allowed to sue him for that, right? And this was this was at the trial level. This didn't go to trial yet.

There was a complaint filed and the Trump filed a motion to dismiss the complaint just based on the facts that are in the complaint. And the reason I'm telling you this and this is important because what the court does is they only look at the facts. They assume they're all true. They look at them and the light most favorable to the plaintiff and they apply the law to

those facts and determine if these facts were all true, is this within the law? That's all this was to decide. And the judge here said, yes, that the judge did not have, that the president did not have absolute immunity. And therefore, the case can proceed. And to proceed means it would go through discovery. There would be depositions, there would be subpoenas, they'd gather information. And then after that whole thing, there'd be a motion to dismiss based on all of that information. And that's when they look at all the facts and see whether there can be a ruling on those facts.

And if not, then it goes to trial. Okay, and that's how these things, that's how these things go. So this is at that beginning, just looks look at the facts and light most favorable to the plaintiff and apply the cold law to the cold facts and is there enough to proceed and and what the DC circuit said Yes, the court here the district court applied the law to these facts if you take them as true in the light again most favorable to the plaintiffs and

That he's the president is not absolutely immune from damages. Did you know that poor sleep can cause weight gain, mood issues, poor mental health, and lower productivity? Sleep is the foundation of our mental and physical health and performance in our days, and having a consistent nighttime routine is a non-negotiable for me. When I don't get enough sleep, trust me. You don't want to be around me the next day. Introducing Beam Dream. You know we've been raving about Beam Dream's powder and their

healthy hot cocoa for sleep. And today our listeners get a special discount on Beam Dream's powder. They're best-selling, healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no sugar added. It's now available in delicious seasonal flavors like cinnamon, cacao, sea salt, caramel, and white chocolate peppermint. Better sleep has never tasted better. Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of Raci, magnesium, L-feaning, and melatonin and nano-cbd to help you follow sleep stays sleep and wake up refreshed. A recent clinical study revealed Dream helped 93% of users wake up feeling more refreshed and 93 reported that Dream helped them get a more restful night sleep. Just mix beam dream into hot water or milk stir or froth and enjoy before bedtime. I've personally

tried beam dream and it certainly lived up to the hype. It was delicious and I had a lovely night time sleep and routine and it helped me fall asleep and stay asleep which is great. Find out why Forbes and the New York Times are all talking about beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try beams, best selling dream powder, take advantage of their biggest sale of the year and get up to 50 per sem off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash legal AF.

That's SHOPBEAM.com slash legal AF. The discount is auto applied at checkout. No code is necessary. Again, that's shop beam.com slash legal a for 50% off. So this was rejected both by the district court and this appellate court. So the holding, you know, in this was that Trump is not entitled to official act immunity for his actions leading up to January 6th, at least not at this stage, and they were made it very clear, not at this stage and the proceedings because of what I just said.

And then we'll see he'll develop his own facts on the immunity question, and if he wants to show that he did this all in his official capacity as president, then he can move for summary judgment on his claim later, which is that second motion to dismiss that happens at the end. Both parties can move for summary judgment motion or it can go to trial if the judge finds doesn't find for either side. So they went on to say, look,

when a first term president opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act. The office of the presidency, as an institution, is agnostic about who will occupy it next, and campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office. I thought that was worth reading that quote from the decision. The decision went on to say equally when a sitting president is running for a second term, it tends a private fundraiser for his reelection effort. He hires or fires campaign staff or cuts a political

ads, big set of rally, etc. He's not carrying out official duties. He's acting as an office seeker, not an office holder, right? Just the same as whoever's running against them. They're both office seekers and not office holders. Like, for example, what if Trump and Biden were going against each other? One's a former president, one's a current president. Neither one of them should have a benefit just because they were, you know, when they are acting in their duty as candidate, right? And Trump, and then my favorite part of this whole decision, oh my god, this

was beautiful, was that they threw in his face something that he put into other, in a supreme court brief. So there was a, there was a supreme court case, Texas versus Pennsylvania. So Texas was suing Pennsylvania or Pennsylvania was, you know, they were going, I don't even know what they were talking about. It had to do with, it had to do with the battleground state issue with Trump, right? It had to, it had to do with the election. And Trump wanted to what's called intervene in the case, right? He wanted to intervene in the case, and which means he wanted to become a part of it and be able to participate.

And so he filed motions. And in the motions, it said that in his personal capacity as a candidate, he said, is why he wanted to be allowed to intervene, right? So he himself, in his own argument said, as a candidate, that's in his personal capacity, that when he's a candidate that has nothing to do with his presidency or his duties. So his argument now that he's immune does not dispute

that he did the acts in his capacity as a candidate, but he thinks that that does not matter, okay? He's saying, it doesn't matter, I'm immune no matter what, okay? I don't dispute these facts here. I don't dispute that I did it in my capacity as a candidate, but I think it doesn't matter because in my view, this is what Trump is saying, a president's speech on matters of public concern

in and of itself is invariably an official function. And when he was engaged in that function, when he spoke on January 6th, and the lead up to that day, that was a matter of great import and public concern. And that, therefore, because I was talking about something of great import, that's part of my duties and therefore I'm immune. And the court rejected that. They resoundingly rejected that. And they said, when presidents are often exercising official responsibilities, I'm sorry, while presidents are often exercising official responsibilities when they speak on matters of public concern, it's not always the case, right?

When a sitting president running for reelection speaks in a campaign ad or is accepting his party nomination at a convention, that's a matter of public concern, but that's not official, that's private, right? That's as the private office seeker, not the office holder. And so they also acknowledge that there's the DC Circuit also acknowledged that there's is not the final word

and that this is going to go to the Supreme Court. And so therefore they acknowledge that and they said, look, we're not reaching the first amendment argument because Trump didn't appeal this, but he could bring that in the future. This is only about presidential immunity. And we're also not apining on whether this has anything to do with the other privileges, like executive privilege that could shield him from discovery of certain evidence or effect his case, nor whether he could be immune from criminal prosecution. So they chose to call that out.

Anyway, so I thought this was a really, really interesting decision that clearly said that this did not, that this essentially was a private act. It didn't fall within his presidential duties or in the outer perimeter, the outer perimeter test that was established in the Nixon case. And look, they specifically said that they're not, that he's not immune, that this is a question that can go forward. And we'll see how this goes, whether he appeals to the Supreme Court, or whether he asks for a full review on Bach, but one of his own appointees didn't even reject it, concurred here, because that's how clear the law is. So it's one step closer to being held accountable,

but presidential immunity is really the one substantive issue left that people are worried about, I think, not worried about, but it's the one real substantive, it has merit, an issue that needs to be addressed in the Tanya Chetkin DC election interference, Jack Smith case, because all the other ones aren't gonna go anywhere, but this particular argument has to be addressed and has to be decided. And although it's fairly

clear that a president is not entitled to absolute immunity, right? You can't commit murder, right? You can't do, you can't sexually assault someone, you know, just say, oh well, I'm president, so therefore I'm immune. So there's a logical reason why this can't be the law. But then who knows what the Supreme Court of the United States these days will do and we won't know until they render a decision. So I'm Karen Friedman Agniflow. Thanks so much for joining me and joining me in my co-hosts every Wednesday and Saturday on legal A.F.

Hey, Midas Mide. Love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram. At Midas Touch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.