Court Says Trump Does NOT Have Immunity And Can Be Prosecuted

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision on Tuesday that Donald Trump does NOT have immunity from prosecution, and therefore the election subversion case against him can, and will, go to trial. But that doesn't mean that the immunity fight is over. Trump still has the option to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which has already been put into motion. But the Appeals Court's ruling might be written in a way that already bypasses the Supreme Court, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Bad news for Donald Trump this week as the DC Court of Appeals in a unanimous three to zero decision on Tuesday, announced that you do not have immunity from prosecution and therefore Jack Smith's case against you for election subversion can in fact continue. This is a huge victory. It's an expected victory. To be honest with you. It was always kind of assumed that the DC Court of Appeals was going to rule in favor of Jack Smith and not give Donald Trump his immunity. So now it's gonna go to the Supreme Court. 'cause remember they already tried to get the Supreme Court to take it up, and the Supreme Court at the time said, no, no, no, no. This gotta go through the regular process. The Court of Appeals has to do it first. But on the same day that he asked the Supreme Court to take it up, Jack Smith also asked the appellate court to hear the case as well.

So Jack Smith already had all of his bases covered when he first went to the Supreme Court. He's like, okay, y'all aren't gonna do it. Well, wonderful. I've already asked them to take it up anyway, let's wait and see. So now begins the official process. Donald Trump will have to appeal it to the Supreme Court, which we know he is gonna do. He has had people like Alina Haa out there in recent months trying to butter up the Supreme Court saying things like, you know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. So she's been kind of winking a nod like, Hey, you owe Trump. But here's the thing. The way this decision was written, it's bulletproof, but not just bulletproof to where they will win on appeal. It's bulletproof to where the Supreme Court might actually have the clearance to just say, Nope, we're not gonna take the case because the lower court's ruling is written in such a way that we're okay, that there's nothing we can do about it.

Like, we don't even need to hear it. They got it. Right. You're done. That's the best we could have hoped for. It's not enough to just get a favorable ruling. The ruling needed to be airtight to where the Supreme Court could not overturn it. Because, and again, I explain this in a way because most people have no idea what this means. When you appeal the case, you're not going and just retrying the case in front of a new court. That's not how appeals work. You have to be able, if you're the one appealing it to show some kind of thing went wrong. You know, it's not just, oh, I don't like this, let's appeal. Nah, not how it works. You gotta be able to show that, hey, the, the reasoning was wrong, or they've created loopholes in their ruling, which, okay, we can actually counter that on appeal and get this

Thing reversed. The DC Court of Appeals didn't do that. They absolutely made this thing airtight. Let me read you just a, a small snippet of it. We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes, nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. So they, and again, this is a, a big ruling.