Trump Balks At ‘Nation-Destroying’ Ruling Against Him

Donald Trump last week blasted the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after a 3-judge panel rejected his claim of absolute immunity from federal prosecution, CNN reported.

In its February 6 opinion, the 3-judge appellate panel upheld the decision from US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin, the judge in the federal election interference case, who ruled in early December that Trump was not immune from criminal prosecution.

The appellate court said that in the federal election interference case, “citizen Trump” was entitled to the same defenses as any other criminal defendant but argued that the immunity “that may have protected him” while Trump was president “no longer protects him.”

The judges rejected the defense’s arguments that Trump was “categorically immune” from prosecution for any acts that were in the “outer perimeter” of his official duties as president, arguing that violating the law would not fall under the scope of Trump’s lawful discretion as president. The judges also warned that to accept the defense’s argument of absolute immunity would place the president beyond the reach of the other branches of government.

The judges gave the defense until February 12 to appeal their ruling before it took effect.

In response to the appellate court’s decision, Trump took to Truth Social to blast it as a “nation-destroying” ruling. He declared that the president “must have Full Immunity” if he is to “properly function” and do what must be done “for the good of our Country.”

Trump claimed that if a president does not have absolute immunity, he would be “afraid to act” out of fear of retribution by an opposing party once he leaves office.

Unable to meet the deadline set by the appellate panel, attorneys for Donald Trump submitted a filing to the Supreme Court on Monday requesting that the justices impose a stay preventing the ruling from taking effect.

Trump’s attorneys described the appellate panel’s decision as a “stunning breach of precedent and historical norms” and warned that without immunity from prosecution, the Presidency would “cease to exist.”

The attorneys argued that they needed more time to review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the full DC Appeals Court or the Supreme Court.