Fox News Insists Trump Immunity Hearing Went Fine For Dear Leader Trump, Just Fine! (It Was Disaster)
Why tell the truth to viewers when lying works?
Today, a Fox News correspondent blatantly lied to viewers about what happened in Donald Trump’s immunity hearing in DC this morning. Host Harris Faulkner smirked along with the lie, because she doesn’t have a human soul and she likes lies.
The correspondent told Faulkner that the three-judge panel on the appeals court was “somewhat skeptical” of the Justice Department’s arguments, and concerned about setting a precedent that presidents are not immune from prosecution for things they do in office.
Yes. She said the three-judge panel was skeptical of ruling that presidents are not immune for all eternity from prosecution.
Why tell the truth when you know you don’t have one single regular viewer who would ever check your work? You’ve got ‘em all brainwashed anyway. It’s kind of your thing.
Lawyers and journalists are all over Twitter right now pointing out that the Fox News correspondent was just flat-out lying. We agree with Nikki McCann Ramirez from Rolling Stone, who tweeted the clip and commented, “Me when I’m gaslighting myself.” That’s the level we’re on here.
Back here in the real world, Trump’s immunity hearing went very poorly for him, accordingly to literally everyone else. Though the ultimate answer to the question will likely come from the illegitimate Republican hack Supreme Court, which may or may not rule with integrity, if the three-judge panel from the DC appeals court is any indication, SCOTUS may have a hard time not laughing Trump out of the room. (He was in the room today, by the way.)
For example:
That’s a CNN headline from during the hearing, about appeals court Judge Karen Henderson, the only Republican appointee on the three-judge panel. (Lots of eyes on her right now.)
Henderson said, “I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law.” Hmmmm, yes, very paradoxical!
Is that what the Fox News idiot above meant when she said the judges were skeptical of ruling that presidents don’t have eternal immunity?
Maybe it was something else she was referring to.
Trump idiot lawyer John Sauer spent the hearing trying to say that if you can prosecute former presidents for “official acts” — overturning elections they lost? Trying to overthrow the government for same? — you will open a “Pandora’s Box.”
Judge Florence Pan — a Biden nominee who took Ketanji Brown Jackson’s place on the appeals court — was curious: “Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six.”
Could he sell military secrets, she asked? Could he sell pardons? Could he just crime all day and night, only stopping to hurl his ketchups at the wall and grab the odd pussy? (She didn’t ask that last one, that is another one of Wonkette’s dickish editorial flourishes.)
Hmmm! These sound like law school questions! Is that the Pandora’s Box Sauer’s talking about? And if presidents have absolute immunity, could Joe Biden order SEAL Team Six to assassinate Trump right now? And should he?
Everyone is just asking questions.
“He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said. “I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.
"If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied.
“So your answer is no,” Pan said.
That is (legal term) batshit.
There is literally nothing anywhere that says a former president cannot face criminal consequences if they are not impeached and removed (a political process, not a criminal one) from office by Congress. Anywhere. Sauer found that in his asshole.
But we guess by the same logic, Joe Biden could do SEAL Team Six to Trump and get off scot-free as long as the Senate doesn’t convict, correct? Trump is always saying he was TOTALLY EXONERATED in his impeachments because the rectum-sucking Republicans in the Senate didn’t convict him. Biden will be innocent then too?
We are just trying to make sure we understand Trump’s lawyer’s arguments, and what Joe Biden is allowed to do this afternoon if they were applied consistently.
Sauer ultimately conceded that, according to the legal philosophy he just made up, a president could be prosecuted for actions he was impeached and convicted for, which kind of fucks up their argument about how former presidents can’t ever be put on trial for “official duties,” doesn’t it?
Listen to this dipshit (this is the SEAL Team 6 question and so much more):
Do you see how they’re ass-to-mouth-ing themselves in circles here trying to save Donald Trump from the consequences of his actions? Have these lawyers no sense of shame or dignity?
Twitter legal expert Asha Rangappa finds this amateur analysis of the Trump lawyer’s claims and gives it her stamp of approval:
“Apparently it means he could invite Trump to the White House [for] a pardon, give it to him, then murder him, immediately resign to avoid impeachment & conviction thereby insuring his immunity and a Harris POTUS,” says somebody on Twitter.
“This is exactly what Trump is arguing would be completely legitimate and above the law,” replies Rangappa.
(Related: During the hearing, assistant special counsel James Pearce argued, conversely, that it would be “awfully scary” if we couldn’t prosecute former presidents for trying to OVERTHROW THE FUCKING REPUBLIC.)
So that’s a taste of how that all went down.
After the hearing, Trump came out and continued insisting he has super secret special wizard immunity for any crimes he committed in office: "You can’t have a president without immunity," he said. "You have to have, as a president, you have to be able to do your job.”
Because for Donald Trump, there is no line between “job” and “crime,” and there never has been.
Trump also threatened that there would be “bedlam in the country” if he lost the appeal — he wishes, but we’re highly skeptical — and refused to commit to telling his supporters not to commit acts of violence if such came to pass.
In another show of legal feats of strength, a different dipshit Trump lawyer, John Lauro, argued after the hearing that if Trump is not eternally immune, then Joe Biden could be prosecuted “for trying to stop this man from becoming the next president of the United States.”
To which we reply: only if Congress impeaches and convicts him for it, you babbling fuckwit.
Most people seem to think — contra the Fox News gaslighting above — that today went very poorly for Trump, and that this appeals court will affirm the ruling of Judge Tanya Chutkan that Trump is actually not the second coming of Christ or the king of Earth, and can be prosecuted for trying to OVERTHROW THE FUCKING REPUBLIC.
How long has this latest bullshit pushed the schedule for the trial? Bradley Moss questions whether the DC Circuit would grant Trump an en banc review (all the court, not just a three-judge panel), or send him straight to SCOTUS. Regardless, he predicts SCOTUS wouldn’t rule before March. Which would probably mean the trial wouldn’t start until May.
What a fun summer we will have!
[videos via Acyn / Ryan Goodman]
Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.
@evanjosephhurst on Threads!
I have profiles those other places but I think I forgot how to log on.
If you're shopping on Amazon anyway, this portal gives us a small commission.
Henderson said, “I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law.”
...I love it when judges say the legal equivalent of "bitch, please." Oh, what a beautiful day...
Let's say, for the sake of a really stupid argument, that Trump wins the election. Then let's say, to continue making the argument even more stupid, that a ruling goes in favor of Trump on the immunity charge at the Supreme Court. In the waning days of Biden's presidency, he could order Seal Team Six to take out Trump, and maybe even a few of Trump's appointed justices, or anyone that would even consider impeaching him. Well, except for Mitch McConnell because by the time Joe got all this killin' done on Highway 61, Joe would no longer face impeachment. 'Cuz Congress wouldn't have the time to both impeach and prosecute Joe, and using Mitch's logic, you can't convict a non-sitting president in the Senate anyway.