By Wonderwall.com Editors
2:41pm PST, Feb 10, 2024
_
Donald Trump has no presidential immunity for his alleged efforts to reverse the 2020 election results and is subject to prosecution for criminal charges against him, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled on Feb. 6, according to CNN.
The former president and his lawyers have claimed, so far without success, that because he was still in office at the time he allegedly tried to subvert the election results, he can't be held criminally accountable for those actions. Or, as Trump claimed on his Truth Social platform in January 2024, "Even events that 'cross the line' must fall under total immunity."
In its unanimous ruling, the federal appeals court disagreed, writing that if Trump is proven guilty of trying to subvert the 2020 election results, that would constitute an "unprecedented assault on the structure of our government."
Elsewhere in the ruling, the judges wrote, "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant."
The three-judge panel also noted it would be contradictory to allow the one person bound by the constitution to protect the law of the land to disobey that law himself without consequence.
Accepting Trump's claim he's immune to criminal liability for alleged attempts to usurp the 2020 election "would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches," they wrote.
The panel also tossed Trump's claim a criminal indictment for the Jan. 6 riot would have "a chilling effect" on future presidents, writing that "past presidents have understood" they could be held to account for criminal actions, so there's already a chilling effect in place.
"The risks of chilling Presidential action or permitting meritless, harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history and 'too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice,'" they wrote. "We therefore conclude that functional policy considerations rooted in the structure of our government do not immunize former Presidents from federal criminal prosecution."
The Supreme Court could still reverse the ruling, which only applies to one set of the 91 felony charges that have been brought against Trump in four separate criminal cases.
Trump plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, according to Trump biographer and political reporter Maggie Haberman. In the meantime, he and others are speaking out about the decision.
Keep reading to see what Trump and stars on both sides of the political aisle are saying about the ruling…
MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more celebrity & entertainment photo galleries and content
_
"A President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country. A Nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country." –Donald Trump on Truth Social
MORE: Leaders react to news King Charles III has cancer
_
"Trump's campaign said that he respectfully disagrees with the ruling. Although, if Trump knew to respectfully disagree with a loss, he wouldn't be on trial in the first place. And now Trump plans on going to the Supreme Court. And if he loses there, he plans on going to Brazil. The Supreme Court hasn't announced if they'll hear the case, but Clarence Thomas announced that he'd like an Apple Vision Pro and Super Bowl tickets if they do." —Jimmy Fallon on "The Tonight Show"
_
"No one who's been watching is shocked by this partisan hackery but here we go. DC appeals court has ruled that Trump does not have presidential immunity that would shield him in the J6 case. Time for SCOTUS to step in. If POTUS doesn't have immunity they'll be incapable of action for fear of future partisan reprisal. That endangers the United States and sets a terrible precedent. If this becomes the norm would a Trump DOJ prosecute Obama for droning an American? If not why not?" –Donald Trump Jr. on X
_
"OK, so he doesn't have immunity, but after all these trials, he must have built up some antibodies." –Seth Meyers, on "Late Night With Seth Meyers"
_
"Awwww, that's a real shame for the 'citizen'" —Kathy Griffin wrote on X while sharing a headline that read, "Federal Appeals Court rules Trump does NOT have immunity in Jan. 6 case. They called him 'Citizen Trump'"
_
"I believe they have been after President Trump for partisan political purposes, I think that's obvious, and we call it lawfare and I think there is no other way to describe it." –Speaker of the House Mike Johnson responded to CNN's Manu Raju about Trump's failed immunity bid
_
"Imagine how much spaghetti with tomato sauce is hitting Trump's wall right now" –Mia Farrow wrote on X while sharing a headline about Trump's immunity ruling
_
"Trump attorneys had argued that if future executives believed that they could be indicted for their 'official acts' as president, they would be more hesitant to act within their role. An appeals court just ruled that Donald Trump does not have immunity from criminal prosecution. The rule of law prevails once again — and we're one step closer to accountability. Let's hope the Supreme Court acts quickly so that justice delayed is not justice denied. Again." –Rep. Adam Schiff wrote on X
_
"'Historic, landmark decision.' Let that sink in." –Maria Shriver wrote on X
_
"The three-judge panel shot down his arguments in a strongly worded 57-page ruling. It was a devastating moment for Trump, especially when Melania started clapping." —Jimmy Kimmel said on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
_
"AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION… WHY START NOW?" –Mark Hamill, responding on X to Donald Trump's Truth Social claim that "without complete immunity, a president … would not be properly able to function"
_
"I fully support President Trump's efforts to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's unconstitutional ruling to the Supreme Court, where I expect a thoughtful decision to overturn this dangerous precedent." –Rep. Elise Stefanik
