J6 order against Trump Vacated

The January 6 case against 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has officially been sent back down to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings, coming after the Supreme Court ruled in early July that presidents have immunity for official acts.

"On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the above court is vacated with costs, and the cases is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court,"

He also gets some of his cash back.

So now the court and prosecution must decide if they even have a case in light of the earlier SCOTUS decision.

The opinion read that the lower court will have to determine "whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

Link

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Cue those salty tears.

Cheers

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Yes it was. Now it has been sent back to Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction. She can start scheduling evidentiary hearings. Good thing she always noted the importance of keeping this on track, guessing we will be seeing court dates very soon.

a reply to: frogs453

Gonna have to see what the prosecution does.


You did mean that right?

Because a judge acting on behalf of the prosecution would be .....well, I think you know where this is headed.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Sorry, you are using the Post Millenial for information. They kind of left stuff out. Understandable with that source.

"It is ordered, on the court's own motion, that this case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion," the D.C. Circuit said.

That's Judge Chutkin's case.

Chutkan is now expected to interpret and apply the Supreme Court's ruling. She will have to decide which alleged conduct described in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president is "official" in nature and which could be the subject of criminal prosecution. 

CBS

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Another Obama appointee.

Just like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Nothing that’s happening with the Trump hunt is bipartisan.

Lawfare.

a reply to: frogs453

You understand that due process is still prevalent correct?

That the Trump team will get to defend themselves.

Otherwise you may be implying that Chutkan has a vested interest in the outcome of this case....

Instead of trying to deride my source, you should have read it as it supplied three times more info than your supplemental PBS source.

"On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the above court is vacated with costs, and the cases is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court,"

You're among the best articulate here from your side.

...do better.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp


I never said he wouldn't get a defense or to present why he he feels the acts were official. I simply stated the court will remand it to her and she will immediately start scheduling.

You could have said, yep. Just as I did to your post and added any addional context as I did.

You stated "have to see what the prosecution does". I clarified they have to do nothing relating to her scheduling evidentiary hearings.

a reply to: frogs453

They still have to decide if they have a case worth bringing.

While I doubt they decline to prosecute, the chances are greater than 0.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

No they don't. She must now determine with evidence from both sides per the Scotus ruling does the evidence have:

1) absolute immunity when the president is exercising ‘his core constitutional powers
2)presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts’ that are not core to presidential duties (such as exercising powers given to him by Congress)
3) no immunity

Again, the case exists already. No one has to decide to prosecute. Once the evidentiary hearings are done and the decision is made, yes, it may not proceed, or it may. Until these hearings are done, it's uncertain.

Because of the long delay of Scotus, it now runs up right into the thick of campaign season. But as judge Chutkin stated in this and other court cases months ago, she will clear her schedule to address this case if necessary, so you could reasonably see them scheduled soon.

a reply to: frogs453

The case exists as long as the prosecution wishes to pursue it.

They can pull out anytime.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Ohhh, so wishful thinking then? Have you seen Smith state anything to this effect? I have not.

a reply to: frogs453

Amazing! Its as it you have all of the answers, like
you have a vast DNC answer data base at your fingertips!

a reply to: burntheships

🤣 Ooohhh...I can use Google and download court pdf's. There's a database somewhere?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Ohhh, so wishful thinking then? Have you seen Smith state anything to this effect? I have not.

Are you having trouble today? I literally just said it wasn't likely but that the chances are greater than zero.

This after you had to backpedal already.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Lol I never back peddled. Chutkin will be posting a schedule soon. Let's see.. is that what I said?

Yes it was. Now it has been sent back to Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction. She can start scheduling evidentiary hearings. Good thing she always noted the importance of keeping this on track, guessing we will be seeing court dates very soon.

Yep. Sure did.

Then you made it about the prosecution which I never mentioned as it's not related to the case scheduling.

Another day , another


Cheers

a reply to: frogs453

What will she schedule if the prosecution declines to prosecute.....?


I take back my compliment.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Who is claiming that Smith wants to remove the case?

I mean if you have this news then fine, link to his statement. If not, then she will schedule the evidentiary hearings.

I mean seriously? What if an asteroid hits earth tomorrow. The case will be delayed. However I have no evidence of that happening, can't provide any source.