Donald Trump goes on fiery Truth Social rant after DC appeals court rejects his immunity defense in 2020 election case

WASHINGTON, DC: On Tuesday, February 6, an appeals court handed down a ruling that former President Donald Trump did not have immunity from prosecution in his case related to the 2020 presidential election.

In response to the decision, the former POTUS expressed strong disapproval, stating that it would impede future presidents from carrying out their duties and ultimately harm the nation, according to Daily Mail.

The landmark decision has drawn significant attention from the media and the public alike, as it has important implications for the interpretation of presidential immunity and the limits of executive power.

Trump later took to his alt-tech social media platform, Truth Social, to vent about the circumstances. 

Donald Trump calls to 'save presidential immunity' on Truth Social

In one of the Truth Social posts, Trump wrote, "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."

He asserted, "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."

The GOP frontrunner added, "A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office. I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now. It will become a Political Weapon used for Election Interference. Even our Elections will be corrupted and under siege. So bad, and so dangerous for our Nation."

Trump ardently called to "SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY."

The ex-POTUS' rage also alluded to how the ruling dealt serious damage to his aspirations to avoid punishment for the events leading up to the January 6 Capitol Hill insurrection, as he denied the results of the 2020 presidential elections. 

He claims he should be protected from criminal prosecution as he held office at that time. 

On Tuesday, the three-judge panel hearing his appeal issued a stern decision. They wrote, "Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

In Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump, the MAGA figurehead is accused of using fabricated allegations of voter fraud to persuade lawmakers, Justice Department officials and then-Vice President Mike Pence to withhold certifying Joe Biden's 2020 general election victory.

This is the second occasion in as many months that judges have turned down Trump's claim to presidential immunity. The former president's lawyers also assert that unless impeached and removed from office he is entitled to broad legal protections.

As per reports, Trump will place an appeal to the Supreme Court against the recent ruling. 

One of the four criminal cases levied against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was postponed last week, with legal arguments currently playing out. Originally scheduled for March 2024, the judge has not yet set a new trial date.

At the heart of the issue is the previously unresolved question of whether former presidents can be held criminally liable for actions they took during their official duties after leaving office.

While the Supreme Court has previously ruled that former presidents are protected from civil cases, the defense team of the former president in question maintains that the same protection should extend to criminal actions.

In yet another Truth Social post, Trump wrote, "Without Presidential Immunity, the Presidency will lose its power and prestige, and under some Leaders, have no power at all. The Presidency will be consumed by the other Branches of Government. THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WANTED!"

Special Counsel Smith argues that there is no such Constitutional protection, which District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, agreed with in December 2023.

She wrote in her ruling, "Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass"

Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointed by President Biden, along with Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George HW Bush, presided over the hearing of the appeal made by Trump.

The 45th president contended that since he had already faced impeachment proceedings over the same allegations, he should not be called to stand trial again.

Three-judge panel noted they cannot accept Donald Trump's claim that a president has 'unbounded authority to commit crimes'

However, the 57-page ruling, presented by the three-judge panel on Tuesday, summarily dismissed Trump's argument.

They explained, "In light of the very different procedures and purposes associated with impeachment proceedings as compared to criminal proceedings, former President Trump's reliance on the Double Jeopardy Clause is misplaced. Impeachment is not a criminal process and cannot result in criminal punishment."

The judges came to the conclusion that complying with Trump's assertions would undermine voters' rights.

"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results," wrote the judges.

They asserted, "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."

As of now, the case has been put on hold until February 12 to allow Trump to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Internet reacts as Donald Trump's claims regarding presidential immunity are rejected

Soon after the ruling for Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims came to light, netizens couldn't help but take a jab at the ex-POTUS. 

One remarked, "Oh snap! Donald is going to prison!" and another said, "Took them long enough to rule on the bleedin' obvious!"

A person noted, "Well, that looks simple and straightforward. Wonder why it took so long?" while someone else said, "Thankfully they made the right decision!"

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.