On the surface the following article seems to indicate Trump can be prosecuted for inciting the Jan. 6 insurgency against our Constitution and our country. But, for now, that is just on the surface.

When we dig deeper we come to realize each judicial decision is open to appeal. First, there are little steps, then bigger ones until it all reaches the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court – a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House, Trump, The Republicans, and MAGA!

While there are many honest jurists, judges of high ethics and integrity, sadly not many sit on America’s highest Court. Ruled over by a heavy-handed millionaire in his own right -- Twenty-five million at last count -- Roberts happily convenes with other millionaires – all the Republican members of the Court are millionaires – and they all regularly rule for their country club plutocrats at the expense of at the expense of their hard-working countrymen

. So, don’t get your hopes up. Justice in America is as dead as Republican’s moral compass.

See this – boldface mine:

 

 

Trump immunity in question after judge finds tweet 'poured gasoline' on Jan. 6 riot

Story by David Edwards • 3h • 2 min read

 

© provided by RawStory

A federal judge opened the door for an appeals court to decide whether President Donald Trump's Jan. 6 tweet — sent as rioters stormed the Capitol — was protected by presidential immunity.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Wednesday that he would not reverse his earlier decision shielding the tweet from a civil lawsuit filed under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a Reconstruction-era law that bars conspiracies to prevent members of Congress from carrying out their duties.

But Mehta certified the question for interlocutory review — allowing plaintiffs to challenge the immunity ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit now, without waiting for the full case to conclude. Their deadline to file is Aug. 5.

The suit was originally filed in February 2021 by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), according to court records. Thompson later withdrew as a plaintiff to chair the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6, and former Rep. Barbara Lee of California became the lead plaintiff. The complaint accuses Trump of conspiring with former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.

At issue is a tweet Trump sent at 2:24 p.m. on Jan. 6, as rioters were breaching the Capitol. The tweet said: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

In March, Mehta ruled the tweet was an official act and therefore immune from civil liability .His reasoning, per Wednesday's ruling, was that moments before Trump sent it, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone had walked into the dining room to urge Trump to stop the riot. Trump refused — and then posted the tweet.

Mehta acknowledged the tweet "arguably poured gasoline on the fire" but said that did not change the analysis.

"Any act taken by the president — no matter how outlandish (like organizing a poker game) or plainly office-seeking (like firing a campaign pollster) — would become official simply because they occurred after the President received some advice about not engaging in such acts from government officials," plaintiffs argued in their reconsideration filing.

Mehta rejected the argument but agreed the question was close enough to warrant appellate review. Plaintiffs must file their notice of appeal no later than Aug. 5, with the D.C. Circuit's opening brief due Aug. 10.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-immunity-in-question-after-judge-finds-tweet-poured-gasoline-on-jan-6-riot/ar-AA28sXz0?

And why can't we stop a known and repeat offender of this rule? "inciting a riot" is against the law yes? Trump has a definitely incited riots with his claims of election fraud. remember January 6th? Repeat offender?

Presidents often pardon allies, donors, family members, or political insiders — sometimes right before leaving office. It looks like the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the connected.

Should we change the rules so no elected official, their spouse, kids, or inner circle can ever receive a presidential pardon? Would this reduce corruption and self-dealing, or just create new problems?

Realistic fix or naive idea? Thoughts from both sides welcome.

Article By Clarissa-Jan Lim and Lisa Rubin

Judge ends Jan. 6 case against Proud Boys with warning about Trump pardons

Thoughts?