Says the brief for Donald Trump.
This is the case that the prosecution has been trying to speed up. The Supreme Court rejected an effort to skip the Court of Appeals stage. The trial judge has the case scheduled to go to trial on March 4, which hardly seems possible, even if the Court of Appeals is expediting its work. There's still the Supreme Court stage.
If the trial were to be pushed into the summer, it would coincide with the homestretch of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Obliged to be in Washington each weekday for two or three months, the former president would almost certainly bring his campaign to the courthouse steps, turning the proceeding into even more of a media circus than it already promises to be.
That's rich, blaming Trump for the spectacle of the criminal trial. Then there's also the problem of Trump's other 3 criminal trials. Where to cram them in before Election Day?
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
What does the Fake News do when a MAGA mob surrounds the DC courthouse during Trump’s criminal trial? It happened during the George Floyd trial.
Theres also the matter of prosecuting non ccrimes see pra or thought crime
"Where to cram them in before election day." I'm sure I won't be the only one to point out that this is the entire point of this exercise in banana republic lawfare. Rule of law my ass.
Merry Christmas!
It's a structural problem, call it infinite jeopardy. The most unhinged jurisdiction in the US brings the charges.
The leftists lawfare goons never thought it would get this far. They were sure Trump would be a desperate hanger on, unable to make the Republican primary debate stage. That's the problem with the leftist. After ~7 years they still have no idea, that this is not about Trump. Its about the Swamp.
Now they have created one of the most popular Presidential candidates is decades.
Trump is 100% accurate, He is the only one standing between the lawfare goons and us.
Ed Meese is advancing the notion that Jack Smith is not authorized by statute to serve as Special Counsel. So a supposedly unauthorized lawyer is trying to wield unauthorized power over a former President, who just so happens to be running for that same office again.
The headline statement is mixed up stuff of things I can and cannot agree. I agree there hasn't been much interest in prosecuting Presidents in the past despite opportunities. I don't necessarily disagree that therefore the power doesn't exist, but I certainly do not believe there is a power to prosecute Presidents for their official acts. The problem with January 6th being an insurrection is that there was an official act to certify the results, which contesting the certification is an official act.
Althouse you’ve chosen to credulously rebroadcast some prime Trump propaganda; that Trump is being prosecuted for “official” acts.
No, he isn’t. He is being prosecuted for CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES conducted during the time he was in office. That’s a legal and political topic worthy of serious discussion for the future of the U.S. presidency, but Trump is not a difficult circumstance. 91 counts alleged. Not having anything to do with difficult or contentious policy. Nothing about his role as commander in chief of the armed forces or the conduct of foreign affairs. Nothing about the president’s official role in legislation or the federal budget or law enforcement administration.
It’s all about Trump’s well understood and indisputable role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election based on a lie that the election had been fraudulent. And he’s being prosecuted for not simply mishandling classified documents (seemingly as a matter of personal vanity), but also lying to the National Archives, the DoJ and the FBI. He’s being prosecuted for his actions as his own campaign manager, trying to get people in Georgia to throw that state’s election to him. And, in New York, for secretly using campaign funds to silence a porn star who was being paid off.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that in the future a president might be prosecuted for his exercise of judgment on official acts that were central to presidential authority. But I am far more uncomfortable with the notion that a president who took Trump-like actions following an election loss, to overturn that loss, would be immune from prosecution.
The Florida case was the first one brought, right- followed by the Georgia case and then the D.C. case. Shouldn't the first one be the one from Florida, then Georgia, and last the D.C.?
Smith fucked himself with a fence post by not charging the D.C. case first. Not very bright.
Oof, I don't think I would have made the argument that presidents shouldn't be prosecuted because they usually aren't.
I mean I get it politically but it sounds too much like above the law.
Though I still don't know what Trump's crime was.
And, Althouse; about the trial date and interference with the 2024 campaign…
First, Republican voters could avoid the entire problem by nominating another candidate.
Second, Trump — if he believed in his defense — could stay with the March trial date and earn himself a triumphal Not Guilty verdict leading into the campaign. I am confident that Trump and his lawyers have determined that his only real hope of escaping justice is by delaying the trial, winning the presidential race, and then using executive powers to stop all prosecutions.
Trump’s actions will speak louder than words in briefs in that regard. He opposed the expedited SCOTUS review. He will drag things out in the DC Circuit. Including en banc review when he loses. He will file absolutely everything at the last possible moment. (As this latest brief was.)
Trump is running for office to be able to pardon himself. In that light, I am little concerned about any chilling effects on future presidential prerogatives.
Oft evil will evil mar. They made sure to delay each of the trials until election year, but somehow that's not working out the way they planned.
I have some suggestions for where they can cram them.
I'm reminded of this statement in the Declaration of Independence:
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
This is a deliberate measure to pressure Trump to not run for election. The trials (sic) are irrelevant, as are the laws (again, sic) that he is supposed to have broken.
Anyone less determined than Trump would have broken by now, and all these prosecutions would have gone away.
There is not a significant segment of the legal community that thinks that Trump's immunity arguments are good ones with the possible exception of Alina Habba. So I think the general consensus is it's going to be upheld, and there's not much sentiment that the Supreme Court is going to reverse it either. The bigger risk in terms of proceeding against Trump is delay, so that if the Supreme Court chews on it for too long or decides to take it, that that could create a significant delay in the trial proceedings and you could lose that March trial date. I've always thought that it was likely that it would slip some. It's pretty rare for a federal case to go on its first trial date.
Assuming that the appeals court upholds Judge Chutkan would the Supreme Court even be interested in hearing this case?
I think you likely have two hard Trump partisans in Thomas and Alito who might, but I doubt you've got the votes to take it at all, much less overturn it, unless the D.C. Court Of Appeals basically expresses itself in very broad terms and reaches conclusions or uses logic that Supreme Court doesn't like.
Remember that it was our own government, through the CIA, and rich American political donors close to the current American regime, who ran those banana republics, so the case can be made that these tactics are as American as apple pie 🥧.
If I understand the argument Trump's lawyers are making here, it doesn't seem very strong. There HAVEN'T been a lot of opportunities in the past (let alone motive) to prosecute ex-presidents for alleged crimes they committed in office. The most obvious case that comes to mind is Nixon -- but Ford pardoned him for any crimes he may have committed in office. At the time, I don't recall anyone suggesting that a pardon wasn't needed because Nixon was already immune from criminal prosecution.
The best thing that could happen to facilitate Trump's policies would be for Trump to be found guilty, to be sentenced to jail, and to go to jail.
If Trump were to die in jail, he'd end up on Mt. Rushmore.
If you give the Libs what they want, they'll lose.
Let it be.
The DOJ is in an urgent hurry to prosecute Donald Trump for interfering in the 2022 election. Now we still are in the year 2023.
In contrast, the DOJ was not in such a hurry to investigate Trump's alleged interference in the 2016 election. The DOJ began to investigate Trump's foreign-policy advisor Carter Page in April 2016 and then formally opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation in July 2016. This FBI investigation eventually became Robert Mueller's investigation, which continued into April 2019. So, this FBI investigation lasted three years -- from April 2016 to April 2019.
That three-year investigation turned to be such a waste of time that the new US Attorney General William Barr essentially had to order the DOJ to re-do the entire investigation honestly. This second DOJ investigation eventually was published as the Durham Report, which was published in May 2023.
In sum, the FBI's investigation of Trump's suspected collusion (with Russian Intelligence) in 2016 election lasted more than seven years. After all that time and effort, the DOJ could not present any evidence at all that any such collusion ever happened.
Now the DOJ is in a more urgent rush to present to the public its evidence of Trump's election interference. The DOJ knows that the 2024 primary elections will begin already on early 2024. Soon it might be too late for the DOJ to prevent Trump from running in those primary elections.
the real criminal is Joe Biden.
Dave Begley said...
What does the Fake News do when a MAGA mob surrounds the DC courthouse during Trump’s criminal trial? It happened during the George Floyd trial.
They DEMAND that they get sent to PRISON, for the rest of their lives. You Know That.
People (ALL PEOPLE) are required.. BY LAW to FULLY SUPPORT the deep state. You KNOW That
"Everything in the Deep State, nothing outside the Deep State, nothing against the Deep State." - Joe Biden
Antifa arson - A-OK!
"Where to cram them in before election day?"
Maybe they're saving them until after the election.
They're such terrorist scum. They are doing this to Trump precisely because it is absurd and unprecedented. They intend to show us all that the law is nothing but a rabid attack dog and they are holding the leash.
Then there's also the problem of Trump's other 3 criminal trials.
There’s never a lone gunman.
Have these guys ever been to Nuremberg, where plenty of German officials were prosecuted for their official acts?
The principle they are pushing does not exist.
But hey, no election interference by the DOJ, just a normal criminal trial of the leading presidential candidate in the months before the election.
Trump's lawyers argue, "During the 234 years from 1789 to 2023, no current or former President had ever been criminally prosecuted for official acts. That unbroken tradition died this year"
Trump's lawyers claim that it's been "tradition", not some magical immunity that prevents prosecution.
The official acts defense, don’t you have to be an officer to assert that defense?
all of this is leftist progressive Putin-esque harassment.
Such interminable agita during the season of Peace Love and Joy. People must be addicted to the burning pain from drinking their own bile. Martyrdom is Nirvana for the believers in the monotheistic jealous God of guilt and eternal damnation.
Oh the irony of it all. God is dead because Jesus murdered Allah by suicide. That's how he brought Joy to the World. He didn't die for our sins he died for Jehovah's sins. LOL
"Remember that it was our own government, through the CIA, and rich American political donors close to the current American regime, who ran those banana republics, so the case can be made that these tactics are as American as apple pie"
Boiled down: "Criminal acts by the state (abroad and at home) are as American as apple pie."
Yes.
Making the window even smaller, what about the DOJ 60 days before an election rule.
“The department has an unwritten practice, known as the 60-day rule, under which it traditionally avoids taking investigative steps close to an election that could influence how people vote. The idea is to avoid any appearance of abusing law enforcement power to affect democracy. Sep 27, 2022
It’s comedy gold all the way down.
What’s rich is; deflecting blame from the person who committed the act(s), which placed them in the courtroom in the first place.
Though I still don't know what Trump's crime was.
Of course, you do.
His crime was beating Hillary and surviving the impeachments planned before he took office.
“Have these guys ever been to Nuremberg…”
Trump is Hitler is a new big fat diamond 💎
gilbar wrote: "They DEMAND that they get sent to PRISON, for the rest of their lives. You Know That.
People (ALL PEOPLE) are required.. BY LAW to FULLY SUPPORT the deep state. You KNOW That
"Everything in the Deep State, nothing outside the Deep State, nothing against the Deep State."
I don’t know how you can combat this kind of delusion. It’s every reason the founding fathers were sceptical of democracy. It’s everything they feared.
Stare decisis, baby... fetus, is the Democratic apology to violate civil and human rights, until it's not.
Nuremberg trials set the precedent for prosecuting affirmative actions of diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry), mass abortion, Mengele dreams, ethnic Spring(s) without borders, redistributive change, political congruence
("="), class-disordered ideologies, and democratic/dictatorial (especially socialist)
politics.
A nutshell:
@JoyVBehar
·
Follow
Joe, the ballot box can’t compete with the third party candidates who will take votes from Joe Biden. And let us not forget the electoral college. The law must defeat him.
Mark said...
Have these guys ever been to Nuremberg, where plenty of German officials were prosecuted for their official acts?
The principle they are pushing does not exist.
********
War crimes are not protected "official acts."
And can you please tell us why Al Gore, then the Vice President, was not prosecuted for opposing certification of Florida's election? Was he acting as VP, or as a private citizen?
Mark writes, "Have these guys ever been to Nuremberg..."
Despair is no fun at all, is it Mark?
It's straight up "fascism" straight from the pages of Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism"
Nothing less. More and more people are starting to realize it. More and more people are calling, quite rightly, Brandon and his toadies and supporters by their proper name.
Fascists.
Holocaust denial used to be a horrible thing. Denialists were rightly reviled.
Now it is starting to become quite chic among the deep thinkerd and fascists.
I predict that I 24 we will see a shift to open support of fascism by liberal/progressive/left/Demmies.
The Atlantic will run articles "was fascism so bad? A reconsideation.
Will" national socialism" be far behind?
WaPo "was Hitler really just misunderstood?"
Or an op ed in the NYT "a new look at national socialism. This time we'll get it right"
John Henry
Mark said...
Have these guys ever been to Nuremberg, where plenty of German officials were prosecuted for their official acts?
The principle they are pushing does not exist.
I believe the Nuremberg defendants were prosecuted under international law for crimes against humanity, after we overthrew the German government by force.
Talk about insurrection!
The Democrats are also following the Red Queen's dictate of punishment first, trial after, in lawsuits attempting to remove Trump from ballots due to his guilt for an uncharged, untried, unconvicted "insurrection" based on the 14th Amendment.
So a win if they delay/damage his campaign, a win if they convict him on anything, a win if he isn't convicted and yet removed from ballots, a win if he isn't convicted, is not removed from ballots, and still has to carry the opprobrium of the charges into the election. What's not to like, from the Dem perspective. I just hope Joe's dementia doesn't progress so quickly that he can't stand trial himself after his term in office, because if Trump deserves jail for his actions, Biden deserves the jail to be dropped from on high onto his head.
Mark,
Nuremberg is not a good example.
A totally rigged kangaroo trial.
Churchill was against it on the grounds that they might get off.
When assured that the fix was in, he was still not happy. He thought it made mockery of the law. But he went along.
On second thought, perhaps Nuremberg is a great example
Perhaps not for the reasons you think, though.
John Henry
“The unbroken tradition of not exercising the supposed formidable power of criminally prosecuting a president for official acts — despite ample motive and opportunity to do so, over centuries — implies that the power does not exist,” ~ Trump attorney D. John Sauer
Imagine going to an appellate court and opening with a reminder of how your client was the most corrupt president in history.
But enough about biden,
Ed Meese is advancing the notion that Jack Smith is not authorized by statute to serve as Special Counsel. So a supposedly unauthorized lawyer is trying to wield unauthorized power over a former President, who just so happens to be running for that same office again.
I read the article by Steven Calabrese, Meese's assistant during his years as AG, over at The Volokh Conspiracy. It is based on their published critique of Robert Mueller, also illegally appointed, and is very persuasive. It appears Smith was illegally appointed by Garland and the Amicus Brief they filed with SCOTUS lists five key reasons Smith should be removed as a special prosecutor, the main one being he has a private citizen and the law requires a proper SP be appointed from the pool of nominated and Senate-approved US Attorneys. This was the same defect in Mueller's appointment. Prior service in such a role does not matter if, when appointed, one is not in a confirmed position of authority.
Interestingly, Calabrese thinks Trump did commit crimes for which he should be tried, but insists it be done in a Constitutionally sound way. Very few lefty lawyers who worked in Democrat admins are willing to break with the herd the way principled righties are. Calabrese in fact outlines how Smith can still pursue his crazy jihad against Trump once a proper SC is appointed, by the SC and AG then naming Smith an AUSA for the purposes of the special prosecution.
Of course by the time this plays out, or the SCOTUS gets and rules on a case that is relevant to Trump's battles it will be too late to stop him from winning the primary. And at the rate things are shifting to Trump's favor politically, especially once COSC is reversed for their poorly thought out ruling this week, Trump may be in a position to pardon himself. (Calabrese also recommends Joe Biden commute any sentence with a requirement Trump be confined to his two East coast resorts for 24 months with no access to the press or Internet.)
"They made sure to delay each of the trials until election year, but somehow that's not working out the way they planned."
Its almost January, the start of presidential primaries, and Trump is in the news with court cases, etc.
I think they'd like to convict before election day, but their next choice is to run against Trump, with all their money and donations flowing, and him spending only on lawyers...
So, its not a bad "loss" for them.
I mean I get it politically but it sounds too much like above the law.
This is specific to Official Acts committed while in office, so it is not above the law at all, it is to keep nuisance suits or crazy state AGs from prosecuting presidents or their executive team members for official acts. Congress has similar rules. Ditto State Executives. You can see how leftist lawfare went crazy pursuing Trump right now, based on the novel legal theory that somehow what Trump did by saying he thought Joe cheated, was not covered by this law, similar to the novel legal theory that somehow what Trump did by retaining documents in exactly the same manner as all his predecessors (who sought and received favorable rulings on this point from SCOTUS) somehow violated the Presidential Records Act which has no criminal enforcement mechanism at all. None. There are no penalties for keeping records even if the Archivist doesn't like it.
So really the argument is not that Trump is above the law, it is that he did what other Presidents did, but somehow those things are illegal this time. Which brings up a whole other legal complication that Trump was not "on notice" that and the law requires that breaking a law be done with intent to break a law. He always sought and obtained legal opinions from good lawyers for the very acts in question. How can his intent be to violate laws when the experts tell him what the law says and he follows that advice?
There HAVEN'T been a lot of opportunities in the past (let alone motive) to prosecute ex-presidents for alleged crimes they committed in office. The most obvious case that comes to mind is Nixon -- but Ford pardoned him for any crimes he may have committed in office.
You are guilty of ignoring we are all innocent until proven guilty. You gloss over the last 20 years of lawfare. Leftists twisting the law into a shape never dreamed possible. What is happening now is not the prosecution of any crime. All of the cases are specious. The process is the punishment.
Three states are going to remove Biden from the ballot, for insurrection, providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The case against Trump has so stretched the terms to ensnare Trump, they cover almost anyone.
The argument goes that Republicans will now retaliate. Problem being, I can't come up with a single conservative you could make AG that would so prostitute the law and the process, the way Holder are Garland do. Dems seem right, assuming they are safe from tit for tat prosecutions.
Rich farted: There is not a significant segment of the legal community that thinks that Trump's immunity arguments are good ones with the possible exception of Alina Habba
You have no citations to back that up* but we do have 240+ years of Presidents who have always won immunity challenges that were adjudicated. Like Jack Smith your argument rests solely on "but Trump!"
You should list all the lawyers right left and center who agree with you. Then we can judge if that is "significant" or not.
But you can't. And won't. You just talk out your ass.
*Even the tiny sentence of yours I quoted is factually wrong because Habba did not write or file that brief. You don't even read the source material Althouse provides much less the actual brief. The Guardian writes today (I added boldness), "In Saturday’s 55-page brief to the appeals court, Trump’s lawyer D John Sauer argued in essence that under the US constitution one branch of government cannot assert judgement over another."
You're just digging deeper Rich. Sauer said that previous Presidents actually committed crimes and were not prosecuted, implying a long tradition of not being a banana republic. His assertion is that Trump acting in his official capacity did NOT commit crimes. Maybe you should stop worrying about Trump and consider what will happen to Biden under the bribery statutes. Those are actual provable crimes on the books and there is no question his family was getting paid by foreign actors. The law doesn't even require the money to go to Joe.
Rich: "There is not a significant segment of the legal community that thinks that Trump's immunity arguments are good ones..."
What a compelling legal analysis that is! No true lawyer argument. About what I've come to expect from every Leftist commenter here: a rotating compendium of logical fallacies. Followed by the usual epithets: Fascist! Racist! White Supremacist!
Since there was no actual insurrection, there is nothing barring Trump from being convicted and still be able be elected and serve as president. Notwithstand what the Democrat-Communist allege if there wasn't an armed uprising there wasn't an insurrection. Notice how the DOJ prosecutes for other items such as interring with Congress but not for insurrection. Trump will be like Boston Mayor Curley holding office from a jail cell and the cell will be the White House. Once the left figures this out, Trump will probably be murdered as the last ditch effort to preserve their rice bowls.
What "corrupt" acts is our president emeritus accused of, rich?
John Henry
Imagine going to an appellate court and opening with a reminder of how your client was the most persecuted president in history.
FIFY
(I hope your molars survive the grinding)
Trump was so money hungry that he donated his salary to charity, as I recall. I bet that was because he couldn't cancel it, since it's set by Congress.
It's worth recalling what degree of investigation that Trump – the most corrupt President evah, according to Rich – has already withstood with flying colors: to wit, the Mueller investigation. Here's what it consisted of:
• Investigative team: 19 attorneys, all rabid political enemies of Trump, led (under Mueller) by Andrew Weissman, assisted by “about 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff.”
• Investigation timeframe: 22 months (675 days)
• Cost: some $34 million
• Report length: 448 pages (with redactions; redactions = 865)
• Requests to foreign governments for evidence: 13
• Pen registers: 50 monitoring orders authorized
• Communication records: more than 230 orders obtained
• Interviews: approximately 500 witnesses interviewed
• Search warrants: close to 500 executed
• Subpoenas: more than 2,800 issued
Results: nil as far as Trump was concerned, and practically everywhere else.
Yeah, sure – Trump's really really corrupt – NOT.
It didn’t happen in "234 years" because it wasn’t necessary. Trump and his lawyers can’t blame anybody except Trump.
Rich said...
"It didn’t happen in "234 years" because it wasn’t necessary. Trump and his lawyers can’t blame anybody except Trump."
You're a clown.
the presidential records act covers the miami case, the first amendment covers the dc case, same for the atlanta case, the ny case is just hokum
Though I still don't know what Trump's crime was.
He defeated Hillary. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Rich is eventually going to find there is a dog turd buried under all that horseshit he digs through, but by the time we know it for a fact, he will have disappeared like a fart in the wind.
Imagine going to an appellate court and opening with a reminder of how your client was the most corrupt president in history.
Imagine being so ignorant and dishonest to actually believe this.
Immunity for government officials is always morally hazardous. Yet our laws are so numerous, intricate, and ambiguous that we have arrived at a place at which everyone who exercises significant executive authority can plausibly be accused of criminality. I'm inclined to think we are better off granting immunity than twisting ourselves into knots.
Time to quit pretending. The criminal trials came before Trump's political game to avoid prosecution. BTW, there are at least three felony and three civil lawsuits presently on court dockets targeting Trump.
Oh, I am sorry. I forgot the Colorado case that deals with Trump being ineligible to run for political office because he committed an insurrection. And when Section 3 of the 14th Amendment gets underway, there are no court actions that can stop similar actions by most state election officials.
"Oh, I am sorry. I forgot the Colorado case that deals with Trump being ineligible to run for political office because he committed an insurrection."
You also forgot that it was never proven. Just a narrative you like to repeat endlessly until it is firmly cemented in your personal zeitgeist. What else have you been deluding yourself with for 80 odd years?
@ Rusty: Except that's not how law, or the US constitution, works. Quite right that the civil war fall-out was a motivating risk at that time but the framers chose - as is usual with fundamental laws - to encompass all future circumstances where proven insurrectionists might try to stand for office in future, including those they might not be able to anticipate precisely. Section 3 of the 14th is couched in wide terms and there are no words that confine it to a specific existing group. Clear words once enacted take precedence over any subjective intentions the original framers might have had.
Trump is not the victim of authoritarianism. He had his chance to stand for office, was duly elected and served. He chose to use that term to encourage an insurrection in which lives were predictably lost, and declined to order the National Guard to end it.
Rusty it appears Gadfly is merely pointing out the absurdities abundant among the various court actions against Trump and warning about letting the Section 3 genie out of the bottle. The democrats have finally found a path to unify America — against their insane pursuit of Trump without regard to what they are breaking along the way.
D's in sanctuary cities can round up immigrants 'trafficked' by R governors to send to DC courthouse vicinity to protest against Trump in favor of FJB
as American as apple pie 🥧.
=======
time to name American Pie =>> Banana Cream with slices o' Orange Man
Mike,
Hard to understand exactly what Gadfly means there- perhaps you are right, or perhaps you are wrong. Given who we are talking about, Gadfly would have to write less opaquely for me to apply your interpretation.
“On second thought, perhaps Nuremberg is a great example”
More so McArthur’s trials of Japanese war criminals. He let the kingpin Hirohito off free and left him as Emperor for political expediency so Japan would fall in line. It was the opposite of convicting Chavin to prevent the riots, except Hirohito was guilty. No one should be proud of our legal system.
An improvement would be to randomly select a fed district for important cases rather than sticking them all in DC. That is within the power of congress.
Fair enough. We do have his record to consider.
"proven insurrectionists"
This is where your argument falls apart.
Deal in facts. Not speculation. This is why you're taken seriously here.
not
Rich said...
Trump .... declined to order the National Guard to end it.
Always take whatever Rich (or any of the other sock puppets) says with a shaker full of salt.
Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Nicolas Moran gives a good description of why this statement is not accurate. While not specifically covering the DC Guard since it is somewhat unique in that DC is not a state, he does go over the command structure of active, reserve, and National Guard forces in considerable detail. In summary, the President has no authority to simply order National Guard units to do anything.
If you do listen to The Chieftain's YouTube, pay particular attention to the fact that Fedealized Guardsmen are subject to Posse Comitatus just like active duty soldiers. The prohibition follows the chain of command.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा