Here's the opinion. Excerpt:
The separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws. Although certain discretionary actions may be insulated from judicial review, the structure of the Constitution mandates that the President is “amenable to the laws for his conduct” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 166. Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment....
Even though it is proper under Marbury and its progeny for an Article III court to hear criminal charges brought against a former President, we “necessarily” must “weigh[] concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government,” including our “constitutional heritage and structure.”... [T]he interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.... The Executive Branch’s interest in upholding Presidential elections and vesting power in a new President under the Constitution and the voters’ interest in democratically selecting their President... compel the conclusion that former President Trump is not immune....
पोस्ट्स
९७ टिप्पण्या:
A shocking decision.
Good. So now we can go after Obama for killing an American citizen! Be careful what you wish for Progressives....things are going to bite you in the asses that you are letting happen today.
Unanimous ruling…. As an FYI, neither the full court of appeals nor SCOTUS need to take up an appeal, and I suspect they won't. A democracy is obliged to prosecute apparent wrongdoing by politicians and private citizens alike.
resident Biden is still immune though, right?
i mean, for the bribes he took as a resident?
and the bribes he took as a former Vice President?
and the bribes he took (and delivered) WHILE Vice President?
and the bribes he took as a Senator?
I mean.. Laws and Rules are for republicans to follow, and democrats to use to persecute.. Right?
...interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation...
Or this particular appeals court actually appreciates the "vexatious litigation" because Trump.
Three women - two appointed by Biden - voted against Trump. Shocking indeed.
A meh decision in a meh place by meh people for everyone who already knew the meh outcome.
Meh.
Pandora's Box opened.
I'd like Ann's take on whether SCOTUS accepts cert. I say yes. It has to.
The short version of the ruling is that it is better to burn down the President’s ability to do his job rather than let Trump go. The force of prosecutors in every jurisdiction are now the fourth branch of government. Now we can charge Obama for murdering the 16 year old us citizen drone victim. No, it somehow won’t apply to Democrats.
A shocking decision.
Yes, real shocking. Who could have seen it coming? I mean, after all the bad and overly broad arguments put forth by Trump, and the whole idea that he was basically claiming to be above the law, who would have thought they would be rejected?
The Walls are closing in.
Here's the opinion: "We hate Trump. We love Biden and the deep-state fascists who really run the country."
That's actually what they wrote; you can look it up!
When Trump is elected, I assume the DOJ will be indicting Obama for killing an American citizen without a warrant via drone.
Right?
Right?
Yea a 'panel'... no doubt hand picked to give that result...
So the Obama criminal trial should start now.
A triggering decision. It's funny seeing how so many people of all stripes thinks this is somehow meaningful. Bread is expensive, so the circuses are even more spectacular than ever.
A democracy is obliged to prosecute apparent wrongdoing by politicians and private citizens alike.
LOL from the party of Soros District Attorneys and decriminalizing theft, that's pretty damn funny. At least Trump won't be flipping the bird to reporters like the illegal aliens Bragg let out in NYC.
Seems like the right result. I think the philosophical case for immunity for elected officials is stronger than for mere civil servants like policemen or prosecutors, but in the modern world, none of them should be able to enjoy broad immunity from liability by cloaking their discretionary actions in the guise of officialdom.
Obama is the #1 target for using the fbi to spy on trump and framing an innocent man Mike Flynn as a Russian asset
#crossfirehurricane
I think this is a correct decision.
To me, if flows from Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (no immunity from civil litigation for acts committed prior to the presidency) and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (while there is absolute immunity from civil litigation based on official acts, there is no immunity from criminal acts [my read]).
And I agree with Mr. Begley, the Supreme Court must finally address this.
I agree with the ruling, I only wish they had some credibility so that people could rely on them to do the right thing by the American people instead of the right thing by the Democratic Party.
But they made their choices, and here we are...
Good. So now we can go after Obama for killing an American citizen! Be careful what you wish for Progressives....things are going to bite you in the asses that you are letting happen today.
So you believe the president is immune from prosecution for any crimes committed in office? For instance if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue?
Now we can charge Obama for murdering the 16 year old us citizen drone victim. No, it somehow won’t apply to Democrats.
Oh, the hypocrisy here. I was one of the few voices on this forum that found Obama targeting U.S. citizens with drone strikes (actually I thought the entire program was bad, regardless of the citizenship of the victims). Almost everyone else here thought it was wonderful.
Mark said...
"A shocking decision."
Yes, real shocking.
Humperdink was being sarcastic. A DC court decides against a Republican in a politically charged case? Nobody's shocked.
MadisonMan said...The Walls are closing in.
Ever closing, never closed.
The conservative thing is for the supremes not to make precedent. Right?
How do you not make precedent in this case?
Up until now, restraint held everything together.
What happens when we do away with that?
So does this mean that Obama can be indicted for murdering that 16 year old American citizen as he sat peacefully drinking his coffee? Granted, it was in a cafe in Yemen and we thought his father might be a terrorist so we droned him too.
But still, the boy was killed without even an accusation of doing anything illegal in or outside of the US.
What does Obama not have to answer for this murder?
The drone operator and others in the chain as well.
Or is it only President Trump that has no immunity?
Obama also threatened to drone other innocent Americans as well. The Jonas Brothers for one. Does that violate any laws that he can be called to account for?
John Henry
So does this mean that Obama can be indicted for murdering that 16 year old American citizen as he sat peacefully drinking his coffee? Granted, it was in a cafe in Yemen and we thought his father might be a terrorist so we droned him too.
But still, the boy was killed without even an accusation of doing anything illegal in or outside of the US.
What does Obama not have to answer for this murder?
The drone operator and others in the chain as well.
Or is it only President Trump that has no immunity?
Obama also threatened to drone other innocent Americans as well. The Jonas Brothers for one. Does that violate any laws that he can be called to account for?
John Henry
If one were trying to prove innocence, they would not go exploring every possible avenue to be immune from prosecution.
I see I am not the first to recall the murdered 16 year old.
I am glad I am not alone in seeing it as a crime.
John Henry
since, at this stage, it's only a belief a crime was committed, remember a grand jury doesn't decide guilt, it really does open the door for prosecution of each president as soon as they leave office.
the entertainment never ceases.
The one fatal flaw in the entire prosecution is addressed at the very end in footnote 16, quoted in its entirety below. I believe this is how the case will be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Footnote 16:
Amici former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and others argue that the appointment of Special Counsel Smith is invalid because (1) no statute authorizes the position Smith occupies and (2) the Special Counsel is a principal officer who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (Appointments Clause). On appeal from a collateral order, we generally lack jurisdiction to consider issues that do not independently satisfy the collateral order doctrine unless we can exercise pendent jurisdiction over the issue. See Abney, 431 U.S. at 663; Azima v. RAK Inv. Auth., 926 F.3d 870, 874 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Because the Appointments Clause issue was neither presented to nor decided by the district court, there is no order on the issue that could even arguably constitute a collateral order for us to review. Additionally, the exercise of pendent jurisdiction would be improper here, assuming without deciding that pendent jurisdiction is ever available in criminal appeals. See Abney, 431 U.S. at 663; Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
The oral argument made clear to me that Trump couldn't carve out a zone of immunity that would still prohibit a President from persecution or even killing of political opponents in the guise of national security.
This wasn't an easy issue, despite the animus toward Trump.
Judicial equity means that even kangaroos get jobs.
The Democrat chilling effect.
"Bread is expensive, so the circuses are even more spectacular than ever."
Why is bread expensive, along with everything else?
Jobs numbers are good until they are revised down the next month.
I can't complain, my portfolio is doing great, but most people are struggling...
"So you believe the president is immune from prosecution for any crimes committed in office? For instance if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue?"
You're a child. Only a child would make this argument.
But if the moon really was made of cheese...
No president, let alone Trump, would go on a crime spree upon election.
Stupid argument from a slow mind.
"The rally headlined by President Trump resulted in a march of thousands to the Capitol and the violent breach of the Capitol Building."
The march of thousands to the Capitol Building was a result of the rally. As far as I know it has not been finally adjudicated that the violent breach of the Capitol Building was a result of the rally.
There is considerable evidence to the contrary.
'Obama also threatened to drone other innocent Americans as well. The Jonas Brothers for one.'
For two?
Either way, I'd give him a pass for droning the Jonas brothers...
So under Trump’s theory Biden could dispatch assassins to Mar-A-Lago and take out Trump and there would be no recourse?
“ If one were trying to prove innocence, they would not go exploring every possible avenue to be immune from prosecution.”
One does not have to “prove innocence.”
But I expect no less from you.
- Rafe
Even if SCOTUS reverses the ruling, don’t feel bad for democrats, they can always get some benefit by saying a Thomas is an asshole.
"If one were trying to prove innocence, they would be operating under Napoleonic Law not American."
There Rich, FIFY.
Another bad day in the courts for our former president.
Justice Arthur F. Engoron asked for both sides to respond to the news that former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg is secretly negotiating a guilty plea with another law enforcement agency: the Manhattan District Attorney.
“As the presiding magistrate, the trier of fact, and the judge of credibility, I, of course, want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial,” Engoron wrote. I also may use this as a basis to invoke falsus in uno,” the judge wrote, referencing the maxim “false in one thing, false in everything.”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the DC Circuit upheld Judge Chutkan's immunity decision. For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.
So, we're going to let Biden jail his political opponent under Bogus charges, and decide which Republican can run against him.
Brilliant. What "Democracy".
Trump had a COMPLETELY fair trial, 2 Biden supporters both on record as hating Trump, and a 79 year old female GHW Bush Appointee who's been on the DC ciruit for 33 years. LOL!
And the "gosh, that's sorta somewhat bad" response from Republicans to this outrage, just shows this country is finished. Hope you like your Democrat Party dictatorship. If it ends up hurting you personally (we know you don't care about anyone else)
...too bad, so sad.
So, we're going to let Biden jail his political opponent under Bogus charges, and decide which Republican can run against him.
Brilliant. What "Democracy".
Trump had a COMPLETELY fair trial, 2 Biden supporters both on record as hating Trump, and a 79 year old female GHW Bush Appointee who's been on the DC ciruit for 33 years. LOL!
And the "gosh, that's sorta somewhat bad" response from Republicans to this outrage, just shows this country is finished. Hope you like your Democrat Party dictatorship. If it ends up hurting you personally (we know you don't care about anyone else)
...too bad, so sad.
"No, it somehow won’t apply to Democrats."
Does it ever?
- D's firebomb a police station? Good to go.
- R's peacefully walk through the capitol? Spend years in prison without a trial.
Same as it ever was.
Forget the civilian Obama droned, if this is the way of the future then every lethal use of military force by the President without proper authorization by Congress will become a murder case.
For example, our current bombing campaign in Yemen.
I had an old friend who used to say, "Make sure you have a note." By which he meant, make sure you have the authority to perform the actions you do. Otherwise, any criticism of your actions will begin with, "You were not allowed to do that." And go downhill from there, with a lasting presumption of guilt, after having been found to have started wrong from the get-go.
The laws and uses and abuses of FISA warrants, presidential findings, covert action authorizations and other types of legal authorizations to perform otherwise illegal acts have now grown so very broad as to cover just about any act a president wants to take. As long as he or she has a note.
"Although certain discretionary actions may be insulated from judicial review, the structure of the Constitution mandates that the President is “amenable to the laws for his conduct” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 166."
Wouldn't this make Joe Biden's flaunting of border protection laws actionable?
No president, let alone Trump, would go on a crime spree upon election.
If he has complete immunity, why couldn't he? The world is full of examples of leaders who were elected (some legitimately, some not) who went on crime sprees after they were elected.
There is considerable evidence to the contrary.
Isn't that what the criminal justice system is for? To weigh the evidence and try and discover whether or not a crime has been committed. If someone has "absolute immunity", how can he or she be held accountable for crimes?
You're a child. Only a child would make this argument.
Gee, that is a stupid hypothetical. I wonder where I got it from.
The DC Courts should be renamed the DNC Courts.
Isn't insurrection considered a high crime and/or misdemeanor, for which Trump has been tried once?
Eric Erickson says the text of the decision doesn’t call Trump an insurrectionist.
Whatever that means.
LLR-democratical: "Rich said...
Unanimous ruling…. As an FYI, neither the full court of appeals nor SCOTUS need to take up an appeal, and I suspect they won't."
LOL
Shipwreckedcrew sums it up nicely:
"You read it here first: At least 4 SCOTUS justices will not allow the final word on the “public policy” considerations of allowing a POTUS to be criminally prosecuted after leaving office to rest with the words of two Appellate Judges each with only 18 months on the Court, and the Judge older than any of the 9 SCOTUS Justices - when none would put their name on the opinion.
Take that to the bank"
Joe Smith said...
'Either way, I'd give [Obama] a pass for droning the Jonas brothers...’
Throw in a Kathy Griffin, and you got yourself a deal…
See? Bipartisanship works!
Impressive to see Federal Judges with lifetime appointments stay fully committed to the DC uniparty BS. Loyalty like that seldom seen outside of Organized Crime. Hmmm?
the countless hours wasted reading about how the Nazi party came to be.
Its a lot easier in real time.
Mal said...
Three women - two appointed by Biden - voted against Trump. Shocking indeed.
Judge Henderson was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and elevated to the DC Circuit by George H.W. Bush.
The documented ruling was a per curiam decision, unanimous with no individual signatures which indicates that all three judges agreed without dissent. The details ruled upon would indicate that competent judges, not political judges, made this ruling. So we will soon see if we truly have "originists" among the Supreme Court's conservative majority, who would not hear this case. It takes five to tango and four or less to continue the trial.
The big problem I see with this indictment is that it purports to criminalize (a) lies that were not under oath, (b) efforts to pressure/persuade/lobby government officials to do things that they allegedly were not empowered to do, and (c) protected First Amendment activities like encouraging people to engage in a peaceful protest. The problems with "(c)" are obvious, but I would note that Trump was acquitted by the Senate of this supposed "crime."
As for "(a)," it would open the door for any state to try to regulate what a president can do through lawfare. Example: What would stop a Texas or Alabama D.A. from prosecuting Obama for trying to get Congress to pass the ACA based on false promises about people being allowed to keep their doctors? Such a claim could be dressed up to allege that Obama had gone on TV or made phone calls trying to drum up support for Obamacare based on "sham" claims about the effect it would have on insurance rates and coverage. If O raised campaign money on the basis of such claims, that too could be included in the indictment. The fact is, Trump is being charged here because his political opponents hate him and his policies, not because he committed what anyone previously would recognize as CRIMINAL misconduct. (Lying NOT under oath is generally NOT criminal, as everyone knows and understands.) The hypotheticals about a president shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is silly because everyone knows MURDER is against the law.
As for "(b)," if Trump didn't BRIBE an official to take some official action, I don't see how what he did in talking to the Georgia people, for example, can be considered criminal. Petitioning the government is a constitutionally protected activity. Again, to try to make it criminal here - just in this one case -- on the theory that Trump's requests were based on lies or "shams" would have quite a chilling effect on everyone's right to petition the government. By the same token, if the mere fact that the government official doesn't have the legal authority to do what a citizen is asking is what supposedly makes it criminal -- well that probably happens all the time. Unless the citizen is offering a bribe (again, a recognized form of criminal misconduct), the government official just has to say "no" (like Pence did). It can't be a CRIME simply to ask for something that you're not entitled to.
Expected given the panel. There will be a en banc motion, etc., etc.
Today, there is no better reason to criminally prosecute a president than Biden's refusal to enforce clearly lawful immigration laws from his first day in office, all in order to hold Congress hostage to public outrage until Congress passed immigration laws the left deems acceptable. Biden's numerous acts undeniably opened our country to an invasion, a clearly treasonous act.
Well, should today's DC Circuit decision stand after review, AGs will be free to file charges against Biden. Ken Paxton, for one, would be first to the courthouse.
Interestingly, the Senate immigration/Ukraine handout bill (DOA?) contains a provision giving the president the power to re-open the border if that bill's emergency border-closure provision is triggered. Well, what better way to bless Biden's refusal to maintain our border and give him a defense to allegations of treason than a new law that gives a president the power to re-open our border completely. Who would convict a president for just being prescient regarding immigration policy? WHY, HE'S AN EFFING GENIUS! There are lowlife snakes, and then there are the horribly contemptible snakes that reside in Congress.
If Hilary or Obama were being prosecuted everyone on this thread would be cheering and you know it. Fuck this whole stupid system. Fuck Democrats. Fuck Republicans. Fuck whatever system causes you people to circle the wagons for your own sketchy dipshits. The first party that starts to hold their own accountable will earn my respect (if not my vote).
TL;DR Get fucked. You don't get to chant "Lock Her Up!" and then cry like little babies when your Big Baby is on the business end of your partisan prosecutions. Just like Democrats don't get to cry when impeachment is turned against them. It works both ways. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No sympathy from me.
And before wishing Trump good riddance on his way to jail, the per curiam decision predicated its ruling assuming that Trump was acting outside his presidential duties. Good luck with that one....
Quelle surprise, eh comrades?
"If he has complete immunity, why couldn't he? The world is full of examples of leaders who were elected (some legitimately, some not) who went on crime sprees after they were elected."
Like Stalin? 20M dead (communist...on your side)
Hitler? 12M dead (socialist...on your side)
Pol Pot? 2M dead (communist...on your side)
Mao? 40M dead (communist...on your side)
That's 74M people your side has killed in just the past 100 years. The right-wingers you can name are small potatoes in comparison.
You are a democrat or worse, therefor your arguments (as stupid as they are) are irrelevant.
Leave this to the adults who don't hate America.
Henderson is the perfect example of why we need term limits for Judges. This old fart was nominated to the federal bench in 1986. She's spent the last 47 years as a judge. Good God. The only people who hang on that long are usually power mad libtards and cat ladies.
BTW, what is it about libtards and the cowardice in not putting their names on their opinions. First the Colorado libtards and now these three.
Henderson is the perfect example of why we need term limits for Judges. This old fart was nominated to the federal bench in 1986. She's spent the last 47 years as a judge. Good God. The only people who hang on that long are usually power mad libtards and cat ladies.
BTW, what is it about libtards and the cowardice in not putting their names on their opinions. First the Colorado libtards and now these three.
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1754966341142896996
“So under Trump’s theory Biden could dispatch assassins to Mar-A-Lago and take out Trump and there would be no recourse?”
The recourse is impeachment, the President has awesome powers to deal with impossible situations, the founders understood this. Kennedy sent assassins to try to kill Castro, clearly illegal by statute, but JFK claimed it was necessary, do we elect a prosecutorial president to argue over what we elected the real president to do?
The problem here is that the DOJ of a future president, Beiden, is in charge of reviewing the deeds of an ex president that prosecutor/president Beiden has called a sick fuck. How should you mitigate the conflict of interest. Immunity is the only system that will work, if your goal is to have a functioning nation. Lack of immunity is a child’s paradise.
In the comments above, VPSulik highlights ftnt 16, appearing at the end of the opinion, in which the Court explained its refusal to consider whether the special prosecutor (Jack Smith) was ever properly appointed under the Constitution. The Court says, in substance, that there was no order below addressing the issue and thus there was nothing for the appellate court to review under any version of the collateral order doctrine. But before the Court can address any substantive issue in the case, it must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to do so. Whether Smith was properly appointed raises a classic threshold standing issue that questions the existence of federal jurisdiction -- basically, the argument is that Smith has no more standing to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction to prosecute Trump for alleged crimes than any other citizen. Standing issues routinely challenge whether the person asserting a claim has the legal right to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction to decide it, and standing is an essential element needed to establish the required 'case or controversy' for purposes of Article III. The issue is raised here in an odd procedural posture since it is the appellee (Jack Smith) who is alleged to lack standing even to prosecute the claims asserted against Trump.
This issue isn't going away, and will be a tricky one to answer when/if Trump raises it (at this stage it is only raised in an amicus brief by former AG Edwin Meese and others). The SCOTUS has been open to these arguments, questioning whether various federal officials were properly appointed under the Constitution's appointments clause, and if not, what happens next.
Stay tuned -- there's a long way to go before this is over.
Rich said...
If one were trying to prove innocence, they would not go exploring . . .
Silly me. I always thought the Constitution of the United States demands the Government Prosecutors PROVE a persons guilt. The accused is already innocent.
"Throw in a Kathy Griffin, and you got yourself a deal…"
Are you sure? That would mean not getting to see her groveling in an attempt to get suckers to buy tickets to her shows anymore.
Obama celebrated albinophobia that should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
Rocco said...
Joe Smith said...
'Either way, I'd give [Obama] a pass for droning the Jonas brothers...’
Throw in a Kathy Griffin, and you got yourself a deal…
See? Bipartisanship works!
rehajm spits pint...creating cleanup opportunity.
Much as it pains me to be in at least ostensible agreement with the likes of Mark and That's Rich, I have to agree that federal officers already have altogether too much immunity for actions that would be criminal if second-tier citizens committed them. It was thoughtful of the Court to make reference to the problem of vexatious litigation. Apparently, like Potter Stewart, they know it when they see it.
It is also at least possible that they look forward to the coming opportunity to be among the first American jurists to grapple with the issues attendant upon an imprisoned insurrectionist being elected President.
John henry said...
“I see I am not the first to recall the murdered 16 year old. I am glad I am not alone in seeing it as a crime.”
At least the Mafia would make sure the target’s family was not injured in a hit (unless said family member was complicit).
It is rather remarkable, when you stop to take notice, how large a fraction of national leaders have spent time in prison.
“Shipwreckedcrew sums it up nicely…”
The Legendary Size 16 Florsheim Up Patterico’s Ass! Take it to the bank!
"I think the philosophical case for immunity for elected officials is stronger than for mere civil servants like policemen or prosecutors, but in the modern world, none of them should be able to enjoy broad immunity from liability by cloaking their discretionary actions in the guise of officialdom."
Indeed. But this raises the question, is it possible for an action that would not be illegal if a private citizen performed it -- say, giving a political speech -- to be criminal because it was performed by the President? Were it to constitute an abuse of his Presidential powers, that would be one thing. But suppose he had brought along one of those annoying idiots who stand next to an elected Democrat and "translate" his lies into sign language. Would that person be guilty of "insurrection"?
Don't worry guys he won't suffer the same fate as the Teflon Don.
It's sad that we've gotten to the point where one of the most basic aspects of civilized society -- holding the powerful accountable -- requires affirmation by a court.
The opinion must assume the Indictment is true. It must assume all the post election actions by Trump and his lawyers were done in bad faith — that they KNEW every claim they made was FALSE — not exaggerated, not unproven, not impossible to prove, but FALSE. No ethical prosecutor would file this case absent a recording of coconspirators openly acknowledging the fraud. Jack Smith doesn’t have that. He has a case he can’t win before an unbiased jury. He filed it anyway for political reasons. A biased DC jury will convict. We have gone 250 years without court decisions on this subject because responsible prosecutors avoided the problem. Don’t blame the courts. Don’t blame Trump. Blame Biden, blame Merrick Garland, and blame Jack Smith.
G-Pub
gadfly didn't mention in his comment when we can expect to see Hillary prosecuted for trying to reverse her election loss in 2016. I remember not just the Russia Hoax but attempts to enlist "faithless electors" into changing their vote.
Everything is working towards the timetable, which contradicts due process.
rhhardin said...
"Everything is working towards the timetable, which contradicts due process."
Where exactly has anyone been denied due process?
"nominated to the federal bench in 1986. She's spent the last 47 years as a judge. Good God. The only people who hang on that long are usually power mad"
Clarence Thomas, 43 years on the bench.
Sure, let's get rid of them.
If one were trying to prove innocence...
Good lord. You can't possibly be that thick.
Iowa2 wrote: “The accused is already innocent”
"You're gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent.” ~ Red
After Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977 he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court case where the dictum stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt. No need for Nixon to have accepted the pardon, and no need for Ford to have offered it (which ruined his chances of re-election) if there was no prospect of a prosecution of a former President for alleged criminal activity which took place while he was in office. There is nothing very new here. Just Trump playing for time.
SCOTUS, when it gets the appeal, probably should do the country a favor and schedule for a hearing next December.
Trump has only one card left: the voters. If he doesn’t win he will go to prison, the left will celebrate for years, and the country will never recover.
I was an adult for Nixon's resignation and Ford's pardon. No one seriously talked about Nixon being immune from prosecution, as I recall. The fraternity of presidents can protect one another from unwarranted prosecutions going forward. I actually doubt Trump would try to prosecute any of his predecessors if inaugurated. Remember how he praised Mrs. Clinton at the inaugural luncheon in 2017? And if he did try there would be massive resistance at DOJ, as there was to Trump after the 2020 election.
Hey, democrats been doing it for centuries now. They've simply become more inclusive. Been doin it to minorities, now have broadened their oppression to include half of Americans.
A favorable decision for Trump was never in the cards. It was Trump's PR operation that greatly exaggerated the import of this appeal, which was always almost specious in nature. Trump was trying, and succeeding, at creating PR momentum to the notion that the prosecution was some sort of extra-legal vendetta by a politicized Biden administration, the idea that the actual act of prosecution proved his innocence. His claim is always that the facts are false and the application of the law irregular — that he has unfairly been singled out.
The appeal and the appeals court judgment does show the contours of what will be a high drama for the remainder of this year and into the next — the clash between Trump's PR campaign of aggrievement and innocence against the stately progression of fact and substance through the judicial process to judgment by a jury on the facts and law. The judicial system is purposely designed to move indicted individuals to trial and judgment. Now with Trump, one contest is being conducted outside the courtroom, the other inside it. It is very hard ever seeing a judicial body defer to opinions powered from outside the courtroom since the original intent of establishing courts and courtrooms was to move judgments from the streets to adjudication by legislatively created law impartially administered.
Trump wants to be elected by the street and then only held accountable by the street and only answerable to the street — never to a constitutional institution (those only exist to be gamed).
Trump's position has always been absurdist.
"It's sad that we've gotten to the point where one of the most basic aspects of civilized society -- holding the powerful accountable -- requires affirmation by a court."
Simple people believe in simple homilies.
Childish people would get rid of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Delta Force, all. "But they violate the statutes!" Then have reliable confidential supervision by a President who can act in the interests of the nation without being ankle bitten by the prosecutorial fleas.
TRUMP HAS SECRET DOCUMENTS! Under a no immunity system every top secret document or war plan could be viewed by the Soros DA of say, Los Angeles on demand to find out if the old Prez was slipping one up the County's wazzoo.
Security of American Citizens would be impossible. "Yeroner, we need to know the nuclear launch codes because the phrasing may violate California hate speech law!"
In the US Federal system we bet our ass on the president, if he is going to sell us out, that is our fault for voting him in, that may be why Jefferson said that now and then rebellion is good.
That is why the eligible citizens of the US should be unrestricted in whom they may vote for, no ballot restrictions at all. We are free. Free to win or loose our freedom as we wish, either under the system we have or the next system we create.
With God as my witness, I will always be hungry for freedom. Cue intermission.
Butkus51 said...
the countless hours wasted reading about how the Nazi party came to be.
Its a lot easier in real time.
2/6/24, 1:50 PM
THIS^^^^
rcocean: Math is hard.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा