Rick Hasen asks and speculates at Election Law Blog.
Hasen quotes the Supreme Court's order:
The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
The new episode of the Advisory Opinions podcast begins with a discussion of the cert grant, and co-host David French observes that the motion for a stay would have required the Court to opine on the likelihood of success on the merits. The Court avoided that by granting cert.
The request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari came from Special Counsel and reflects the interest in speeding things up. The Court granted that request, but those who want speed wanted the cert grant denied. Now that cert is granted, the speed demons criticize any taking of time. The Court should be neutral and at least has self-interest in appearing neutral. It shouldn't be for or against speed — rushing or dragging its heels.
IN THE COMMENTS: Kevin surprises me with "Rushing or dragging? That cannot be allowed":
ALSO: Commenter Sebastian quotes "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy..." and percipiently asks, "Althouse! Do you approve of this sentence?"
Answer: No, now that you mention it.
You can't write "Whether does a former President enjoy" and inserting "and if so to what extent" doesn't change that. I'll repunctuate to make it obvious: "Whether — and if so to what extent — does a former President enjoy...." That's an especially important sentence, the question for review! Don't have a grammatical error in it. I think it happened because of a desire to begin with "Whether" and to make it seem like only one question.
পোস্টগুলি
১০১টি মন্তব্য:
This case will be decided on the very last day of the term. And Trump will win.
Why? Look how SCOTUS framed the issue. Is POTUS immune for official acts? Of course he is!
There is no fact record in this case. All we have are pleadings. As I recall, Smith indicted Trump for a speech he gave while he was President. He told citizens to peacefully protest and to exercise their right to petition the government for grievances.
But I have changed my mine on one thing. Our Bastille Moment will be when the Left breaks into the Supreme Court and burns it down; or at least set fire to everything that is flammable. Leading the rioters will be Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow.
Begley with another fever dream, accusing the other side of imaginary future crimes as he is unable to look at what his own side has and is doing.
At least he is not pretending to oppose lawfare anymore.
SCOTUS took it up because Trump is now the GOP nominee and this issue is critical. Can a President govern if he is not immune from prosecution? Immunity is a concept not from the Constitution but from the courts. IT also pertains to Biden , Obama etc. If we now decide to prosecute Presidents for their actions while President then the floodgates open.
Trump did not go down this road, Biden and his DOJ did.
But I have changed my mine on one thing. Our Bastille Moment will be when the Left breaks into the Supreme Court and burns it down; or at least set fire to everything that is flammable. Leading the rioters will be Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow.
Otherwise known as fiery, but mostly peaceful protests. Definitely in keeping with the advice of Yogi Berra, the baseball great, "sometimes people just need to be given room to destroy."
Why is this even a case? Can we look forward to Obama being prosecuted for both using government resources to spy on an opposition campaign and asking foreign governments to do the same? Why is it taking so long to prosecute Obama for crimes committed in 2016?
They needed an extra day to consider the premise?
Happy leap year!
Aha! Peaceful Protest redefined by MSM is flaming federal buildings.
See also: ANTIFA.
It shouldn't be for or against speed — rushing or dragging its heels.
Rushing or dragging? That cannot be allowed.
Mark said...
"Begley with another fever dream, accusing the other side of imaginary future crimes as he is unable to look at what his own side has and is doing.
At least he is not pretending to oppose lawfare anymore."
Hey. It's what you guys wanted. You invented lawfare. Anybody can play, right?
It's playing out how it's going to do. I'm sure anybody and everybody can spin it to their own psychological advantage. I think this is one way people avoid going to therapy.
Don’t you all remember the video of the Left pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court building?
The Left will go completely insane - and violent - if Trump wins this case.
The way you stop lawfare election interference is by stopping lawfare election interference.
Mark said...
Begley with another fever dream, accusing the other side of imaginary future crimes as he is unable to look at what his own side has and is doing.
At least he is not pretending to oppose lawfare anymore.
2/29/24, 6:41 AM
I guess you slept though Occupy WallStreet, and the Summer of Love in 2020.
"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy . . ."
Althouse! Do you approve of this sentence?
SCOTUS is busy- is there anything suggesting the case is working through the courts at a rate different than other cases? My observation is no. The whining is coming from lawfare advocates who are upset SCOTUS is messing with the schedule coordinated with what- a dozen different corrupt jurisdictions?
Makes me wonder what else they can coordinate with such precision over multiple venues…
Leland said...
Why is this even a case? Can we look forward to Obama being prosecuted for both using government resources to spy on an opposition campaign and asking foreign governments to do the same? Why is it taking so long to prosecute Obama for crimes committed in 2016?
2/29/24, 7:05 AM
THIS....^^^^^ and it is common knowledge now that Obama DID spy on Trump before he was elected.
On the wall in the lawfare war room there is an intersection on the flow chart at this SCOTUS decision. Not knowing upsets the direction and the schedule…
Begley with another fever dream...
...that is so much more imaginative and far less boring than the same old recycled "Trump the destroyer of democracy" and reality averse "insurrectionist" slur and extremely played out "Russia Russia Russia" bullshit conspiracy theories your side tell each other over and over. I know the oral tradition of myth-telling is strong amongst primitive tribes like Progressives, but really, y'all need some new material.
Begley's prognostications would stand up well in comparison to all the "predictions" Progressive media have aired regarding Trump since 2015. Your record of 100% failure will take several years, maybe even decades, of better results to just get to a .150 batting average. Sad sub-AAA stats. Do better.
Lawfare and trench warfare work both ways.
The Supreme Court has 6 Republican appointees. Do the math.
It's a hugely significant issue, and it ought to have been heard on the normal cert. calendar, next year. The very fact that they're expediting it is a gift to Smith's insistence on going to trial before the election.
The scenario that the Trump side has not considered is the trial being delayed until after Trump loses the election and then being conducted in accordance with the guidelines set down by the Supreme Court. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
“The scenario that the Trump side has not considered is the trial being delayed until after Trump loses the election and then being conducted in accordance with the guidelines set down by the Supreme Court. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.”
And how is that going to happen? They just found 100k fraudulent voter registrations in MI for 2020. Are the Dems going to do 200k this time? 300k? Do you really think that your side can effectively double or maybe even triple, your cheating this time, with nobody noticing or doing something about it?
that bogus anti-American - Soviet 350 million judgement against Trump for a non-crime, might have opened some Supreme Court eyes.
Hey @althouse - Did you ever feel like this?
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F87ab98c1-d02c-4fe4-92a8-e63606a08410_866x900.jpeg?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Billions in property damage from Antifa... over the CIA/Media rage operation using George Floyd.
The Supreme Court is correct to take this case.
The idea that a President should forever be immune from all of his actions is unAmerican. Does this mean Biden should get off scott free if he were to send a hit team out to take out Trump?
There are two cases this term that impact Trump. In a correct world he would win the Colorado case 9-0 and lose the immunity case 9-0.
Why did the corrupt left wait until 2023 for all of these lawsuits against Trump?
TIMING.
RH for the win.
Watching the left lose their minds over this is very telling.
"The way you stop lawfare election interference is by stopping lawfare election interference."
-rh
worth a nice hearty repeat.
As I understand it, this is fast. (Fraudulent) Special Counsel Smith was trying to skip past the DC Circuit. The Supreme Court wasn’t going to play this game. He wanted March trial dates for both of his cases, in order to interfere maximally with Super Tuesday. That wasn’t a compelling reason for skipping the Circuit Court level, esp since his motivation was so transparent. Now we have a (poorly reasoned) adverse Circuit Court decision, and the next normal step is often a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. This was granted yesterday on an expedited basis.
For those upset about the delays, ask yourself why you are upset? Was it because the trials, if later, would not have as much effect on the Nov elections? Wouldn’t that be an admission that the purpose of the trials was to interfere with the election this year?
Keep this in mind - Smith is a Special or Independent Counsel in name only. He is not the least bit independent of the WH. One of the motions filed last weekend against his prosecution of the FL case was that he was not Constitutionally empowered to independently prosecute cases, because he is not a Senate confirmed Principal Officer under the Constitution. All special counsels, except for Mueller and Smith, have been US Attorneys, who are Senate confirmed. Smith was appointed by AG Garland, and absent Senate confirmation, at best is an employee reporting directly to AG Garland, 7th in line of succession to the Presidency, and 4th in seniority in FJB’s Cabinet. Smith reports directly to Garland, who reports directly to FJB. It is, very clearly, prosecutions of FJB’s primary political opponent, by his AG, in an election year, for essentially made up crimes.
2024 will be the Summer of Blood.
The Supreme Court Torching will be followed by riots in major cities. Legal scholars looting.
The pro-Hamas wing will riot in Chicago at the Dem convention.
But the Dems will still win the election, but not with Biden. Removing Biden and millions of illegal alien votes in swing states will win it for the Dems.
“The Court should be neutral and at least has self-interest in appearing neutral. It shouldn't be for or against speed — rushing or dragging its heels.”
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. This is being slow walked now so the Justices face the fewest political (and more importantly, for them, social) repercussions.
I’m happy because (from what I’ve read) it eases Trump’s path to the White House. But any respect I had for our Judicial system is gone. Maybe elites can keep their delusions for a little while longer (and I envy them that). The rest of us have been rudely awakened. We’re about as woke as a people can possibly be.
Now that I think of it- those stupid black robes should have been a give away. What serious professionals would engage in such silly dress up games?
Agree with Dave.
The left are going to lose their minds, riot, break things, destroy everything, and make the billions of dollars of Antifa Rioting (George Floyd) look like a big nothing.
LOL, they tried to thread the needle, schedule-wise, to maximize the impact on Trump's re-election campaign, and it didn't work.
For all the crying about the delay in Trump's trial, it's worth noting that the case could have been brought in mid-2021. All the same "evidence" was there.
It was Democrats and the DOJ that chose to drag it out to influence the 2022/2024 elections. Whoops.
For those upset about the delays, ask yourself why you are upset? Was it because the trials, if later, would not have as much effect on the Nov elections? Wouldn’t that be an admission that the purpose of the trials was to interfere with the election this year?
What other inference are we left to draw from their behavior? What is becoming more interesting is the disinterest in hiding their motivation. They seek only power by abusing authority of office. I don't even see efforts anymore of trying to improve the lives of taxpayers. Only efforts to solidify their power and control via authority. In the past, this type of lawfare was spun as just testing these questionable legal gray areas. Now it is we want our answer, our way, as soon as possible.
Agree with Dave.
The Collective Radical Left (the left) will riot, rage and break everything they can get their hands on. They will attempt to murder Supreme Court Justices.
They will make the billions of dollars in property damage from White-Left Antifa riots look like a big phat nothing.
"It shouldn't be for or against speed..."
This seems wrong to me, given the 6th Amendment's guarantee of a "speedy" trial.
Glad to see Tina Trent agrees with my "fever dream." But I'm just predicting based upon what the Left has done in the past.
The Left will go crazy if Trump isn't criminally convicted.
But, hey, what about that NY criminal case? Doesn't that start in March? Surely he'll be convicted and sent straight to Riker's Island.
Does this mean Biden should get off scott free if he were to send a hit team out to take out Trump?
Maybe not, but everyone with a brain knows he could do this and get away with it with our present justice system. Trump is famous for saying he could shoot a guy on a street and get away with it, but he is the one man who we know couldn't do it- but a Democrat President could.
"This seems wrong to me, given the 6th Amendment's guarantee of a "speedy" trial."
It really does depend on who is asking for speed- the government isn't entitled to a speedy trial.
This and all the other topics that Althouse posts on that end up triggering all of you right wing Trump supporting conspiracy theorists makes the comments read like dialogue from group therapy sessions.
The psychobabulist on Joe Rogan the other day who said that too much therapy and too much kvetching only reinforces the psychological pathology of the participants.
Of course the algorithm knows this and it keeps you people in a constant state of agitation on all of the major social media sites in order to sell advertising. The constant fight or flight mode generated by social media and political blogs is a Major cause of mental illness.
This brings to mind when Ann used to question commenters about their motivations.
So I say: Althouse, are you helping?
This does make it significantly more likely that Trump can run out the clock and get elected before he gets convicted in federal court. Not certain, but significantly more likely.
He may still get convicted in New York state action first.
was request for writ from Special Counsel? or Trump?
did Supreme Court just grant standing to illegally appointed Jack Smith?
was request for writ from Special Counsel? or Trump?
did Supreme Court just grant standing to illegally appointed Jack Smith to appear?
that in itself is Win for Lawfare by mooting the issue.
Unimaginative of Trump counsel to let this appointment go without challenge.
any comments?
Removing Biden and millions of illegal alien votes in swing states will win it for the Dems.
=======
ambiguous? contadictory? construction by lawyer Dave [need to add 'with' after 'and']
That is an amazingly good movie.
It’s one of the few movies I will watch every time I have the opportunity.
The idea that a President should forever be immune from all of his actions is unAmerican.
Presently virtually all government officials are immune from personal liability for official acts, and virtually all of that immunity is judge-given (i.e., the immunity is not statutory). So don't be surprised, given the phrasing of the question on which cert. was granted, if the SC decision is yes, he has immunity for official acts. Then the real fight - whether the acts alleged in the complaint were "official" or not - can begin.
If Trump were a Democrat not a single trial would be in motion. Democrats aren't interested in Justice; they only care about power. They believe only they are capable of proper governance.
Howard bleated: "... you right wing Trump supporting conspiracy theorists...."
Where have we heard this phrase before? I remember. Everywhere. Leftmediaswine and leftist trolls love it. Never mind that "Russia, Russia" was proved by Mueller to be unsupported by evidence. Never mind that Democrat idiots accuse Trump supporters of being "Putin lovers." Never mind Democrats asserting that Trump spells "the end of Democracy." Etc. Etc. WE are the conspiracy theorists.
Althouse stop! Howard has a conspiracy theory that you are enabling right wing conspiracy theorists.
There is no cavalry coming. No miracle solution. No saviors. In the end, we, the American people — not any of our institutions — have to save our democracy by voting in defense of that democracy. We are the cavalry. The responsibility is ours.
"There is no cavalry coming. No miracle solution. No saviors. In the end, we, the American people — not any of our institutions — have to save our democracy by voting in defense of that democracy. We are the cavalry. The responsibility is ours."
The dems are importing their cavalry over the southern border.
I am going to guess Over-compensating Non-Combat "vet" Howitzer Howard has spent an inordinate amount of time in therapy since he mentions personal therapy in approximately 75% of his posts.
I join with other caring and empathetic Althousians in wishing Howitzer Howard gets well soon.
The Steve Deace of Althouse blog, AMDG: "In a correct world he would win the Colorado case 9-0 and lose the immunity case 9-0."
Moronic...but fully consistent with the efforts of the online "influencers" whose incompetent and self-defeating efforts undermined the DeSantis campaign.
The idea that a President should forever be immune from all of his actions is unAmerican.
Yep. It also in no way resembles any of the issues before the court, the case at hand covers "official acts" taken while president. Not forever. If progs could read their comments might have a point.
The idea that a President should forever be immune from all of his actions is unAmerican.
Yep. It also in no way resembles any of the issues before the court, the case at hand covers "official acts" taken while president. Not forever. If progs could read their comments might have a point.
If Trump does win the election in November, the Democrats and their supporters will make January 6th, 2021 look like picnic party. Indeed, I expect Congress to not confirm the electoral votes if the Democrats control the chamber, just like Trump was encouraging Pence and Republicans to do in 2021.
I don't think people understand all the aspects of the immunity problem. I'm glad the Supreme Court case will help explain the complexities of the problem. People are so short-sighted right now, they just want their side to win, and there's a strategy of making extreme and absolute claims about the law. As it did in the disqualification case, the Supreme Court should open out the issues and help people understand. It's especially likely to analyze hypotheticals and show us how the absence of immunity will affect other presidents in the future. It's far too easy to frame things as a crime and there's an evil enthusiasm for prosecuting one's political opponents these days.
Rich said...
This does make it significantly more likely that Trump can run out the clock and get elected before he gets convicted in federal court. Not certain, but significantly more likely.
He may still get convicted in New York state action first.
***************
You keep calling that NY case "criminal", when it's a civil action. Even if Trump ultimately loses (very doubtful) he will not have been "convicted" of anything.
'I don't think people understand all the aspects of the immunity problem. I'm glad the Supreme Court case will bring more people into the complexities of the problem.'
I'm not a lawyer (although I pay a LOT for legal services), but my take is that the president should be immune to official acts taken while president.
This seems like a no-brainer.
Ensuring that federal elections are not rigged is something that a president should be engaged in.
Also, the DoJ rushing this trial seems very unseemly and has nothing to do with 'justice' but is rather a political move...
Blogger Drago said...
The Steve Deace of Althouse blog, AMDG: "In a correct world he would win the Colorado case 9-0 and lose the immunity case 9-0."
Moronic...but fully consistent with the efforts of the online "influencers" whose incompetent and self-defeating efforts undermined the DeSantis campaign.
2/29/24, 10:55 AM
————-
Drago, the Rosemary Kennedy of this blog, calls my statement moronic, but is incapable of coming up with with any type of argument.
Okay, Drago - here is the question to be answered:
Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions? Can you make a cogent case defending your position without writing the terms “RINO”, “Uniparty”, or “Globalist” or is your position based on the fact that your Lord and Savior, Donald “The Fat Tub of Goo” Trump holds it?
Althouse wrote: “I don't think people understand all the aspects of the immunity problem.”
Neither the Court of Appeals, nor Trump's lawyers have framed this issue as simply being Congress must impeach before a President can be held liable for criminal actions. So when you say "[Absolute immunity] is not the argument" both Trump the Court of Appeals look at the question of immunity, and a review of the Impeachment Clause is but one strand of the analysis.
The Court of Appeal states at page 8:
"Former President Trump filed four motions to dismiss the Indictment, relying on: (1) presidential immunity; (2) constitutional provisions, including the Impeachment Judgment Clause and principles stemming from the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) statutory grounds; and (4) allegations of selective and vindictive prosecution."
"For all immunity doctrines, “the burden is on the official claiming immunity to demonstrate his entitlement.” Former President Trump claims absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “official acts” undertaken as President, a category, he contends, that includes all of the conduct alleged in the Indictment." (page 18 of Court of Appeals judgement).
I accept that the Court seems to assess arguments about sequencing as part of the wider review of immunity, but clearly concludes as only one part of its ruling "All of this leads us to conclude that, under the best reading of the Impeachment Judgment Clause, a former President may be criminally prosecuted in federal court, without any requirement that he first be impeached and convicted for the same conduct." (pages 50-51)
AMDG continues his devolution from "online influencer" to just another Alhouse blog MSNBC-type.
Interestingly enough, just like Steve Deace did with, in his own words, all his good MSNBC friends.
AMDG: "Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions?"
LOL
This appeal that the SC agreed to take on contains no specific evidence upon which the SC could rule on re: immunity vs no immunity.
Since federal judges, congresspersons, prosecutors etc are all immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, then surely so does the head of the Executive branch.
I suspect the SC will kick this case back to the lower court and tell them to get off their arses to develop a real properly developed evidence-based case with which to prosecute Trump and then, if appealed, the SC could rule on a specific, evidence-based scenario, as to immunity vs no immunity whether impeached/not-impeached.
In AMDG's idiotic scenario, its quite possible Biden's DOJ would not arrest Biden after ordering a hit to take out Trump.
However, were a republican President to do such a thing, the DOJ would immediately arrest and prosecute him, whether impeached or not, and on eventual appeal to the SC the SC would rule that the crime was a personal act and does not fall under the protective umbrella of official acts.
Now AMDG can curl back up with his Steve Deace plushy (trust me, its big enough) and take a nap.
Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions?
Correct. No further legal recourse. But there most definitely is extralegal recourse. That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment as a backstop.
I'd be kicked off most social media for saying this, but I'm sure our gracious hostess would acknowledge that this scenario -- unlikely, to be sure, but far less so than I would ever have guessed in 2015 -- would have elicited widespread, well-organized insurrection from our Founding Fathers, and the violent death of every Senator voting for acquittal.
They put the Second Amendment in place for the explicit purpose of ensuring we had the capability to do this if it ever became necessary. We should not shrink from contemplating when that might be.
Blogger Drago said...
AMDG continues his devolution from "online influencer" to just another Alhouse blog MSNBC-type.
Interestingly enough, just like Steve Deace did with, in his own words, all his good MSNBC friends.
2/29/24, 12:42 PM
————————
And Drago again refuses to engage in any type of argument. All he has is Argumentum Ad Hominem. No thought, no logic he has got nuthin’. Of course that is a problem that the tRump Swabs have - they are constantly called on to defend the indefensible.
Hey Drago, no matter how much you debase yourself for the Fat Tub of Goo, he is still going to make you pay for the sneakers.
I don't think it's quite fair to characterize Drag-o as Rose Kennedy. He's the Khloe Kardashian of the Althouse blog. Lolx10.
‘You can't write "Whether does a former President enjoy" and inserting "and if so to what extent" doesn't change that. I'll repunctuate to make it obvious: "Whether — and if so to what extent — does a former President enjoy...."’
You could repunctuate it as “Whether — and if so to what extent does — a former President enjoy...."
You can write, “To what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office” and have someone want to stick “Whether and if so” in front of it.
Or you could write “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
‘You can't write "Whether does a former President enjoy" and inserting "and if so to what extent" doesn't change that. I'll repunctuate to make it obvious: "Whether — and if so to what extent — does a former President enjoy...."’
You could repunctuate it as “Whether — and if so to what extent does — a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without the “and if so to what extent does” you would write “enjoys” but with the “and” isn’t “enjoy” the proper subject verb agreement?
I agree with Ann. An important case with many ramifications! And it will take the Court until the last day of the term to write all the opinions. Alito and Thomas will take their sweet time to finish their important work.
AMDG: "And Drago again refuses to engage in any type of argument."
1:27PM
I answered at 1:02PM.
I dont control the Althouse review and publish process timing.
But more good news for you! Howard is on your side!
Wow! Now AMDG is not just the Steve Deace of Althouse blog, he is also the Nikki Haley of Althouse blog!
Kudos.
All of the bad things that people say could come from this can happen anyway due to the Presidents power to pardon. If he had any reason to believe that people would find political speech criminal, or that his own speech was somehow criminal, which is absurd, but that's what we are being told, he could have pardoned himself.
It would be funny if Biden lost the ability to pardon himself for his own corruption due to this case. His son just admitted under oath that Joe was the "Big Guy" but denies that that email he sent to his business partner meant what it plainly meant.
"Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions?"
What kind of fucking moron is this?
Is murdering a political opponent part of the president's official duties?
JFC, liberals are insufferably stupid.
If the President of the United States is sending hit squads against political opponents, then we've already passed far beyond the rule of law. It's a stupid hypothetical scenario because in any such case you're not going to settle the issue with an impeachment or criminal trial.
When I hear the childish bleat of “No one is above the law!! “ I am reminded that the President is our protection from an unsafe world. Many would have liked to indict Truman for “crimes against humanity” for the atomic bomb. My dad was a ww2 marine who may have died in the invasion of Japan along with another million including Japanese civilians. If he died I would not be here.
There are adult things in the world that need doing for the benefit of all and we need to keep the anklebiters from making doing your job a crime. Especially when it is transparently abused to gain political power.
If the president has committed a crime in official duty, the remedy is impeachment and conviction.
The scenario that the Trump side has not considered... - left bank
I admit. Your ability to read minds is incredible.
Blogger Joe Smith said...
"Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions?"
What kind of fucking moron is this?
Is murdering a political opponent part of the president's official duties?
JFC, liberals are insufferably stupid.
2/29/24, 4:05 PM
————
And what acts that Trump is being indicted for are official acts. None because in various challenges to the election he was acting in his capacity as President, but instead, as a candidate for the Presidency. So while my examsple is extreme it is not moronic.
Oh, and Drago, sorry Imdid not see your 1:02 response. This should address it.
AMDG: "Biden sends a hit squad to Mar-A-Lago to take out Trump. He is impeached for his action, however, the Senate does not convict him. Is it your position that there is no further legal recourse to hold him accountable for his actions?"
Joe Smith: "What kind of fucking moron is this?
Is murdering a political opponent part of the president's official duties?
JFC, liberals are insufferably stupid."
Wait Joe! You haven't heard the best part yet!
AMDG markets himself as the truest of the true blue republicans and has been one of the most vocal Althouse blog supporters of Ron DeSantis.
But as I have been saying, and your comment appears to support given you are simply reading the words of AMDG without knowledge of labels, is that many of these "online influencer" DeSantis supporters have morphed into caricatures of MSNBC types.
Case closed.
Joe Smith said...
"Is murdering a political opponent part of the president's official duties?"
---------
Nah, due to the usual age of our Presidents it's not advisable. Plus, it takes a long time to get the requisite skillsets in place, and properly practiced. Assassins usually don't get into high political office, since you've got to maintain a certain anonymity.
So you outsource to a 3-letter agency. Seriously, you think Johnson was up in the tower?
"It Likely Means No Trial for Trump on Election Subversion Before the Election."
Rick Hasen is wrong. On March 25, Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled the criminal Hush-Money trial against Donald Trump. District Attorney Alvin Bragg will prosecute the case in a small, dirty courtroom in the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse. Thirty-four charges will considered and conviction could result in as many as 129 years of sentencing. The only good news for Trump is that he could spend the rest of his life in cushy FCI Otisville, which Michael Cohen would recommend.
March is an expensive month for Trump going forward. He has until March 9 to pay E. Jean Carroll upwards of $100 million including interest because of his sexual misconduct and lying mouth and magic March 25 adds another that is $454 million is needed to pay for years of business fraud. Now we hear that he doesn't have more than $400 million in cash. More Trump lies!
Is murdering a political opponent part of the president's official duties?
If you could give scopolamine "truth serum" to a large sample of Democrats, I'm convinced you would find that least a third of them would agree that the prospect of seeing Donald Trump re-elected by the people of America is such a dire threat to "Our Democracy" that assassinating him would indeed be within the purview of a Democrat President's official duties.
Rich: Neither the Court of Appeals, nor Trump's lawyers have framed this issue as simply being Congress must impeach before a President can be held liable for criminal actions. So when you say "[Absolute immunity] is not the argument" both Trump the Court of Appeals look at the question of immunity, and a review of the Impeachment Clause is but one strand of the analysis.
Studiously missing the point. Neither Althouse nor those quoted, including the Supreme Court, said anything about the impeachment argument.
I predict that SCOTUS will find that there isn't "blanket" protection for the President, and order the District Court to "in the first instance" go over each of the charges, and decide whether or not "Presidential immunity" holds, given teh following guidelines "...."
Then the District Court will be forced to spend some time looking at the question. After which Trump will appeal to the DCCA, which will have to take some time to look at the question.
After which Trump will appeal to SCOTUS, which will take the appeal, and bury the whole thing until after the election.
A perfect "Roberts Special".
Bruce Hayden said...
And how is that going to happen? They just found 100k fraudulent voter registrations in MI for 2020. Are the Dems going to do 200k this time? 300k? Do you really think that your side can effectively double or maybe even triple, you're cheating this time, with nobody noticing or doing something about it?
If DeSantis were teh nominee, I'd share your optimism.
But since Trump did dick-all about it in 2020, I see no reason to believe he'll be any better this time around.
Maybe if DeSantis is the VP Nominee, and Trump gives him the power to organize things
'And what acts that Trump is being indicted for are official acts. None because in various challenges to the election he was acting in his capacity as President, but instead, as a candidate for the Presidency. So while my examsple is extreme it is not moronic.'
You realize that while being a candidate he was also the president?
And that, despite lefties wetting their diapers and proclaiming that Trump would be a dictator, he actually left the White House of this own free will?
You and your ilk are still morons...
'If you could give scopolamine "truth serum" to a large sample of Democrats, I'm convinced you would find that least a third of them would agree that the prospect of seeing Donald Trump re-elected by the people of America is such a dire threat to "Our Democracy" that assassinating him would indeed be within the purview of a Democrat President's official duties.'
Which is a Scott Adams talking point.
If they believe, as many state in public, that he is as bad as Hitler, why wouldn't you do anything possible to stop him?
It would be your patriotic duty.
But they're too dumb to understand where that leads...
"I'm convinced you would find that least a third of them [Democrats] would agree that the prospect of seeing Donald Trump re-elected by the people of America is such a dire threat to "Our Democracy" that assassinating him would indeed be within the purview of a Democrat President's official duties."
There's a reason the left keeps comparing Trump to Hitler.
Hassayamper: "If you could give scopolamine "truth serum" to a large sample of Democrats, I'm convinced you would find that least a third of them would agree that the prospect of seeing Donald Trump re-elected by the people of America is such a dire threat to "Our Democracy" that assassinating him would indeed be within the purview of a Democrat President's official duties."
You need to include NeverTrump in that along with the democraticals.
AMDG: "And what acts that Trump is being indicted for are official acts. None because in various challenges to the election he was acting in his capacity as President, but instead, as a candidate for the Presidency. So while my examsple is extreme it is not moronic."
LOL
First Rule of Holes comes to mind.
So, the President of the United States magically wasnt the President, with all powers and protections, because he was a candidate for another Presidentional term...at the same time as being President...but not really because........
Well, I cant say you Lawfare guys aren't creative.
Mason G: "There's a reason the left keeps comparing Trump to Hitler."
Again, the left and NeverTrump GOPe.
Shorter TrumpSwab Drago.
Everyone must worship Trump with blind faith like Drago does.
Blogger Drago said...
AMDG: "And what acts that Trump is being indicted for are official acts. None because in various challenges to the election he was acting in his capacity as President, but instead, as a candidate for the Presidency. So while my examsple is extreme it is not moronic."
LOL
First Rule of Holes comes to mind.
So, the President of the United States magically wasnt the President, with all powers and protections, because he was a candidate for another Presidentional term...at the same time as being President...but not really because........
Well, I cant say you Lawfare guys aren't creative.
2/29/24, 7:05 PM
So, in other words, all acts by the President are official acts because he/she is President? Or does this just apply to your Lord and Savior, Donald Trump?
Oh, and I am not a lawfare guy. I do not believe that the prosecutions of Trump by Bragg, Willis, and the J6 case are legitimate. I believe Trump violated the law with regard to the handling of the documents but because the precedent has been established he should not be prosecuted for it. He should be prosecuted for obstruction for his actions in concealing the documents after their return had been requested.
Boulder Idiot: "Shorter TrumpSwab Drago.
Everyone must worship Trump with blind faith like Drago does."
Boulder Idiot really REALLY does not like it when someone criticizes her beloved GOPe.
She will probably need additional therapy due to her hero McConnell's announcement just this week.
Thoughts and prayers, as always.
On an up note for Boulder Idiot, perhaps she could volunteer for a 3rd party "Draft Romney" role.
Blogger Joe Smith said...
'And what acts that Trump is being indicted for are official acts. None because in various challenges to the election he was acting in his capacity as President, but instead, as a candidate for the Presidency. So while my examsple is extreme it is not moronic.'
You realize that while being a candidate he was also the president?
And that, despite lefties wetting their diapers and proclaiming that Trump would be a dictator, he actually left the White House of this own free will?
You and your ilk are still morons...
2/29/24, 6:08 PM
—————
By stating that murder is not a Presidential duty you have conceded that not all acts by a President are official duties. That means that you believe that Smith is prosecuting Trump for carrying out official duties. What specific duties are you asserting that Trump is being prosecuted for? Here is a clue - anything related to campaigning for President or pressuring the VP to violate his oath office does not constitute an official duty.
Being called a moron by a tRump Swab is like being called a pervert by a child molester. One just considers the source and chuckles at the cognitive dissonance.
"Again, the left and NeverTrump GOPe."
My comment was based on my personal experiences here. I'm not arguing that the NeverTrump GOPe aren't silently agreeing when the left makes the comparison or that none of them have ever voiced it, just that whenever I read/hear "Trump = Hitler", it's from someone on the left. I only have a limited amount of time to devote to the topic and I'm quite sure there are plenty of things being said of which I'm unaware.
The View is the temple of the Progressives and your leader, is spewing her hate again, to her masses of adoring Biden creatures....THIS is their actual mindset..all in order to SAVE DEMOCRACY.
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
WHOOPI: “You know what Joe Biden could do since he is presently president? He could throw every Republican in jail!”
For a more informed assessment I suggest reading the WSJ’s opinion piece: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-justices-had-to-hear-trumps-case-presidential-immunity-125803c6?st=djvoy16vqjo09k1&reflink=article_copyURL_share
It’s amusing to see commentators’ contortions on the Trump cases. The question on the law is whether presidential powers override ‘generally applicable statutes’ and the ‘fact’ to consider is what rights (Trump contends this is a duty) a sitting President has to question the ways an election was conducted and how it’s outcome was derived, i.e., the facts of this case.
any comments?
I think that's going to the first thing that the Trump lawyers will bring up. Thereby mooting(?) the rest of the case.
Dave B et. al. That is the MO of the left. The violent minions are called to take to the streets and do as much damage as they can. Intimidate and injure as many of their opponents as they can. This time though there will be more Kyle Rittenhouses in the streets as well.
The lagacy media will, of course, blame those of us who are protecting lives and property as violent vigilantes.
AMDG: "Oh, and I am not a lawfare guy."
LOL
You most certainly are.
'Being called a moron by a tRump Swab is like being called a pervert by a child molester. One just considers the source and chuckles at the cognitive dissonance.'
What will you do? Send some of your BLM and Antifa thug friends to burn my house down?
That's what liberals do when they don't get their way...destroy things they don't understand (which is a lot of things).
And the 'tRump' moniker is maybe third grade level humor. Do you love potty jokes? Are girls icky?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন