The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for... allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?
So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II? Couldn't that have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against civil rights?
3. Justice Gorsuch makes a brilliant suggestion. If Presidents didn't have immunity from prosecution, they could give themselves the equivalent by pardoning themselves on the way out. And note the reminder that Obama could be on the hook for those drone strike murders:
What would happen if presidents were under fear -- fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office, whether it's -- whether they've engaged in drone strikes -- all the hypotheticals. I'm not going to go through them. It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created is for presidents to try to pardon themselves.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The court of appeals below, whose decision we're reviewing, said, "A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws." Do you agree with that statement?MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think it sounds tautologically true....CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think it sounds tautologically true as well, and that, I think, is the clearest statement of the court's holding, which is why it concerns me. As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted.
Let me ask you about state prosecutions because, if the president has some kind of immunity that's implicit in Article II then that immunity would protect him in -- from state prosecutions as well. A lot of the protections that you're talking about are internal protections that the federal government has, protections in the Department of Justice, which obviously are not applicable at the many, many, many, many state and local jurisdictions across the country.
6. Justice Jackson suggests that the current President will inherently tend to protect the interests of the ex-President, whom she refers to as "the former guy" — which is Biden's epithet for Trump.
[There is] a very legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse, about future presidents being targeted for things that they have done in office.... But I wonder whether some of it might also be mitigated by the fact that existing administrations have a self-interest in protecting the presidency that they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon they're going to be the former guy and they will have created precedent that will be problematic.
Posts
103 comments:
"6. Justice Jackson suggests that the current President will inherently tend to protect the interests of the ex-President, whom she refers to as "the former guy" — which is Biden's epithet for Trump."
Well that's an absolute joke. The current president is going AFTER the guy to ensure his own election.
Operation Mongoose- that's the ticket.
Thanks Clarence.
After Ford's pardon it was conventional wisdom that presidents could be prosecuted after leaving office for conduct in office, and that they needed their successors if they wanted a pardon. I suppose the issue reared its head during Iran-Contra criminal investigation. No one that I recall suggested immunity was relevant to the Lewinsky criminal investigation.
The current NY state trial is for conduct taken while Trump was in office, albeit as part of a scheme that mostly dated back to before he took office.
The Florida case is strictly about conduct after he left office, although he claims protection by virtue of unrecorded declassification actions while in office.
Interesting. I'm uneasy with the idea of immunity, but some of these things make sense. The Three Wayward Sisters need not worry about Obama's murders when they vote against Trump. Garland would not make an issue of them and if there is ever another Republican in the White House, he/she would be unlikely to be as chickenshit as Biden.
But I wonder whether some of it might also be mitigated by the fact that existing administrations have a self-interest in protecting the presidency that they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon they're going to be the former guy and they will have created precedent that will be problematic.
Except, of course, that in this particular case the “the former guy” is running against the current guy in a rematch of the last election, so the current guy — who will “soon” (per Justice Jackson) be the new former guy, is incentivized to use the Executive Branch in an unscrupulous manner, the better to handicap his opponent.
Tautologically true? How could it not be?
Well this is heartening. I wish you had included a quote from Kagen because I'm interested in her framing. I think she's the most likely to stick to principles.
A quote from Julie Kelly's feed:
Kav asks about a president making false statements to the public and whether prosecutable.
Dreeben says that has never happened so basically no. THAT IS THE EVER-LOVING POINT.
Not sure of exactly the point. But if he's trying to say no POTUS has ever lied to the public, we'll, "I've never had sex with that women..." comes to mind. The whole entire case, all of them, in fact, revolve around somehow Trump was lying...
existing administrations have a self-interest in protecting the presidency that they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon they're going to be the former guy
Not if the existing administration knows the current guy will likely be a veggie or tits up. That’s the problem we have now…
The problem with the great idea of granting themselves a presidential pardon as they exit is that the presidential pardon power only applies against Federal Crimes. So all these state prosecutions would still occur so its not as brilliant as some people seem to think. It only works if you also obtain a pardon from the governor of any state which may be able to bring a prosecution. Given the willingness of blue states to bring political actions the risk is clearly one sided.
>Justice Jackson:
"But I wonder whether some of it might also be mitigated by the fact that existing administrations have a self-interest in protecting the presidency that they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon they're going to be the former guy and they will have created precedent that will be problematic."<
Nice in theory, I guess. But we have massive evidence before us that the currently existing administration could not care less about the consequences of its actions. So, sorry, Ketanji but reasonable conscious people will dispense with your idea aborning because of its manifested erroneousness.
Joe's too dumb to protect his own interests. Especially when it comes to taking "the 10% for the Big Guy".
There is no real way to slice the baby in half. It is either immunity for actions in office, or it is not. Any attempt to say, this is an offical act and this not is just nothing but completely subjective- see the questions about Bush the Younger and Obama.
I noted the times where Drebeen fell back to saying things were official acts that had conferred immunity if inferior officers of the executive branch approved them. How does that work, exactly- all authority inferior executive branch officers have is derived directly from the President himself, not the other way around, and if this not true, then their opinions are just as weighty or weightless as would be the opinions of Giuliani and Powell, for example, or some dumbass off the street. So, if the inferior officers can declare an action as an official act that has immunity, then the President himself also has that exact same power- it becomes an official act if the President believes it is an official act- full stop, checkmate. To get beyond this hard fact, no one but the President has the power to declare this an official act and this not an official act, and only Congress can act to punish overreach, and only then by removal from office.
I admit, I changed my mind today- I did think it was possible to determine some things to be official acts and some things not, but after Drebeen's statements trying to defend Obama and Bush, I realized that the only real authority that can make these determinations is the President at the time the actions were taken- anything else runs afoul of the Constitution. As one can see, Obama and Bush face no danger even though both did far more reprehensible things than Trump has been charged with. Hell, Trump has done things as official acts during COVID, or at least allowed his authority to be used to do those things, that are far worse than the most serious charges Jack Smith has brought against him.
I hope the Court sees the illogic in anyone trying to define what is official and what isn't official and makes the very simple rule- you can't try a President in a court of law for the things he did while President. The only check on his actions rests with Congress and only to the extent Congress can remove him from office and bar him from ever serving in government again- that's it.
All of this seems like a discussion of what the law on presidential immunity should be if the court were free to write it today. But most of the justices are originalists. Is there an originalist case that grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution?
Is there something in the constitution that explicitly says the president is immune from any prosecutions at all, as Trump seems to be claiming? Is there anything that grants immunity for crimes that are conducted while carrying out his official duties?
Joe "Bribe me!" Biden's only interest is destroying the country and anyone who could make us great again. His EPA is on an anti-energy tear, trying to destroy ICE vehicles, including long-haul trucks and passenger vehicles. EPA's latest brainstorm is to reduce CO2 emissions from powerplants.
Barbarian Biden is persecuting anyone who opposes his policies. He's coordinated these frivolous lawsuits with state authorities in many blue states. NY's cases are built on a Get-Trump bullsh*t theories. He's suing Sheetz because his appearance at one of their stores was a total failure, so Sheetz must be destroyed.
Biden the Barbarian is a senile, old pedophile, who I'd call a traitor, but he's too senile to understand what that word means.
"The problem with the great idea of granting themselves a presidential pardon as they exit is that the presidential pardon power only applies against Federal Crimes."
That's why it mainly works as a reason to find the immunity, and the immunity would (apparently) apply in state court.
"Well this is heartening. I wish you had included a quote from Kagen because I'm interested in her framing. I think she's the most likely to stick to principles."
I linked to the transcript. It's easy to do a search on Kagan's name.
"All of this seems like a discussion of what the law on presidential immunity should be if the court were free to write it today. But most of the justices are originalists. Is there an originalist case that grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution?"
I focused on what interested me, but yes, of course, there is discussion of text and intent.
I really like the idea of some Texas county attorney prosecuting Biden for illegally inducing illegal aliens to trespass into his or her county.
Let’s go 100% law fare on the Dems. Turnabout is fair play. Right?
So KBJ called Trump “the former guy.” That’s what MSNBC calls Trump. Maybe KBJ can go on Maddow.
At the Nebraska Supreme Court there is a note on counsel’s table not to call the Justices “you guys.” Last time I was there a young female lawyer argued via Zoom and said “you guys.” When she finished, the Chief Justice dressed her down. Brutal.
There needs to be formality in any Supreme Court.
Ketanji Jackson articulates a great argument from the theoretical viewpoint of game theory. Unfortunately in the real world of US politics, everyone knows that the Federal and Blue State prosecutorial bureaucracies are filled with Democrats. The chances that such departments would allow a, say, Trump AG to prosecute Biden or Obama for any crimes such as bribery or initiating IRS, CIA or FBI election interference is nil. And that's without taking Establishment Republicans' default attitude of "we're above that" into account. And that's how we got here.
@Cameron, not all Governors can grant pardons in the way a President can grant Federal pardons, either. IIRC this has come up in re the Georgia RICO case. Kemp can't pardon Trump. Georgia pardons are issued by the Board of Parole.
MSOM asked:
"Is there something in the constitution that explicitly says the president is immune from any prosecutions at all, as Trump seems to be claiming? Is there anything that grants immunity for crimes that are conducted while carrying out his official duties?"
You should read Drebeen's answers to the questions of how Obama and Bush can't be prosecuted, and the answer to whether an AG saying an action is official is full and complete defense- so Drebeen and Smith believe such immunity exists, just for some actions but not others- particularly ones approved by the President's inferior officers.
I would be fine with one of these two rulings- (1) no such immunity exists, at all, not even for "official actions"; or (2) the immunity covers all the actions of a President while he is in office. What isn't tolerable, or even logical, is this "some are and some aren't" that seems to get an answer depending on who the particular President under legal assault is.
"Let’s go 100% law fare on the Dems. Turnabout is fair play. Right?"
Nothing will change until Republicans insist that Dems be held to the standards that Republicans are. MAGA Republicans seem to be okay with this idea. GOPe Republicans? Not so much.
There was Twatter chatter about how Trump should have pardoned himself and all his aides before leaving office and that none of this would be happening today. That belief is just a load of horseshit. Had Trump pardoned himself and his aides, he and his aides would still have been indicted in federal court and the case before SCOTUS would be looking at whether Trump could pardon himself for "unofficial acts" etc. The goalposts would circle the planet since the goal is to simply stop Trump from getting back to the White House- nothing else.
Justice Jackson, I'm certain, would not be wiling to place her freedom and the freedom of her colleagues after their terms of office on a presumption of the goodwill of an unkown successor.
I think the line between official and non-official acts has to do with the exercise of Presidential power. Killing your spouse or lover would be an unofficial act which could be prosecuted. Sending a drone to blow up an American citizen engaged in suspected terrorism is an official act. I'd tend to think Clinton's suborning of Monica Lewinski's perjury was unofficial but Obama's drone strikes were official acts.
In point of fact the president was following election law not this legerdemain mark elias had devised
In a similar way, cops who kill their wives are different than cops who kill someone during a law enforcement action.
They were focusing on Democrats, not Trump, as the structural threat.
Jackson shorter and simpler. so since Biden will be dead soon, he can ignore the future and get Trump for the Communist
Turnabout is fair play. Right?
All's fair in lust and ... is a principle of liberal license in a Democrazi (sic).
GREAT!
Readering is stepping up and has finally isolated the action taken by Trump, that is ciminal
Please Readering. Tell us all what is that criminal action?
The current NY state trial is for conduct taken while Trump was in office,
I know I use the word “unhinged” too much, but the MSNBC special on the oral argument today was truly unhinged.
The left need to kill off democracy in order to save it.
sez the dull eyed vamps in sec of states in Arizona and Colorado.
And that's without taking Establishment Republicans' default attitude of "we're above that" into account."
"We're above that" in GOPe lingo translates to "We agree with the Democrats, but would really prefer not to be forced to go on record saying so" in regular English.
Biden is old and will be dead soon. He has no disincentive not to target Trump.
The DOJ already refused to prosecute Biden because he has dementia and can’t even participate in his defense.
That phrase "the former guy," called to mind the Bolshevik's phrase "former people" to refer to their enemies. Since they were "former people" it was OK to persecute them. It is very demeaning. I didn't know Biden used it to refer to Trump, but I'm not surprised. I am surprised to hear a supreme court justice use it, however.
Dude1394 wrote: The current president is going AFTER the guy to ensure his own election.
If you can't beat 'em, enjoin 'em.
Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for... allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies
Sad thing is, Trump is being prosecuted for calling out and fighting REAL voter fraud.
The crimes listed above...are far worse. Today's American "elite" give real evil a free pass.
Leora said...
I think the line between official and non-official acts has to do with the exercise of Presidential power. Killing your spouse or lover would be an unofficial act which could be prosecuted.
I agree that this should be the rather obvious standard. The problem I see, and has been raised in a number of comments by Yancey and others, is how to devise a framework to determine when an act is more 'unofficial' than 'official' when the actions aren't as clear cut as murder versus military action. As was suggested in a prior comment, Obama's drone strikes also killed people other than the actual determined terrorist target. Could Obama be tried for murdering those individuals? How do you determine when an act or outcome crosses the line to 'unofficial'? In the instant case, Trump had both a candidate's desire to win a hotly contested election as well as the authority to engage in enforcement of Federal election law and the Constitution. What's the test to make the determination of his motivations?
The most obvious test of official versus unofficial is the one that Trump's lawyers have raised. If the President is impeached and convicted then he can also be prosecuted criminally if statutes apply. If not, then he can't.
They would have such an easier time taking down Trump if he hadn't served a four year term as a legitimately elected President.
It has to drive them crazy...
A quote from Julie Kelly's feed:
Kav asks about a president making false statements to the public and whether prosecutable.
Dreeben says that has never happened so basically no. THAT IS THE EVER-LOVING POINT.
Not sure of exactly the point. But if he's trying to say no POTUS has ever lied to the public, we'll, "I've never had sex with that women..." comes to mind. The whole entire case, all of them, in fact, revolve around somehow Trump was lying...
I don't think the point is that no POTUS has ever lied to the public, I think the point is the argument that if a President has never been prosecuted for something it would become non-prosecutable is the definition that swallows the whole thing - there have been no prosecutions of any kind against former Presidents for things they did while in office, so if that is the standard, Presidents effectively have complete immunity from prosecution.
Let me pose this question: if the current administration felt that the repeal of Roe vs Wade (back to the states) was somehow afoul of discrimination laws or whatever laws they dredged up (as they are doing in NYC) -- could not the SC justice be subject to criminal prosecution after leaving office? Maybe such a scenario would give them a clearer prospective.
"the former guy"
Shiitte (Old Joe, the Court's latest AA hire) speaks Shiitte.
Lincoln could be prosecuted for suspending Habeas Corpus. FDR for putting the Japanese in prison camps. Jefferson for buying the Louisiana Territory. Washington for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Reagan for Iran-Contra. LBJ for helping kill JFK.
Clinton for letting a White House intern suck his cock.
Define Presidential crime... Name a President that didn't commit any.
I can. William Henry Harrison...but he was dead 30 days after taking office.
MSOM said...
All of this seems like a discussion of what the law on presidential immunity should be if the court were free to write it today. But most of the justices are originalists. Is there an originalist case that grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution?
Is there something in the constitution that explicitly says the president is immune from any prosecutions at all, as Trump seems to be claiming? Is there anything that grants immunity for crimes that are conducted while carrying out his official duties?
Yes:
"Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "
Implicit in this statement is the argument that the President is immune to prosecution for breaking laws. The Government has the power to imprison citizens after delineated due process. If an individual throws someone in their basement for stealing their stuff that is called kidnapping. But the Government can imprison you for stealing someone else's stuff.
Thus in order to grant the Government to do things otherwise deemed illegal the framers of the constitution vested that power in the President of the United States. The state can impose the death penalty. The State can wage war to defend our borders. These are powers granted to the State as part of our social contract to maintain order. The framers vested that power in the Executive.
Just to add salt to the wound:
"Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
The president can pardon anyone for any crime they commit. It is implicit that they don't just have immunity, but that the Presidency is the instrument where we vest the power of the government to execute the monopoly of force granted by the consent of the governed. And the only limitation is Impeachment.
This is what separates a Banana Republic from the United States as founded.
This is why the Uniparty wants to turn us into a Banana Republic because the constitution enshrines these limitations placed on their tyrannical desires.
Yancey Ward said...
I would be fine with one of these two rulings- (1) no such immunity exists, at all, not even for "official actions"; or (2) the immunity covers all the actions of a President while he is in office. What isn't tolerable, or even logical, is this "some are and some aren't" that seems to get an answer depending on who the particular President under legal assault is.
Option 1 is untenable with granting the State a monopoly on force.
If no branch of government is formally Vested with the Power to throw people in jail or condemn property or wage war or execute(i.e. murder) a condemned felon then the legitimacy of these State actions is only inferred as some sort of natural right of the State to rule.
Our Constitution formally vested that Power in the Executive. The State does many things that are illegal for the individual to do on a daily basis. It is absolutely implicit in the Constitution that the President faithfully executes this responsibility and the recourse is Impeachment.
Without this vestment the State has no legitimate right to imprison people, or to take taxes from people, or to wage war. Without this vestment in the Executive might makes right just like every other Banana Republic in history.
Imagine indicting and arresting these blue state judges and prosecutors who are committing lawfare against Trump in red states for crimes if they ever leave the blue states. It’s easy if you try.
"6. Justice Jackson suggests that the current President will inherently tend to protect the interests of the ex-President,"
Really. This is the best they've got? Oy.
"Justice Jackson suggests that the current President will inherently tend to protect the interests of the ex-President, whom she refers to as "the former guy" — which is Biden's epithet for Trump."
what a hack.
"And note the reminder that Obama could be on the hook for those drone strike murders"...
And murder has NO STATUE OF LIMITATIONS... Obama can be indited at any time by not only the USA but by any country he killed people in.
How does that grab ya?
"Option 1 is untenable with granting the State a monopoly on force."
Yes, that is a problem with option (1) which is why no one wants to go for that one. So, instead, they want to devise a black box, Rube Goldberg system where they can do it to Trump but no Democrat or GOP elite in good standing in D.C. need ever worry about getting persecuted this way.
"I think the line between official and non-official acts has to do with the exercise of Presidential power. Killing your spouse or lover would be an unofficial act which could be prosecuted. Sending a drone to blow up an American citizen engaged in suspected terrorism is an official act. I'd tend to think Clinton's suborning of Monica Lewinski's perjury was unofficial but Obama's drone strikes were official acts."
Fine- now show where that is explicitly codified in federal law at any level. I am not trying to be a smartass here- but there needs to be lines of federal law that outline these matters rather than making a decision based on whose ox is getting gored. And, for about the millionth time in the last 3 months this issue has been at the forefront, I will point out that none of charges against Trump are clear-cut non-official like murdering a spouse or a lover. I love hypotheticals, too, but they do need fit the circumstances in this particular instance, and the ones being bandied about don't fit this case- it definitely isn't black or white. So, who gets to decide this sort of thing?
Look - to save DEMOCRACY - All presidents enjoy immunity except Trump.
Yeah, Presidents never lie.
Here's Lyndon Johnson running for POTUS in 1964:
“We are not about to send American boys nine or 10,000 miles away from their homes to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”
*********************
the fuck he wasn't.
Curious why you think Gorsuch’s self-pardon suggestion was brilliant. I had the opposite reaction. Seemed to me the obvious response would be to say that self-pardons are unlawful?
Curious why you think Gorsuch’s self-pardon suggestion was brilliant. I had the opposite reaction
Me too. How would that work? Would you need to know why you were pardoning yourself or is it some sort of any and all in the future blanket protection? It’s like wishing for more wishes..:
I’m kinda upset they never appear to discuss Jack Smith’s unconstitutional appointment and the resulting standing issues.
SCOTUS appears not to want to rule on such a fundamental issue. The right majority are hoping a delay will allow Trump to come back in and negate the issue through the new AG withdrawing the cases against him.
If he does not get elected, their wish to send it to lower courts will mean it will be quite a while before they have to rule on it, if at all. By that time it will not be such a hot potato.
By pushing it back to the lower courts or hoping it will go away, SCOTUS is neglecting what it really is designed to do. If it does not rule on such critical matters who will.
Yeah, trust Kagan, you uninforned dolt. She mapped out the illegal exclusion of women from hate crimes laws. Punch 20 random (biologically born) women in the face, grab-ass fifty on the subway, rape and kill 60 females: it isn't hate against women because Kagan was tasked by Clinton and Eric Holder to make those victims invisible.
Attack one random Jew, or one Asian woman, or one transgender, or Muslim, or if you're white, attack one random minority, they deploy the hate crimes squad, call in the FBI, and these are not no-bail crimes. Do it to fifty women and you literally walk free.
Elena Kagan is evil. Her memo on making sure serial killers of women don't get prosecuted for sex or gender bias hatred unless their victims are gay or trans is the most evil document to come out of the Clinton administration. And it is nowhere in any state or federal law: she recommended that DAs practice illegal selectivity. Only trans and gay victims are counted as females in sexual or gender hate crime law. Especially trans, and this started in the 90's. Hate crime laws require to prosecute men who attack random women: Kagan made sure police and prosecutors and judges were taught to quietly disregard these laws and refuse to discuss them. She is a disgrace, and her presence on the Supreme Court is a perversion of equal justice. Imagine an attorney teaching prosecutors how to circumvent the law. No wonder white women are randomly assaulted, almost exclusively by black men, every day in NYC, and the assailants get away with it. She must be thrilled.
I think she belongs in a prison cell, with a male to female sex predator as her cellmate.
Because this is what she has done to millions of women.
The problem with Gorsuch's self-pardon "solution" is that the outgoing President either would have to issue a blanket self-pardon for anything and everything, or predict what the opposition might someday come up with as "crimes" to prosecute.
The idea that a current President would have an interest in protecting the office has been valid until the Biden Administration, which has retroactively changed the policies regarding documents in order to have a hook to go after Trump.
We are facing a Constitutional crisis because the lefties don't consider the Constitution to be legitimate.
Could a departing President issue a blanket pardon for any and all crimes prior to and during his term in office?
I made my comment before reading the other comments, many of which make the same points more pithily. Carry on...
Takeaways:
* Democrats leapt before looking with incrementally more unworkable lawfare across several decades. They've painted themselves into a corner without understanding that actions have unintended consequences. Using 2024 Woke standards, the Ds must now indict Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Bill Clinton for 1,000 things, and GW Bush for 10,000 things (plus Obama too, as above). Then, turn a "justice equity" eye to Biden, Schiff, Pelosi, etc.
* Republicans look before leaping, think before looking, and take a nap before thinking. They are dead slow and passive on all things lawfare. It takes decades for Republicans to do anything. They were clinging to pre-Nixon deference and politeness even after Bork and Clarence Thomas were attacked. They were in a civil cold war by 1972 (EPA) or 1973 ( Roe; death penalty). But, nap time called.
* Trump is a wild card who jumped around, jumped around, jumped around and got down. The Ds tried to use the Nixon strategy to peel off mannered Rs to eject Trump with legal attacks, impeachments, etc., but the Ds totally missed that THEY evolved ethics and moral standards over the last 50 years and thereby transformed R ethics and morality too.
Hoisted on their own petards. Thin ice. Wil-E-Coyote moment.
If Presidents didn't have immunity from prosecution, they could give themselves the equivalent by pardoning themselves on the way out.
Isn't the President's pardon power limited to federal offenses?
I’m kinda upset they never appear to discuss Jack Smith’s unconstitutional appointment and the resulting standing issues
I’m kinda upset they never appear to discuss Jack Smith’s unconstitutional appointment and the resulting standing issues
They did, tangentially. Justice Thomas brought it up with Sauer, asking if they brought that issue up. He mentioned they did in the documents case, but not this one. They concurred with amici in this case however on that issue. It's there.
And that issue may be a way to punt the whole issue. Declare that they don't want to rule on immunity. Ask Congress to put some guidelines on "official" acts. And dismiss the whole thing by invalidating Jack Smith's role.
By the time it gets back to SCOTUS it's after the election and will be moot.
Antonio M. Hayes,
If it's obvious then surely you can point to text of the Constitution that says so.
Can we expect Biden to pardon Obama?
Seems an occasion to recall the John Adams comment on morality and religion.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
Because haven't all these doings at issue here shown our highest officers and institutions are yielding to avarice, ambition and revenge? Don't those precisely describe the people harassing Trump by perverting the legal system? In fact, don't those three words define the character of our current President?
I am not sure about the role of gallantry in there. It was an interesting inclusion.
Our current predicament, if not corrected, was foreseen by another Founder, Ben Franklin.
"This [Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years, and then end in despotism.... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
"Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for... allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq?"
Yes, and he should have been!
"Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike?"
Yes, and he should have been!
"Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?"
DID Biden actually "induce" immigrants to enter the country? If so, why? How would that serve his border polities?
"So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II? Couldn't that have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against civil rights?"
Yes, and he should have been!
"...you can't try a President in a court of law for the things he did while President. The only check on his actions rests with Congress and only to the extent Congress can remove him from office and bar him from ever serving in government again- that's it."
Says who?
Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for... allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?
I hope so. Otherwise we're saying there are no consequences for violating the President's oath to faithfully execute the laws and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
If Presidents didn't have immunity from prosecution, they could give themselves the equivalent by pardoning themselves on the way out.
Yes, that's a problem, and one that we've been talking about at least since the Nixon administration. But you'll note that Nixon himself didn't do that.
"In a similar way, cops who kill their wives are different than cops who kill someone during a law enforcement action."
Sometimes yes, other times no. Police can and have murdered people in the midst (or cover) of law enforcement actions. In such cases, the police have acted illegally while performing a law enforcement action.
"Is there anything that grants immunity for crimes that are conducted while carrying out his official duties?"
Reword you question like this and it will be easier to answer in the affirmative: Is there anything that grants immunity from prosecution for crimes that are conducted while carrying out his official duties?
"Sad thing is, Trump is being prosecuted for calling out and fighting REAL voter fraud."
Is he? How so? (Also, when was "REAL voter fraud" proved?)
The danger that the ex-President will be hounded by criminal prosecution is too great, and we are seeing it in action now. Even if Obama murdered U.S. citizens, we do not want to see him prosecuted. And now that the door is opened — widely — with the 91 felonies charged against Trump, the danger is very obvious. Hasn't Trump been saying if he gets back in office, he'll be prosecuting his foes?
"'The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'
"Implicit in this statement is the argument that the President is immune to prosecution for breaking laws."
Nonsense. That's like saying a police officer should not or cannot be arrested and charged for murder (performed while in uniform) because he is authorized to arrest others for committing murders. Those charged with upholding and enforcing the law carry a greater expectation and responsibility to obey the law, and a greater obligation to do so.
Hasn't Trump been saying if he gets back in office, he'll be prosecuting his foes?
Has he? Or is this just more crap pushed by the newsmedia for consumption by overly gullible New York Times readers?
"Our Constitution formally vested that Power in the Executive. The State does many things that are illegal for the individual to do on a daily basis. It is absolutely implicit in the Constitution that the President faithfully executes this responsibility and the recourse is Impeachment."
The "Executive" is an office, not a person. The power is vested in the office. Persons who (always temporarily) hold the office may (and often, do) act illegally while executing the power of their office. Such persons, abusing their power, should be prosecuted and held to account.
You state glibly "The State does many things that are illegal for the individual to do on a daily basis." You exclude context. I cannot go next door and kill my neighbor just because I suspect (or even know) he is a violent criminal. The police are charged with apprehending such a person...IF they have sufficient evidence and a warrant to do so. But the police violate the law when the do not have evidence and a warrant to arrest such a person, or, even when they do, if they apply demonstrably unwarranted force in the execution of arresting the suspect.
"Without this vestment the State has no legitimate right to imprison people, or to take taxes from people, or to wage war."
Again, nonsense. It is with the consent of the governed that the State is vested with their powers. The people can always change those vested powers: expanding them, restricting them, or voiding them.The State is obliged to use those vested powers within the limits of the law, and all persons holding State office who are involved in unwarranted use of their vested powers are (and should be) subject to criminal prosecution.
Yancey's comment that even if Trump had pardoned himself and all his aides, he'd still be being dragged into court (ie federal court - let's leave state courts on one side) may be true.
But there's a neat symmetry between his current position :
(a) claiming Presidential Immunity when there are no actual explicit words in the constitution providing it
and his hypothetical position
(b) defending his self pardon, when there is an explicit pardon power which does not mention any limitations as to self pardons
(b) has got to be a way stronger position - the words are there and the jeopardy comes from imaginary words of limitation. Whereas with (a) the words are not there and you have to imagine some.
"The danger that the ex-President will be hounded by criminal prosecution is too great...."
It should be great, the more to temper their judgement when considering the actions they take while in office. Instead of our relying on their wondering "How will history (or the voters) treat me" to temper their use of power, let them worry, "How will the law treat me...today?"
"Even if Obama murdered U.S. citizens, we do not want to see him prosecuted...."
Why not? For the last 70-odd years we have been entirely too indiscriminate in our use (or funding and support) of violence against other nations, often on false or recklessly uncertain pretexts, with too many innocents murdered or maimed and societies devastated. Our presidents and all involved in making such decisions should consider the possibility of criminal prosecution for their actions while making their decisions. Nothing else seems to inhibit their readiness to resort to violent action to effect desired political outcomes.
I don't know how useful those overseas action scenarios are since they involve foreign policy (clearly a presidential power) or military action, including the interment of Japanese (commander in chief).
How about instead -- A president shoots his wife? Or goes to a hotel and uses crack cocaine with a prostitute (which Mayor Marion Barry did)? Or is running a drug empire, if not making meth like Heisenberg, with the cartels out of the Oval Office for his own enrichment? None of which are or can be official acts. Just as obstruction of justice cannot be an official act since the office of president exists to enforce laws, not obstruct them.
@Robert Cook: GW Bush, Obama, and Roosevelt should have been charged and sent to prison for actions when in office.
Here you reveal little appreciation for realpolitik, the strategic defensive team actions of political parties, and the cover stories of patriotism and duty. Even if you are correct, relitigating the past and holding grudges is the minor form of a civil war. Dysfunction and trench warfare block forward movement.
To what extent were all prior executive decisions affected by bad/distorted/incorrect intelligence and misunderstandings? To what extent were the back room bureaucrats responsible for these decisions (or, did they cover up their errors and crimes -- see the assassinations of JFK and MLK Jr.)?
Can someone give me some background for Tina Trent's rant against Kagan? I googled and came up with bupkis.
"She mapped out the illegal exclusion of women from hate crimes laws."
"Her memo on making sure serial killers of women don't get prosecuted for sex or gender bias hatred unless their victims are gay or trans is the most evil document to come out of the Clinton administration."
Source? Explanation?
The Democrats should hope that the SCOTUS rules that Trump has immunity for all acts. That way they can get out of their cases that are damaging their prospects without admitting that they were wrong. Better for the base, we tried but the SCOTUS is corrupt.
The Democrats should hope that the SCOTUS rules that Trump has immunity for all acts. That way they can get out of their cases that are damaging their prospects without admitting that they were wrong. Better for the base, we tried but the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Who wound Robert up today?
Well. We he reads Chomsky anyway.
Your lord and savior FDR imprisoned how many citizens of Japanese descent and deprived them of their liberty and property? But that's not a crime, right?.
“Our presidents and all involved in making such decisions should consider the possibility of criminal prosecution for their actions while making their decisions. Nothing else seems to inhibit their readiness to resort to violent action to effect desired political outcomes.”
That sounds good, but at the Presidential level it is a nightmare. The stakes are too high. When you have been calling someone Hitler for 10 years there is no hope that any judicial system can be fair. Look at how many prospective jurors in Trump’s NY case
were accepted due to lying. What juror with any brains has not already decided if a president is good or bad.
The inherent corruption of such a prosecution overwhelms all possible good.
Hasn't Trump been saying if he gets back in office, he'll be prosecuting his foes?
Mind you, it's not as though people like Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fani Willis, and Jack Smith shouldn't be prosecuted. Though if it hadn't been for Smith's bogus prosecution of Bob McDonnell in 2014 (slapped down 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court) it might very well have been McDonnell who faced Hillary Clinton in 2016.
"Your lord and savior FDR imprisoned how many citizens of Japanese descent and deprived them of their liberty and property? But that's not a crime, right?"
I guess you didn't read all my comments, did you? (In fact, my first comment on this thread today.) Or do you have selective comprehension?
Robert Cook and Lenora both mention how cops can't be charged with murder for killing a suspect in the line of duty.
Which is of course, absolute BS if the cop is white and the crook black. Although there is, that I know, exactly one whole case the other way. Justine Damond (née Ruszczyk), a 40-year-old Australian-American woman, was fatally shot by 31-year-old Somali-American Minneapolis Police Department Tat was, however, a very clear cut case of misconduct. If she had been a native American white, born here, there would have been no international outcry to charge and convict Mohammed Noor. Oh- his murder conviction was overturned. leaving a manslaughter conviction with a max 4 years in jail. IMHO- immigrants, even after naturalization, shouldn't be policing native Americans. But to go on.
Cops can be charged and convicted even if a black suspect dies in their custody of a drug overdose. Derek Chauvin is wholly innocent of all the charges he was convicted of. He's a political prisoner imprisoned to satisfy the mob.
"When you have been calling someone Hitler for 10 years there is no hope that any judicial system can be fair."
Who is "you?" You have zero faith, it seems, in the legitimacy of our judicial system. I can't entirely disagree with you as regards its shortcomings, failings, and even corruption, but I do not assume or believe, (unlike you, apparently), that all US judicial proceedings are corrupt, incompetent or otherwise illegitimate.
"Look at how many prospective jurors in Trump’s NY case were accepted due to lying."
How many? How do you know any prospective jurors lied, much less "many?"
"Robert Cook and Lenora both mention how cops can't be charged with murder for killing a suspect in the line of duty."
I didn't say any such thing. I suggest you practice reading for comprehension. Sometimes police are prosecuted for murdering suspects in the line of duty. Far more often, they aren't. (Sometimes they're actually convicted when they're prosecuted...but, often they aren't, or for lesser charges.) However, I didn't say anything suggesting they can't or are never charged with murder (or never convicted) for such events.
"Derek Chauvin is wholly innocent of all the charges he was convicted of. He's a political prisoner imprisoned to satisfy the mob."
Well, so you see it. What I saw on the video looks to me like Chauvin killing George Floyd, (even if not intentionally, but certainly through negligent manslaughter).
More important than your view or mine, as neither you nor I saw the evidence or heard the testimony, the jurors saw it that way.
Robert Cook said...
"Our Constitution formally vested that Power in the Executive. The State does many things that are illegal for the individual to do on a daily basis. It is absolutely implicit in the Constitution that the President faithfully executes this responsibility and the recourse is Impeachment."
The "Executive" is an office, not a person. The power is vested in the office. Persons who (always temporarily) hold the office may (and often, do) act illegally while executing the power of their office. Such persons, abusing their power, should be prosecuted and held to account.
I appreciate the fact that you tried to engage. On the other hand all you had to do is read a mere 15 words.
"Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows"
You state glibly "The State does many things that are illegal for the individual to do on a daily basis." You exclude context. I cannot go next door and kill my neighbor just because I suspect (or even know) he is a violent criminal. The police are charged with apprehending such a person...IF they have sufficient evidence and a warrant to do so. But the police violate the law when the do not have evidence and a warrant to arrest such a person, or, even when they do, if they apply demonstrably unwarranted force in the execution of arresting the suspect.
You are talking about Qualified Immunity. That is an completely different judicial penumbra and subject. You don't even understand what I was talking about and go on to just make stuff up about a tangential subject.
The State is granted a monopoly on force in the United States. Period. It is granted powers that are unique to the entity and are illegal for citizens to carry out.
The Founders of the United States explicitly vested that power in the President. Not the Judicial Branch. Not the Congressional Branch.
The Executive Branch. Again because you probably already forgot:
>> Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.<<
"Without this vestment the State has no legitimate right to imprison people, or to take taxes from people, or to wage war."
Again, nonsense. It is with the consent of the governed that the State is vested with their powers. The people can always change those vested powers: expanding them, restricting them, or voiding them.The State is obliged to use those vested powers within the limits of the law, and all persons holding State office who are involved in unwarranted use of their vested powers are (and should be) subject to criminal prosecution.
The consent of the Governed in the United States is the Constitution. It is the social contract. It has a framework to change those vested powers. Our rights come from God, not the government.
In the United States we do not believe the State has an inherent right to rule. The State of New York doesn't get to make shit up and charge people with it. The Constitution vests that power in the President and grants the Congress the tool of impeachment to remove them.
Instead of reminding everyone you hate the Constitution and you don't really know how to read why don't you just tell us all what Laws Trump broke?
Robert Cook said...
"Derek Chauvin is wholly innocent of all the charges he was convicted of. He's a political prisoner imprisoned to satisfy the mob."
Well, so you see it. What I saw on the video looks to me like Chauvin killing George Floyd, (even if not intentionally, but certainly through negligent manslaughter).
Curious what you think actually killed George Floyd.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...."
The power is invested in the office; whatever person is temporarily sitting in that office of necessity exercises the office's vested powers as part of his/her official responsibilities. However, the person as an individual is not personally invested with those powers. He or she may exercise those powers only in executing their duties as the executive.
"The State is granted a monopoly on force in the United States. Period. It is granted powers that are unique to the entity and are illegal for citizens to carry out."
Yes...the State. Not in persons. Persons in the State's service exercise their offices' powers in executing their duties, but they may not exercise those powers otherwise.
"The Founders of the United States explicitly vested that power in the President. Not the Judicial Branch. Not the Congressional Branch."
Yes, in the office of the presidency. I never said anything about the Judicial or Congressional branches with regard to the Office of the President.
You have simply reiterated my statements.
Oh, yes:
"Our rights come from God, not the government."
There is no god, and fancy rhetoric notwithstanding about our "god-given inalienable rights," our rights are strictly regulated--granted, one might say--by the state. Yes, we all should have the right of free speech and thought and movement, etc., but in reality our freedoms are curtailed and managed by the state...necessary, really, to maintain a relatively orderly society.
"Curious what you think actually killed George Floyd."
Maintaining his knee on Floyd's neck for 7-8 minutes, during which time--until he became silent--Floyd cried repeatedly that he could not breath.
You may claim he died from a drug overdose, but that has not been established, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Even granting simply for discussion's sake that Floyd died from a drug overdose, Chauvin at the very least exhibited criminal negligence (leading to manslaughter) by not removing his knee from Floyd's neck as soon as Floyd became still and silent and in his failure to summon immediate emergency medical assistance for Floyd.
If I punch someone in the jaw and he falls to the ground and hits his head, and he then gets up and goes home, but three days later he dies as a result of injuries stemming from the blow to his head, I will likely be arrested for some degree of murder. Likewise, a state agent bears direct responsibility if he fails to take steps to attend to the physical condition of a person in his power--a restrained person crying repeatedly he cannot breath, and who then becomes physically still and silent, and who then perishes.
Robert said,
"There is no god,"
Sure there is ,Robert, it's called the State. You pray to it all the time.
Martin Luther once said, "What your heart holds most dear, let that be your god." And yours is the state.
"Robert said,
'There is no god,'
"Sure there is Robert, it's called the State. You pray to it all the time. Martin Luther once said, 'What your heart holds most dear, let that be your god.' And yours is the state."
(Shakes head) That you can only make a feeble accusation that I "worship" the State--in light of my several comments above--reveals how knee-jerk and nonsensical is your non sequitur insult. A bankruptcy of thought.
Post a Comment