ADDED: I've listened to the whole argument and have notes, but I need the transcript to write the things I have in mind, so please carry on the discussion without me.
AND: Here's what Adam Liptak wrote in the NYT:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed poised on Thursday to narrow the scope of the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election.Such a ruling, endorsing at least part of Mr. Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution, would most likely send the case back to the trial court to draw distinctions between official and private conduct. Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.
D. John Sauer, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, pressed an extreme version of the former president’s argument. In answer to hypothetical questions, he said that presidential orders to murder political rivals or stage a coup could well be subject to immunity....
A lot of the discussion has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office....
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
It’s going to come down to whether what Trump is alleged to have done falls under the definition of “official acts”.
Is this going to be on the final?
The structural remedy is impeachment.
Which is not constrained under the rule of law, but is a purely political standard.
And for which Trump was tried and acquitted.
If they decide that a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted then we will truly be done, because it surely will not be the last time.
Impeachment is just for removal from office. There is no immunity to act with impunity.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Do you people really want to give that power to a Joe Biden or a Hillary Clinton?
Of course you don't care about the consequences other than granting carte Blanc to Donald Trump.
...called the allegations of voter irregularities fraud. I don't recall that ever being established....
...and the quantity of standing laches moot court decisions does not elevate their status to a contemplation of the evidence of fraud by the courts and those courts concluding them insufficient. That segment also sounds suspiciously like the petitoins signed by large quantities of retied military or college professors. The quantity of the participants does not elevate the claim...
Over-compensating Non-combat "vet" Howitzer Howard: "Of course you don't care about the consequences other than granting carte Blanc to Donald Trump."
LOL
You have been warned repeatedly that typing more than 5 of your own words in a string can only lead to further embarrassment, as you've demonstrated again.
If you dont want to end up like Rich and gadfly, I would humbly suggest you return to your normal middle school level idiotic projections and denials of reality...which are also moronic but less so on a volume basis.
A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?
Trumps lawyer tried to distinguish it by saying what Nixon did was all private actions, but Nixon thought himself to be acting within the office.
Impeachment is just for removal from office.
You don't think that's punishment? To be given arguably the greatest prestige and power known to mankind and having it all taken away?
I suppose you think Bill Clinton temporarily losing his law license was a greater sentence.
An attorney on Bloomberg's political show is saying that this was brutal for Jack Smith. Fwiw.
What about when the Senate refuses to try an Impeachment? Mayorkas is clearly violating the law, and the Senate is obstructing that proceeding.
A couple of the Justices touched on the imperfection of the AGs, etc, but not thoroughly enough imho. When the DoJ targets the sitting president for political reasons, justice is not served. The president needs protection from outlaw prosecutors. SC Mueller was a travesty and should never have been initiated.
The other thing missing - and maybe this would be brought up at trial, if it comes to pass - is the fact that both sides believed they were supporting the true election results. Anyone who challenges election results are allowed to do so. Looking for votes is the name of the game. Sitting alternate electors is a presumptive and necessary step. Indicting someone for pursuing what they believe to be the truth is disgusting, especially if their pursuit was fruitless. So … I had hoped there would be less inherent presumption that any indictment would not be illegal in itself, in the oral arguments.
Was there any discussion of Jack Smith's standing as Special Counsel?
And so we have become a country where the ruling party uses the courts to cripple, if not imprison, the opposition candidate.
Goodbye Democracy.
That Dreeben idiot actually said Trump "must be charged for his official acts" as well as non-official ones because "they were part of the conspiracy" to win the 2020 election. Gorsuch noted dryly that every president's first term is spent doing "official acts to get reelected."
This isn't going well for the government lawyers. Thank God. He even said FDR could be charged with war crimes now for what he did to our Japanese citizens. Who had "tearing down Democrat heroes to GetTrump(TM)" on their 2024 Bingo card?
If Trump doesn't have immunity for LEGAL actions as POTUS, then the Biden administration will have to cheat their asses off to ensure a victory in '24.
If Trump is elected, he will arrest and imprison Clinton, Biden, and Obama, and I will be popping champagne corks.
I'm not going to allow my complete unfamiliarity with the briefing or oral argument prevent me from expressing an opinion about how this should go.
I think Presidential immunity should apply so long as the President isn't violating a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. It's the Bivens rule.
There has to be a limit on immunity, and that's the best I can do.
Howard once again showing what a dumbass he is:
"Do you people really want to give that power to a Joe Biden or a Hillary Clinton?"
Those two already have that power, Howard, and you fucking know it, you lying sack of shit.
"If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?"
Irrelevant. What Ford chose to do has no bearing on whether or not Trump's argument is valid. It is the very definition of a non sequitur.
This is not an easy question. Should the President be given immunity for murdering someone on the front lawn? But Obama droned supposed terrorists with abandon, killing a number of innocents, including children, and at least one US citizen, without required Congressional notice or approval.
STEVEN CALABRESI, who worked as a special assistant to AG Meese (I.e. a Republican) over at Volokh a couple of days ago suggested that the Supreme Court might take the easy way out, as the did in the CO ballot case, and reverse on a side issue, in order to avoid the messy business of setting limits on Presidential immunity. In this case, he suggested that they might use the fact that Smith is very likely not an Officer of the US, but rather a mere direct employee of AG Garland. Or, I suggested, that the prosecutions are being illegally funded off budget under a provision in the, since sunsetted, Independent Counsel Act, esp since, as a direct employee of the AG, he totally lacks independence. We shall see. I personally don't think that these auxiliary attacks on Smith are compelling enough.
"If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?"
“Irrelevant. What Ford chose to do has no bearing on whether or not Trump's argument is valid. It is the very definition of a non sequitur.”
My memory, at the time, was that while it was probable that Nixon had Immunity, it wasn’t absolutely clear, and Ford’s pardon removed it from the table (possibly costing him the election). And, at the time, that was sufficient. That was before Judge Emmit Sullivan tried to ignore Trump’s pardon of Gen Flynn (and even the DOJ’s subsequent decision not to prosecute).
What Ford chose to do has no bearing on whether or not Trump's argument is valid. It is the very definition of a non sequitur.
In any case, Nixon was never impeached, much less tried and acquitted. Trump was already found not guilty by the Senate. I'm not sure why that alone doesn't make him immune from further prosecution.
How much immunity does Jack Smith or Merrick Garland have, considering Smith is illegally appointed as SC?
Thomas did raise the q about Smith’s standing during the Sauer portion of the arguments, but not during the defense part. Sauer said they agree with Meese et al about the issue, but they’re not raising it at this time (or something like that).
VA Lawyer Mark: "A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:"
It figures that VA Lawyer Mark would continue his post-DeSantis Campaign Flameout descent by acting as if KBJ was capable of asking a elevant question.
Here's a good takedown of what that idiot was doing today:
Leslie McAdoo Gordon on X
"KJB up now. Confirming his position that if official acts were stripped out then the trial on the rest could go forward without further appellate moves. He agrees.
OMG. Now, she's "struggling" with the clear statement rule again. She's asking him to explain it to her again. She asks "what constitutional question" is at issue in this case. "It seems completely tautological to me." (That's because you don't understand the concept.)
She's really seeking a primer on this concept, which is absurd. But, he's giving it to her now. 🙄
So, KBJ now going over ACB's logic tree. She's finally understanding the issues. 🙄 (It's like she only figures out in every case what the issues are only after the oral arguments. Insane.)
She's finally understanding that the SC's position is the basically the dissent position in Fitzgerald.
She's learning it in real time. Unbelievable."
Read all of Gordon's live X-ing/Tweeting of the oral arguments @McAdooGordon
What a perfect muse VA Lawyer Mark has found in KBJ!
Exit question for VA Lawyer Mark: what is a woman?
Trump’s lawyers conceded that he could be prosecuted for a number of aspects of the J6 indictment, the Powell and Giuliani antics for example, because they wouldn’t count as official acts. So it looks fairly certain there will be a trial.
Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.
Good to know we're all in agreement that the intent of these proceedings is entirely political.
If a president gives a speech, can a court parse the things he says into official and personal acts? If a president says: “Kill Seth Rich because his continued existence will damage our democracy by harming Hillary’s election prospects.” is that official or personal?
“Do you people really want to give that power to a Joe Biden or a Hillary Clinton?”
YOU people really don’t understand Biden, Clinton and other Democrats have acted with impunity for all their political lives. Get fucked, Howee.
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?
I was around then so I’ll have a go at this. After Ford was sworn in he faced a 94th Congress that had 61 seats held by Democrats in the Senate (plus Independent Harry Byrd, who caucused with Democrats) and 67% of the seats in the House. They abused their supermajorities by doing their best to hamstring Ford’s Presidency with endless, malicious, investigations and demands for ever more documentation. Keep in mind that the Cold War was still going on and there was still fighting in Vietnam (though the US had withdrawn). If I had to identify a ringleader I’d pick Patricia Schroeder from Colorado as the person who spent the most time in front of TV cameras and who openly displayed the most glee at the problems she was creating for the Ford administration.
With all that as background, by pardoning Nixon Gerald Ford shut down the bogus investigations and stopped Schroeder’s grandstanding. And he could get on with the difficult job of being President.
"A lot of the discussion has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office..."
That question has been answered.
@Drago, @Yancey, Howard the Fool is an individual who enjoys lobbing hand grenades into Althouse threads. He probably gets some sick, perverted thrill when honest people respond to him with anger or even mere irritation. Best to ignore him unless he gives you an opening to laugh at him or poke fun.
"A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?"
The pardon precluded a judicial decision on the question of Presidential immunity. That question has not been answered. Yours has.
"Brought in FDR"
At least he was not stupid enough to mention that other Democrat icon A.Jackson and the Trail of Tears. With a DC jury he could of and none of them would know what he was talking about.
I must beg forgiveness as I repost this from the "Mandela" thread as it will be relevant as psycho Chuck and his minions Rich and lonejustice no doubt prepare to jump in with whatever hot takes are wafting around MSNBC right about now....
Chuck: "I was a not-much-noticed commenter, pre-Trump. It was Trump that changed the blog and the comments pages."
Drago:
LOL!!!!!!
OMG! This is too good!
Chuck: Trump turned me into a vicious racist and misogynistic far left poster with seriously demented unhealthy obsessions with underage children of political enemies and violent fantasies of physically attacking women and homosexual rage raping of men whose mission in life is to drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers!....
.....and Trump turned me into a newt too!...but I haven't gotten better yet....
No one wants to Listen to Drago's and Yancy's anal arguments in Trump's immunity case.
I was listening this morning as I worked and I felt like the justices were more sympathetic to the defense, but I didn’t have as much opportunity to listen to the DOJ argument. I believe the court will find some immunity, but probably limit it to disallow some of the more extreme cases. I’m not sure how they could legitimately claim that President Trump wasn’t acting in an official capacity to enforce the nation’s election laws, even if he had a private interest in being reelected. As Trump’s lawyer said many times, you can’t ever really second guess motive.
A lot of the discussion has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office....
Perhaps not President to President, but when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, Grant gave Lee parole. He let him go home. Even after the bloody conflict, there was still some forward thinking toward unification and peace.
The left in its thirst for power has destroyed that in America. And Washington doesn't want an uncontrollable outsider gaining power in Washington again. Washington isn't even interested in the will of the people anymore.
But...if they let this bullshit Trump prosecution move forward, we could end up in a new tit for tat. But I don't see Trump doing what the Biden DOJ has done. Democrats have taken corruption and lawfare to a whole new level trying to cover up the 2020 voter fraud.
"If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?"
It was about removing a predictable distaction from the remainer of the term. Nixon was gone. Further action would be a waste of time.
The Dems lawfare against Trump didn’t go well today.
Kagan did her best but is better suited to go back to Harvard law school and parse the meaning of Jihad.
In my opinion, Bruce Hayden is right. The court wants no part of this tar baby. Most likely they will ignore just about everything and send something back to the lower court. Despite the Lefty's desire, Trump being convicted is not a constitutional bar to holding office. The only way the Democrats can keep Trump out of office is for the House to impeach him now and the Senate to convict him immediately. If Trump ever needed a cover to go after the swamp, what the Democrats have done using lawfare Trump can use and should use against them. If only the Republicans would have the stones to back him. Imagine the Republicans waiving the Civil Service Act for four years so Trump can mass fire the leftist dreck that consider themselves the real government and not the elected officials. Right now we have the spoils system without any of the benefits and even worse a bureaucracy that is in effect the sovereign.
"A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?"
Whaaaa?
I heard that live. My Immediate thought, 'I always understood a lawyer never asked a question they did not already know the answer to.'
Did not Ford answer that question at the exact same time he issued the Pardon?
'It is unknown what the Democrats may attempt in their fever to seek retribution against Nixon, this pardon will remove the questions surrounding Presidential Immunity. This starts the healing of Nation.'
A SCOTUS Judge is so devoid of History, as to ask such an uninformed question? How many clerks does she have?
This is just stupid on stilts
Over-compensating Non-combat "vet" Howitzer Howard: "No one wants to Listen to Drago's and Yancy's anal arguments in Trump's immunity case."
LOL
Once again, Howitzer Howard's sad insecurities rise to the top as evidenced by his lack of confidence in his own opinion (a well deserved lack of confidence by the way) which leads Li'l Howard to try and speak for others. You know, to exist in a rhetorical mob.
One pictures a young child in knickers attempting to taunt someone more capable with the knickered laddie nervously looking around and saying "right guys? Right? Guys?"
Again Li'l Howie, try standing on your own 2 feet....but then again, if you could do that you wouldn't be such a good little footsoldier for the woke left and the islamists, would you?
“Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents,” ~ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Speaking of Rules for the Ages, didn't SCOTUS recently overturn one that had been in place for a half century?
Trump’s lawyers conceded that he could be prosecuted for a number of aspects of the J6 indictment, the Powell and Giuliani antics for example
Trump can be prosecuted for the actions of Powell and Giuliani?
No one wants to Listen to Drago's and Yancy's anal arguments in Trump's immunity case.
Maybe the hostess can conduct a poll on commenters that people automatically skip.
I wonder how many votes Howard would get. At least 1.
Howard, no one takes you seriously any longer- really, to try to imply there is a level playing field here is not only idiotic on your part, but deeply insulting because we know you really aren't that stupid- it isn't like you are Freder or Inga level ignorant. Why don't you just engage on the issues rather than spend every single comment you make looking stupid? This is why you get treated with disdain by pretty much everyone.
Assuming that Federal crimes were committed by a sitting President, while that person was President, does there have to be a viable way to criminally prosecute that person at the Federal level? What would stop a President from simply pardoning himself or herself before he or she leaves office? Currently, negative political consequences for a President's party is probably the biggest factor that limits Presidents from exercising their pardon power. Presidential pardons are still very rare, and presumably a Presidential self-pardon would have even stronger negative political consequences for that President's party.
"In any case, Nixon was never impeached, much less tried and acquitted. Trump was already found not guilty by the Senate. I'm not sure why that alone doesn't make him immune from further prosecution."
They will wait to bring this appeal when it is timely to do so. They won't be trying this case before next year if they ever do.
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1783552140700688781
Michael Dreeben (Attorney for Special Counsel) has the most annoying beta-male voice and speech pattern.
And the LLR-democraticals are out of the gates!
LLR-democratical Rich: "Speaking of Rules for the Ages, didn't SCOTUS recently overturn one that had been in place for a half century?"
LOL
Yes, it turns out emanations and penumbras are not exactly a rigorous and sound basis for legal rulings!
Who could have guessed laws lefties ginned up out of whole cloth and BS would not stand the test of time?
Poor Rich. He thinks every court should be just like DC where only the result that advances The New Soviet Democratical Party can prevail.
“Speaking of Rules for the Ages, didn't SCOTUS recently overturn one that had been in place for a half century?”
No, they clarified that the rule had never existed in the first place.
Do try and keep up.
- Rafe
Meanwhile, Alito takes "Judge" Florence Pan to the rhetorical woodshed over the cooked up pbrase about a President ordering SEAL Team Six to take out a political opponent.
LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck is not going to like that one bit.
Laughing at a moron lefty judge is one thing that quickly triggers Chuckles to go into Full Mama Bear Protective Mode to protect his precious activist commie "judges".
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Trump’s lawyers conceded that he could be prosecuted for a number of aspects of the J6 indictment, the Powell and Giuliani antics for example, because they wouldn’t count as official acts. So it looks fairly certain there will be a trial.
For what crime?
Be specific please.
Pretty clear that they’re at least considering sending some of this back to the lower courts —and potentially opening the appeal window up again—to maximize the delay.
Howard said...
Impeachment is just for removal from office. There is no immunity to act with impunity.
This is just a comically stupid statement. It is so incongruent and self defeating. I would love to hear Howard attempt to expound on what this actually means in his mind just for entertainment value.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Those are the words describing impeachment procedures.
Again that is just so far away from the point it is amazing you think this applies in this case. Howard drank his stupid juice today and got his talking points from MSNBC it seems.
Do you people really want to give that power to a Joe Biden or a Hillary Clinton?
Of course you don't care about the consequences other than granting carte Blanc to Donald Trump.
They already have that power by virtue of their place in the Regime. The FBI clearly stated Hillary committed crimes and found reasons to not prosecute. The DOJ found that Biden committed crimes and said he was too old and stupid to prosecute.
Again you are just drinking stupid juice today by posting something so dumb.
Here is the relevant passage you need to read:
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
What does it mean to vest executive power in the President of the United States. Enforcement of Law is up to the Executive Branch who is the person that is President. By most interpretations that means it would be impossible for the President to break the law as it is their actions that enforce it.
Government is a social contract that a people come up with to enforce social order and it is always an agreement of the people to give up some freedoms in order to achieve some level of social harmony. The framers of the constitution chose to invest that power into a person for very solid reasons, and then set forth the process the way that they could be removed.
The President has to execute powers that nobody else in the country can because extending those powers to everyone would instantly collapse social harmony.
If someone murders another person there is one authority that can punish a criminal for their actions. For everyone else that is called vigilantism. The authority to take a criminal and put them in jail resides with the Executive. If anyone else does that they are breaking the law and they go to jail.
The Executive is charged with a different relationship to the law because it is necessary to have that differentiation and to create a social contract. This is the separation that Howard and the other idiot lefties cannot or will not allow themselves to grasp.
The reason they will not accept the place the President holds is because Trump.
They have already proven they believe President Biden has and all previous presidents before had a different relationship with the Law.
Didn’t Obama commit all of the “hypotheticals” posited while he was in office, from drone attacks to Crossfire Hurricane”?
Mark said...
A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?
Trumps lawyer tried to distinguish it by saying what Nixon did was all private actions, but Nixon thought himself to be acting within the office.
First we will just start with the obvious:
1. Nixon allegedly ordered his campaign team to break into Democrat campaign offices during an election.
2. Trump picked up boxes of files that NARA dumped in a parking lot while he was President and moved them to his residence at Mara-lago as per the Presidential Records Act which describes how a president deals with personal records while leaving office just like every other president in history has done.
These are not the same thing and you are stupid for thinking it is the same thing or that is some kind of rational argument.
Trump picked up these records under the same case law as Bill Clinton:
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”
The leftists on this thread are making purposely stupid arguments that ignore all past law and partake of egregious logical fallacies because they know this court case is utter bullshit.
Such a ruling, endorsing at least part of Mr. Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution, would most likely send the case back to the trial court to draw distinctions between official and private conduct. Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.
Adam's so right, he's agreeing with me! :-)
My prediction of what's going to happen:
1: This will be one of the last opinions released this term
2: SCOTUS will rule (in an opinion written by Roberts) that the issue must be addressed as a matter of first impression by the District Court, using the following rules (no real idea WHAT the rules will be, just that they will be given some to follow)
3: District Court will make a ruling they can try Trump on X charges (neither know nor care which ones they'll go with)
4: Trump will appeal to DC Court of Appeals. They'll make a ruling supporting the District Court
5: Trump will appeal to SCOTUS
6: SCOTUS will accept the appeal, but be in no rush to hear it
7: Arguments will probably happen sometime in October
8: After which SCOTUS will sit on everything until after the November election
Roberts does not want to deal with this crap, so he's going to bury it until after the election.
If Trump wins, it's all dead
If Trump loses in a blowout, he'll end up going to jail. But that isn't going to happen
If the Democrat "wins" with the kind of election shenanigans we saw happen in 2020, there will be massive violence, and these cases will no longer matter.
I'd like to thank the Democrats for displaying their corrupt lawfare this year. Because what they've done is established for Trump that either he wins this election, or they ruin his life. Which means that when Democrat "vote counters" try to boot out poll watchers, or "find ballots", Trump will have every incentive to send raging mobs in to lay waste to teh Democrats trying to steal the election.
And he'll know from 2020 that the Courts aren't going to step in, no matter how egregious the Democrats' behave.
And everyone will know from the Jan 6 trials that being peaceful won't save them from jail time.
So, prognosis for November 2024 is either a Trump victory, or massive violence by people who actually know how to shoot (compare Kyle Rittenhouse to his many left wing attackers).
The economy sucks, America is a laughingstock all over the world, inflation is going nowhere but up, employment for Americans is going nowhere but down, and interest rates aren't going to get any better.
So there's no way any Democrat can honestly win the 2024 election, and neither Trump nor his supporters have ANY reason to not respond violently to Democrats attempts to steal it.
Enjoy the world you made, lefties
Mark said...
A question from Jackson to which I've not heard a satisfactory answer:
If presidents have the immunity Trump seeks, what was the pardon of Nixon all about?
It was about making sure that no one could try to do what the Democrats are doing now.
Because for all his failings, Ford understood that the Left are scum
Nice interpolation from F. Lee Achilles. I think it's really sweet that he feels so comfortable telling everybody what the voices in his head are saying.
Yancy's correct. There's no level playing field. They are all crowned for drainage.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Now I think -- and -- and your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it. If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?
MR. SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons.
He's not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist.
He should have called bullshit here. Proper response:
Well, your honor, the next President could claim that President Obama did that to pump up his poll numbers, rather than to protect America from terrorists, and that therefore under your definition it was a private act. And therefore former President Obama could be tried for murder, which is a crime without a statute of limitations.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: We would be creating a situation in which we would be saying -- this is what you're asking us to say -- which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake but more than that. A president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office -- that's what you're trying to get us to hold -- without facing criminal liability
You mean like when President Clinton rented out the Lincoln Bedroom for fundraising?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents
So Obama needs to go to jail for his collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign in faking up the "Trump Russia Collusion" hoax?
Howitzer Howard: "Nice interpolation from F. Lee Achilles."
You were wise to keep your yap shut about the particulars.
BTW, dont you have a pro-islamist/palestinian Drag Queen Groomer Story Hour to attend?
Sotomayor gets burned here:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So apply it to the allegations here. What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a -- a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates?
Assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face, is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?
MR. SAUER: Absolutely, Your Honor.
We have the historical precedent we cite in the lower courts of President Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified in those two cases, which delivered the election to Rutherford B. Hayes.
Listening to the Left does really make you stupid
Today I read teh Idaho vs Feds trying to use EMTALA to force abortion on every State transcript, as well as reading teh Trump immunity transcript.
One thing I'm noticing: The three leftists were a LOT more emotionally engaged in the Idaho case. "Abortion everywhere" is important to them
"Get Trump"? No so much. They're asking some dumb questions, as I've noted above, but they then shut up and let the guy answer them. They don't jump in the middle of his sentences, cut him off, and pound him about something else.
It's really quite amusing
"Yancy's correct. There's no level playing field. They are all crowned for drainage."
They are crowned in the middle, Howard, they don't drain all the sea of shit to the right.
Achilles posts from the actual transcript quoting the law(PRA) and it’s still not getting through Howard’s thick skull. Nice try Achilles!
Another ball dropped:
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, what does that mean, depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals: I don't feel like leaving office, I want to stage a coup.
Is -- is -- is that immune?
Proper response:
Gosh, you mean like when exiting President Obama conspired with the AG and FBI heads to conduct a coup against President Trump by pushing the known false "Trump Russia collusion" hoax? And got the FBI to dishonestly and corruptly set up Michael Flynn, incoming President Trump's National Security advisor?
That kind of coup?
"If a president says: “Kill Seth Rich because his continued existence will damage our democracy by harming Hillary’s election prospects.” is that official or personal?"
--
Just business.
In the oral arguments today, in Trump v US (the Immunity case), Trump’s attorneys pushed that there should be immunity for official acts of the President. The prosecutors have qualified immunity for their professional acts, and the President needs it even more, to be free to execute his responsibilities. They specifically did not assert immunity for personal (non official) acts. What that would require was essentially a two step process, of first determining whether an act asserted in an indictment would be official or private. Then a review of whether what remained asserted criminal acts. Five of the Justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, Barrett) seemed to lean towards that view.
Smith’s lawyer on the other hand essentially asserted that the President does not have immunity from prosecution, but then backed up under fire to accept that he can’t be tried for exercising his core Article II powers. Which is essentially immunity. And the Five pushed him on that. But when faced with the possibility of a political prosecution, especially by a succeeding President’s Justice Dept, he asserted that former Presidents were protected by a three levels of protection: the professionalism of the DOJ, the professionalism of the prosecutors, and the grand jury system. I am pretty sure, that in view of the present federal cases against Trump, the Five weren’t buying it. The Independent Counsel isn’t, but is instead being directed by a corrupt President (Trump’s opponent) and AG, the prosecutors are utilizing novel LawFare derived legal theories (violating DOJ policy, as well as Due Process), and a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (which was thrown in by at least one of them). It’s notable that the FL prosecution tried to hide some of the DC grand jury testimony through classification. We learned a bit this week about the origins of the case, when Judge Cannon ordered much of it unredacted - esp that that prosecution originated in the WH and with the AG.
There was an interesting discussion when the Republican Justices pushed the Smith Attorney on edge cases, such as Korematsu (Japanese internment), GW Bush invading Iraq, Obama droning American citizens, etc, and, of course, Watergate. Don’t remember if someone threw in Jackson and his Trail of Tears, or that was in comments somewhere. The Smith Attorney put all these deep within core Article II powers, justifying effective immunity for them. But these were all far more major transgressions than those asserted against Trump.
CJ Roberts mostly stayed out of the discussion. Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavenaugh seemed the most aggressive and suspicious of Smith’s side’s arguments. Thomas led off, but, as is typical didn’t say as much as the others. But he’s married to the most political spouse, so I have little doubt about his sympathies. Barrett seemed like warm, but I don’t see her jumping the other way on something this important. Of the three Dems, Jackson seemed the most engaged. She continues to surprise. I didn’t feel that Smith’s attorney had her convinced. Neither of the other two engaged that much, and very little with Trump’s attorney. Sotomayor didn’t seem as sharp as the rest. Maybe it’s being the Wise Latina (and she truly was the AA hire), or she really could be sick.
My prediction is that with the five votes for Trump fairly secure, CJ Roberts joins them, in order to keep their ruling narrow. Jackson is a possibility, though she seems sometimes to move left after oral arguments. It could be that she is still new, or the female thing of seeming to join a consensus, when in a verbal discussion, but not really doing so. I don’t see the majority getting Karen on board, because I think that she more believed the Smith 3 layer of protection (and before joining the Court, was the more political of the Three), and without her, no Sotomayor. My prediction right now is 6-3, but possibly 7-2, in favor of Trump, with the Karen/Sotomayor dissent being, again, fairly weak, and maybe a concurrence by Alito or Gorsuch calling them out on it. We shall see.
“Pretty clear that they’re at least considering sending some of this back to the lower courts —and potentially opening the appeal window up again—to maximize the delay”
No. Maximize the fairness and Due Process. As we all know here, the reason for the rush to trial is to interfere with the Presidential election just over 6 months from now. That’s the rush. That’s the hurry. Both federal cases have glaring holes in them, that the (not so) Independent Counsel just assumed away. Most everyone who has looked at the cases objectively know that convictions wouldn’t survive appeal.
Thank you for your comments here, Achilles. That constitutional perspective is grounding.
Ditto Breezy.
Greg @ 5:27
Trump won't have to send anybody. That arrow is already nocked and the string is already under tension.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा