Said James Burnham, "a former law clerk for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch who has also worked at the Justice Department and Trump White House."
The special counsel and the Justice Department, Burnham said, overplayed their hands by charging Trump based on his discussions with Justice Department officials and his vice president — government officials whose communications with the White House can be at the heart of a president’s job.
Burnham called the indictment “a prime example of the Justice Department overreaching and ending up miles behind where it began.”
“Smith has nobody to blame but himself.”...
[Burnham noted the Court's citation of] a 2016 Supreme Court decision [that]... unanimously
overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican.... Burnham was part of the defense team in that case; Smith was the
head of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, which oversaw the McDonnell investigation. ...
“The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under
‘a pall of potential prosecution’ … raises
‘unique risks to the effective functioning of government,’” Roberts wrote in
Trump v. United States [quoting the
McDonnell case].
In the
McDonnell case, Roberts found that prosecutors had defined “official acts” too broadly; in the
Trump decision, he took the position that prosecutors had considered the question too narrowly. But in both cases, Roberts concluded prosecutors overreached, exceeding the authority and intent of the criminal statutes.
Posts
88 comments:
"in both cases, Roberts concluded prosecutors overreached"
In both cases, they were waging lawfare against GOPers. Since there are no real sanctions and the process is the punishment, the slapdowns won't stop them. Maybe tit-for-tat will.
I would add "scare quotes" to Justice Department.
Ministry of love but this isnt jack smiths first rodeo the mcdonnell case the edwards case
Sebastian 👍🏻
And this says absolutely nothing about how Jack Smith isn't even really a 'special counsel' approved by the Senate.
Break and bend every rule in the book and they can't even produce a Pyrrhic victory. These traitors should be covered in shame except that's an emotion they don't possess.
A selfiesh motive forced the court to delineate a separation of jurisdictions. It's not quite the battle of Antidem, but it has forward-looking implications for Democratic duplicity and Republican resolve in a contemporary occupation, particularly where bureaucratic lies matter, and handmade tales are published to influence perception.
Never forget that the 3 Democrat Justices voted their politics - as usual and wrote a bunch of nonsense "The President is above the law" and "This will allow Presidents to use a Seal team to kill people on a whim".
The question is who can check the President's power? Congress can already do it. And the voters can do it. And its already established that "Just following the Presidents orders" isn't a defense against a criminal act.
Smith and the 3 Leftists Justices just want the Leftwing Legal establishment to be able to practice "lawfare" against any Republican President whenever they feel like it. They know the R's wont retaliate, they never do.
Yes before there was the law and three judge panel but because ken starr they did a way with that then when they need a white rabbit see fitz or mueller they find one
"“The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under ‘a pall of potential prosecution’ … raises ‘unique risks to the effective functioning of government,’” Roberts wrote in Trump v. United States [quoting the McDonnell case]."
Trump should have fumigated the FBI, but played hands off because his opponents were screaming "obstruction!".
Given the way the federal law is written, almost every President can be charged with some sort of crime. "You can indict a ham sandwhich" and its even easier then its a DC Democrat Grand Jury and a Republican ham sandwich.
The conspriacy laws are easily abused. Just say Republican president X "Intended" to Do horrible thing "Y", and you got a law broken and possible jail time.
Thankfully, Roberts decided Federal judges and prosecutors shouldn't have that kind of unrestrained power. The Special prosecutors are already a joke. Hillary - couldn't prove intent - no charges. Trump - charges. Biden - couldn't prove he deliberately mishandled classified data - no charges.
Remember when the DOJ prosecuted Presidents for war crimes and election theft? Yeah, me neither.
If they are immune to shame, let them be covered in tar. Their contrition will determine whether they get feathers or flames.
Well the minefield was loaded with tripwires not only comey but mccabe laufman strzok stringers like halper on the outside
Sotomayor’s dissent in this case will immortalize the reaction of the most immature and stupid people on the planet.
It is truly embarrassing to be a democrat these days.
Smith is not an impressive prosecutor -- serial bad judgement and partisan leanings are disqualifying. Smith ran the DOJ Public Integrity Office when Hunter was flying 72 times aboard AF-2 with his Dad to build his shady, corrupt influence peddling business. He never said a word or issued a rebuke, despite complaints from others that Hunter was usurping the power of the VP office for personal gain (kind of like he is now in the WH). Maybe this is why Smith was not vetted and confirmed in the Senate; thus his status is now in limbo...
He was too busy prosecuting one of the warlords he put in power in the 90s
One of the problems with brazen Democrat corruption is the reaction to brazen Democrat corruption by normal citizens as well as the Supreme Court. Democrats applaud while normals hope for a revival of fair, if not honest, government.
One possibility: "Trump is an unworthy vessel chosen by God to save us from the evil on the left." John Podhoretz.
The problem is not that Trump is a former president.
The problem is that he's a future president.
And the DOJ was trying to stop that from happening.
Supreme Court's opinion doesn't stop the real evil of the Biden administration -- the attempt to put their political opponent in jail and fix the 2024 election.
And its already established that "Just following the Presidents orders" isn't a defense against a criminal act.
So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order. But if they carried out the assassination, they could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder (which I believe still carries the possibility of the death penalty), but the person who ordered the hit would be immune from prosecution?
How does that reflect a rational and just system.
The special counsel and the Justice Department, Burnham said, overplayed their hands
Whatever Trump did was overshadowed by what Smith did in response.
Whatever Trump might do in the future is overshadowed by what people like Smith might do if unchecked.
Hence, the checking.
Shorter WAPO: Yes Democrats, you're the baddies.
hombre said...
One possibility: "Trump is an unworthy vessel chosen by God to save us from the evil on the left." John Podhoretz.
7/10/24, 10:35 AM
At this point, anyone using the phrase "unworthy vessel" should be under scrutiny as part of the Epstein network. President Trump wasn't just the best and most impactful President of the century, but he's nowhere near done. And he is a sight more worthy than John Podhoretz, Mona Charen, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, or the other sanctimonious Jews who think it is their place to sit in judgment on absolutely anyone.
Feder Frederson said
"So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order. But if they carried out the assassination, they could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder (which I believe still carries the possibility of the death penalty), but the person who ordered the hit would be immune from prosecution?"
I believe that is Sotomayor's position, rather than anyone here's, so that is why it doesn't reflect a rational or just system.
They know the R's wont retaliate, they never do.
You do realize that Trump is basing almost his entire campaign on promising to retaliate against his opponents? He even retweeted (or retruthed) a meme accusing Liz Cheney of treason for the temerity of voting to impeach Trump.
So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order. But if they carried out the assassination, they could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder (which I believe still carries the possibility of the death penalty), but the person who ordered the hit would be immune from prosecution?
I don't think you've worked it through.
If a president orders the assassination of his opponent, and that order gets carried out, what would the president do next? He would, using some well chosen words, declare himself president for life. Supreme Court? Who cares.
Now we see how these things work. Declaring one's self a dictator works when one has the support of the military. It categorically does not work when one lacks the support of the military.
We're way beyond what's written on paper in such a scenario. We're into the foundational parts of constitutional government. Does the military support the now-dictator, or not? If so, we've lost democracy.
If not, however, the military will "fix" the situation by killing the now-dictator, reinstate congress and the courts are back in power. The Supreme Court would sort things out as to how to restore some semblance of where we came from.
I believe that is Sotomayor's position
I believe you are mistaken about that. That is why Sotomayor dissented.
The problem with lawfare is that in war your enemy may also have a say.
You do realize that Trump is basing almost his entire campaign on promising to retaliate against his opponents?
That is how the Democratic Press (but I repeat myself) reports things. Reality is different.
Freder Frederson said...
So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order.
7/10/24, 10:43 AM
This is why Donald Trump didn't "cross the Rubicon" despite the flood of support from the III% right demanding it. Of course, a second election theft on the part of an idiot vegetable might shift the window a bit.
Much more important than merely shooting a powerless puppet is sending the army to permanently resolve Marbury vs. Madison, and then cheerfully reminding certain oligarchs that there are many things worse than being exiled without their American assets. Vladimir Putin built up his position through very similar tactics.
Sotomayor's position was similarly not well thought out.
There is no way that a presidential action to eliminate assassinate his opposition would be either deterred or encouraged by the nuanced legality of such action.
We're into the foundational parts of constitutional government.
That ship has already sailed. This Supreme Court, in their faux originalism, have decided that for a wide swath of crimes (as long as it can be considered an "official act") the president is immune from prosecution, even though the constitution clearly states that an impeached president "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7)
That is how the Democratic Press (but I repeat myself) reports things. Reality is different.
Have you seen or read any of his campaign rally speeches? I don't know how else you can interpret it.
If a president orders the assassination of his opponent, and that order gets carried out, what would the president do next? He would, using some well chosen words, declare himself president for life. Supreme Court? Who cares.
Which is exactly why this decision is so dangerous. The Roberts court has laid out a scenario where this could happen and literally no one could do anything about it.
Much more important than merely shooting a powerless puppet is sending the army to permanently resolve Marbury vs. Madison, and then cheerfully reminding certain oligarchs that there are many things worse than being exiled without their American assets. Vladimir Putin built up his position through very similar tactics.
I can't tell if you are advocating this or not.
Freder Frederson said...
I can't tell if you are advocating this or not.
7/10/24, 11:30 AM
Then why should anyone care about your opinions on Trump? You lack perceptiveness.
Freder Frederson said...
If a president orders the assassination of his opponent, and that order gets carried out, what would the president do next? He would, using some well chosen words, declare himself president for life. Supreme Court? Who cares.
"Which is exactly why this decision is so dangerous. The Roberts court has laid out a scenario where this could happen and literally no one could do anything about it."
Freder you dumb.........Ah, Jesus. Nevermind. Explaining anything to you is like talking to a stump. Go. Go forth and be happy, but for the love of god don't procreate.
I see Freder has shown up the argue the dimwit position- appropriate, isn't it?
Once again; if a President, even a fucking Democrat like Joe Biden, ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, Congress would quickly impeach and convict such a president, and that president would be tried and convicted in a criminal court and likely would be executed under federal law. Nothing- literally nothing- in the majority opinion bars such a process any manner whatsoever. Sotomayor was just angry at Trump getting a benefit out of this completely reasonable decision and so she ended up writing a lyingly wrong dissent that that could have been written by any 1st year college student drinking and discussing politics in a dorm room.
If Trump had been a Democrat with the exact same facts, Sotomayor would have written a concurring opinion to Roberts' that would have been even stronger in protecting the prerogatives of the executive branch and every honest person knows this.
Not using any apparent restraint, could be making the supreme’s snap back… ‘we’re not here to split babies… you asshole.’
Obama and Biden should cheer the "official acts" immunity decision.
Obama ordered the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, in a drone attack without due process, a charge, or a trial, let alone a conviction.
So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order. But if they carried out the assassination, they could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder (which I believe still carries the possibility of the death penalty), but the person who ordered the hit would be immune from prosecution?
You do realize that, for all the hypotheticals about Trump regaining office and ordering Seal Team Six to kill a political rival, it is always rivals/problems to Dem politicians who keep turning up dead. Clinton body count, Obama's chef/boy toy, etc.
This is the only actual rule: "der Wille zur Macht" - Nietsche
If you can think of it, it can be done to you if your rival gains power, therefore, you must not let that happen at any cost and, BTW, do it to them, whatever it is. It's kind of a perversion of the contrapositive of the "Golden Rule" and it seems to be driving events worldwide, from these prosecutions of political rivals to prosecution of wars against economic rivals.
"If we don't defeat and humiliate China while we still can, they will defeat and humiliate us!" is the same logic. You can file it under self-fulfilling prophecies. John Mearsheimer calls it "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" but really it's the tragedy of *all* politics. Ben Franklin said "It's a republic! If you can keep it!"
Anyway, we are plainly careening toward the same post democratic world that Europe is in, driven by the same people, the ones in our security state who ran all of those banana republics abroad, not just in South America, but in Europe, we learn, have now brought their techniques of power politics home.
imTay said...
Anyway, we are plainly careening toward the same post democratic world that Europe is in, driven by the same people, the ones in our security state who ran all of those banana republics abroad, not just in South America, but in Europe, we learn, have now brought their techniques of power politics home.
7/10/24, 12:14 PM
This is why all business students study game theory: to realize that you won't always have the winning hand and that bluffs don't always work. But some tribes simply do not have a reverse gear, and then act surprised when they are all exiled or killed.
Well tough teddy! What did they think was going to happen, Trump was cheerfully going to slink off to prison? Every single one of the scumbag Rats who brought America to this point deserve to pay. Make no mistake, they will, and they are rattling their cages because they can smell their deaths approaching.
I believe Chief Justice Roberts has something to say:
"As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.
. . .
The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s
precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors."
Freder, if you truly believe that the Supreme Court's decision authorizes a president to assassinate a political opponent, then why hasn't Biden done it yet?
We had a 250-year norm against prosecution of a president for official acts. It worked fine. It fit together with the absolute immunity for official acts enjoyed by Congress and federal judges. Smith tried to blow up that norm for short-term political gain, and the Supreme Court restored the status quo.
Make no mistake - they did this to protect Biden as well as Trump. You may not be looking past the upcoming election, but they do.
Once again; if a President, even a fucking Democrat like Joe Biden, ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, Congress would quickly impeach and convict such a president, and that president would be tried and convicted in a criminal court and likely would be executed under federal law.
Under the ruling, how would that happen? The inquiry would have to include a determination if it was an official act. Also, under the decision, even if the underlying crime was not an "official act", all communications with his co-conspirators (assuming the co-conspirators were government officials, and maybe if they weren't) would be considered official acts and that evidence would be inadmissible.
And of course, murder is an extreme example, but under the decision (and under Snyder, decided just the day before) the President could say "for a $1 billion gratuity I will change whatever regulations you like". Trump has already effectively made that offer to Oil Executives.
We had a 250-year norm against prosecution of a president for official acts
Well, that may have something to do with the fact that no other president has refused to accept the results of an election and tried to get his Vice President to refuse to certify the electoral vote count.
Even Nixon was not that bad, and Ford pardoned him, otherwise Nixon would have been prosecuted for his various crimes.
Once again; if a President, even a fucking Democrat like Joe Biden, ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, Congress would quickly impeach and convict such a president,
Once again, if a president ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, congress would have nothing to say. If they got rowdy, they'd all die too.
Congress has no defense against this kind of action.
LOL I read two versions of this same theme over the last week, by Julie Kelly and by an attorney I don't recall. Jack Smith not only made boneheaded charging decisions without regard to precedent, he tried to fast-track the immunity question thinking the high court would hand him a victory. Why?
Why would he think they would fast-track a case that included elements no lower court had ever considered? And he did it including acts that were arguably official and certainly took place during Trump's term. Conservative law commentators questioned the wisdom of Smith's appointment at the time given his record of losing 9-0 at SCOTUS on another overreaching prosecution. They all seem pretty prescient now. That immunity ruling reaches into every open case pending against Trump including the one for which his sentencing has been delayed.
Way to go Jack! And we still don't know if his appointment is even legal!
Well, that may have something to do with the fact that no other president has refused to accept the results of an election and tried to get his Vice President to refuse to certify the electoral vote count.
When a president brings a loyal armed force to such an event, expecting to physically intimidate the participants, then your hyperbole will be real.
A bunch of unarmed, disorganized rowdies offering no physical threat of any kind is way more American than what you suggest.
Make no mistake - they did this to protect Biden as well as Trump. You may not be looking past the upcoming election, but they do.
This statement is just ridiculous. They waited until the very last day of the term (actually after the normal end of their term) to decide and remand this after not bothering to expediate it in the beginning. Compare that with how quickly they decided on Colorado taking him off the ballot.
Make no mistake, this was done to protect Trump.
That immunity ruling reaches into every open case pending against Trump including the one for which his sentencing has been delayed.
Given that they are all bogus, they should all be compromised.
Why would Smith be participating in such a thing to begin with? Was he deluded? TDS? Whatever it was, it kept him (and Bragg, and Bragg's judge) in a zone of ludicrous legality imagining themselves doing God's work, and under divine protection.
Wow reading through I'm surprised it took over an hour before the first idiotic "seal team" reference appeared. Do you leftists really believe the high court just ruled that murder is legal now? Is that really what you think? Or do you just hurl the dumb hypotheticals that you heard someone else say?
A bunch of unarmed, disorganized rowdies offering no physical threat of any kind is way more American than what you suggest.
I disagree with your assertion that the disorganized rowdies offered no physical threat. Regardless, just because you are really bad at organizing and carrying out a coup is not a valid defense against the underlying action.
Freder did or did not peaceful orderly transfer of power take place on 1/20/2021 just as scheduled? Since it DID then Trump obviously "accepted the results," despite your spit flecked hyperventilation. It is unclear why you are supersensitive to the words you impute to Trump, whether he said them or not, but his opponent from 2016 calling Trump "an illegitimate president" for the succeeding 8 years has not bothered you at all, as you never list her among the "election deniers" that have irked you so.
If words matter so much, then condemn all the "rejected results" speakers.
If actions matter more than words then show me where Trump refused to do his duty after the election. (No speaking to Pence doesn't count since any of us has the right to argue, even Trump.)
Once again; if a President, even a fucking Democrat like Joe Biden, ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, Congress would quickly impeach and convict such a president,
Once again, if a president ordered and carried out an assassination of his political rival, congress would have nothing to say. If they got rowdy, they'd all die too.
Congress has no defense against this kind of action.
Of course, that applies whether the SC voted as they did or not - if the military sides with a President who decides not to leave office, the country is over, immunity or not.
"Well, that may have something to do with the fact that no other president has refused to accept the results of an election and tried to get his Vice President to refuse to certify the electoral vote count."
Then where was the prosecution of Al Gore for 2000, Freder, who wasn't even a President? And if you are going to answer, "Gore eventually accepted the results," well, then so did Trump.
There was no insurrection. No one was charged with that. It's all in your imagination. Trump told them to "protest peacefully" (his exact words) and then go home. Repeating your lies doesn't make them so and convinces no one new. Maybe seek some mental health counseling for your delusions.
At its base, the reason Trump was persecuted for this, along with all the January 6th protestors rotting in jails and prisons, is that they all refused to say, "Biden won the election fair and square." I guarantee you the DoJ has looked into charging people who did nothing more than supported the protest with essays and comments claiming the election was stolen- it is only that they were afraid SCOTUS would immediately step in and stop it that they have desisted so far.
Jack Smith was selected for this job specifically because of his lack of scruples and his willingness to stretch the law to target Republicans. He has a track record of this sort of thing. The legal issues were not his concern and still are not, other than how much it disrupts his goal to get Trump. The fact that he may or may not have made some troubling precedent has no meaning to him. No one with an ounce of principles or self-respect would have put him in this position.
The Supreme court ruling said that presidents were immune with regard to "actions relating to the core powers of their office" So which "core power" is being used when a president kills his opponents? They added that official acts are included but that the courts get to decide what is an "official act". Again, what is official about ordering your opponents killed?
Freder spews a lot of bilge to say "It's (D)ifferent when my side does it."
Michael K said..."I would add "scare quotes" to Justice Department."
You mean the "Just-Us Department", correct?
Freder is up to his usual cockamamy chatter, whilst most of us here would like to see his head on a platter.
Freder desperately wants Biden to have Trump killed and then declare Democrats dictators of the New Republic.
Remember. Democrats always accuse the other guy of what THEY want.
I was hoping Althouse would comment on the oddness of "the Justice Department overreaching and ending up miles behind where it began." That's an oxymoronic mixed metaphor, isn't it?
"Even Nixon was not that bad, …"
Nixon acquiesced to Kennedy's electoral shenanigans "for the good of the country", and look what happened to him.
They know the R's wont retaliate, they never do.
If Trump gets back in, I hope and expect that this will change in an apocalyptically dramatic fashion. I want him to take actions against Smith, Garland, and all their flunkies and co-conspirators that will keep the worthless government scum in abject fear for a hundred years.
the constitution clearly states that an impeached president "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7)
I have no problem with that, as long as you accept that an unimpeached president is not liable or subject to prosecution.
Everything I've read about Smith says he's a massive fuck up.
How the hell was he given the job?
After Bannon was jailed for defying a Congressional subpoena, I hope the same will be applied to Garland. At the least.
who-knew said...
The Supreme court ruling said that presidents were immune with regard to "actions relating to the core powers of their office" So which "core power" is being used when a president kills his opponents? They added that official acts are included but that the courts get to decide what is an "official act". Again, what is official about ordering your opponents killed?
***************
You're engaging in Olympic-level Conclusion Jumping by considering killing your political opponent a presidential "core power". The Court made no such assertion.
Only the whackjob Latina did that.
Further, when the Supreme Court sent back the decision to the DC court to address the "official act"
question it had failed to properly deal with, the lower court would not be deciding what an official act is, it would be deciding whether what Trump did and said on January 6 were official acts.
That's more than a nuance of difference.
The interesting legal case would be to hold Biden liable for "forgiving" student debt in the face of a Supreme Court opinion that doing so would, and is, ultra vires his powers.
Jack Smith… Sultan of the Subway Ham Sammich.
Find another wank, Jack.
The corksoaker Smith has no standing.
GTFO.
Jack Smith… Sultan of the Subway Ham Sammich.
Find another wank, Jack.
Freder Frederson said...
Tom T. said...
We had a 250-year norm against prosecution of a president for official acts
Well, that may have something to do with the fact that no other president has refused to accept the results of an election
The Obama Administration's refusal to accept the 2016 election results is what gave us the whole Russia collusion hoax, and the "Mueller" BS "Special Counsel"
Do you EVER stop lying, Freder?
Four prosecutions of questionable provenance against the former POTUS isn't just a case of over ambition, it's obvious to me they were orchestrated "lawfare" by the Biden regime. When Democrats say Trump is a threat to "our democracy" I read that as he"s a direct threat to their power. It's just more fabricated rhetoric to scare the rubes who are sitting on the fence.
“in both cases, Roberts concluded prosecutors overreached”
In both cases, the defendants were Republicans.
Suppose the Supreme Court (correctly) holds that Jack Smith was never properly authorized to act as a Special Counsel. Or doesn't address the issue.
Does Jack Smith have "prosecutorial immunity" for his actions in pursuing and promoting the prosecution of his political opposition, using "novel" and legally dubious theories of law, for the partisan political purpose of hampering that opposition in elections? Isn't that acting and conspiring to interfere with the just administration of elections?
I want the Trump Justice Department to pursue that case. If for no other reason than to see how the people who argue that "limited immunity for official acts" means murder is just fine. No nuance. If Jack Smith murders Donald Trump, is he immune? If he prosecutes without authority, should he be prosecuted himself? Square that circle.
Joe Smith: I was just wondering why Jack Smith was given this task. And then I thought "Perhaps everyone else that could be considered for it wouldn't take it on."
For whatever reason any could think of, but mine was "Because they aren't that stupid and retain some personal honor."
Freder Frederson said...
And its already established that "Just following the Presidents orders" isn't a defense against a criminal act.
So, under your interpretation, if the president ordered Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent, they would be bound by the UMCJ to refuse to follow the order. But if they carried out the assassination, they could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder (which I believe still carries the possibility of the death penalty), but the person who ordered the hit would be immune from prosecution?
How does that reflect a rational and just system.
Freder is too stupid to argue against anyone other than himself.
We had discussions in the army about what to do with unlawful orders. We were all far more intelligent than Freder and his stupid straw man BS.
It is really simple. Any non-moron can work through this scenario.
If Trump ordered Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent he would issue that through the chain of command. Trump can't write a letter or send an email to do make Seal Team 6 do anything.
That command will not make it through the chain of command. Very early on it would be deemed unlawful.
Then Trump would be impeached for breach of his oath to carry out his constitutional obligations faithfully. Ordering Seal Team 6 to kill someone obviously breaks the protections that individuals in our country carry as unalienable rights. Particularly the 5th and 6th amendments guaranteeing due process.
Then he would be charged with attempted murder.
Freder and Sotomayor are just stupid evil people. Their selective prosecution is repellent to decent people and they are throwing a fit about this like a mentally challenged toddler.
What they are really claiming is that Biden can have Trump killed by Seal Team 6 and if that happens they will justify it. They will justify anything.
tolkein said...
After Bannon was jailed for defying a Congressional subpoena, I hope the same will be applied to Garland. At the least.
It will not because the Republican speaker of the house is protecting him.
Even though Garland is literally throwing someone else in jail for doing exactly what he did.
What nonsense.
Trump wasn’t seeking the advice and counsel of his Vice President, or the DoJ. They were each instrumentalities is his plot to use them to steal an election. Trump simply threatened Pence, telling Pence to do something that was plainly illegal. And since when is the DoJ the President’s law firm? We pay for an office of White House Counsel to do that.
I have a number of friends who are sometime-FedSoc participants. I’ve asked most of them, “What about this decision is conservative? What is textual? What is originalist?” No one has had a good answer. Almost no one has even tried.
Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck: "Trump wasn’t seeking the advice and counsel of his Vice President, or the DoJ."
You are a Lawrence Tribe/Eisen/Weissman Lawfare liar.
Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck: "I have a number of friends who are sometime-FedSoc participants. I’ve asked most of them, “What about this decision is conservative? What is textual? What is originalist?” No one has had a good answer. Almost no one has even tried."
This is quite believable as these "friends" (LOL) probably are familiar with you, your antics and your psychoses. I suspect when you "ask" questions of them they roll their eyes, whistle a bit perhaps, and backpedal, slowly, non-confrontationally, to the nearest exit. Maybe they even point quickly at the bar and say something like "hey, did someone just mix up another pitcher of gin and tonics?" and then, after you look over and look back, they've disappeared completely.
Given your history at Althouse blog, that would seem like a couple of the most prudent go-to moves indeed.
Greg the Class Traitor: "Do you EVER stop lying, Freder?"
None of them, like Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck, can afford to stop lying. Their entire universe is constructed upon these lies and if they even slow down with the serial lying, much less stop altogether, it will all come crashing down around their ears.
It was only a couple weeks back when Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck was literally cussing out Althouse posters who saw the video evidence of obambi grabbing Dementia-Glitch boy by the arm and leading him off the Hollywood fundraiser stage because he had frozen.
Chuck was pulled out another of his classically stupid Rupar-izations where right at the moment obambi was going to grab Dementia-Glitch boy the view was switched from close up to the cameras in the distant back where the actions were not visible.
Do not think for one moment our Local Rupar Affiliate, Chuck, didn't know exactly what he was doing. After all, he's been doing it for years.
Greg the Class Traitor: "Do you EVER stop lying, Freder?"
None of them, like Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck, can afford to stop lying. Their entire universe is constructed upon these lies and if they even slow down with the serial lying, much less stop altogether, it will all come crashing down around their ears.
It was only a couple weeks back when Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck was literally cussing out Althouse posters who saw the video evidence of obambi grabbing Dementia-Glitch boy by the arm and leading him off the Hollywood fundraiser stage because he had frozen.
Chuck pulled out another of his classically stupid Rupar-izations where right at the moment obambi was going to grab Dementia-Glitch boy the view was switched from close up to the cameras in the distant back where the actions were not visible.
Do not think for one moment our Local Rupar Affiliate, Chuck, didn't know exactly what he was doing. After all, he's been doing it for years.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
`“in both cases, Roberts concluded prosecutors overreached”
In both cases, the defendants were Republicans.'
LBotC must have missed the unanimous part in the earlier case.
Chuck - "since when is the DoJ the President’s law firm?"
Since January 2020.
Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck: "since when is the DoJ the President’s law firm?"
Nicholas: "Since January 2020."
The DOJ has been the obambi/biden/New Soviet Democratical law firm from Jan 2009 thru to today. With no interruptions. Including the period of time from Jan 2017 to Jan 2021.
Post a Comment