Open Thread: Supreme Court Ruling On Trump Immunity
[guest post by Dana]
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines. You can read the full opinion here.
From Chief Justice Roberts:
The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts.
From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent:
. . .the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. . . because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
. . .
Historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this Nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. With nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash.
The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.
Today’s Court … has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts.The majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. … Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small.
. . .
When Presidents use the powers of their office for personal gain or as part of a criminal scheme, every person in the country has an interest in that criminal prosecution. The majority overlooks that paramount interest entirely.
Note: The lower courts will determine “if any of Trump’s actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.”
Long live the king.
—Dana
Hello.
Long live the king, eh?
Dana (f7f735) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:04 amIt’s not at all unexpected based on how oral arguments went.
Observer (18372f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:15 amIt’s a tough call, Dana. How to protect Presidents from a “lawfare” kind of situation? I really dislike DJT, but I would be equally unhappy to see lawfare against another POTUS.
It’s almost like the majority and minority are talking about different things.
The hardest part of justice for me, growing up, was the knowledge that it is better to let a guilty person go than to convict an innocent person.
I realize my opinion will be not be popular.
Simon Jester (ff9c91) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:16 amI wonder why they didn’t do that in the first place?
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:22 amBiden, the sitting President, now has an agonizing decision to make.
The danger of J6 is past and the crimes are now a matter for the courts.
But what do you do with an already convicted felon of dual nationality, facing prison, as well as more criminal charges and more prison, and on friendly terms with America’s enemies, who is in possession of critical national security secrets?
nk (051548) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:33 amReposted from older thread:
SCOTUS does a good job in forming prospective prosecutors from politically “stretching” the law to meet their partisan agendas.
Yeah, glad for the majority SCOTUS to signal that they’re not leaving the “preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:34 am@4
Silly you…
It would generate lengthly, immunity claims that the courts would have to resolve before beginning the trial, which would’ve definitely take years.
The goal, all along, was to get a judgement before the election. That’s all that mattered.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:36 amIt’s almost like the majority and minority are talking about different things.
Liberal jurists tend to think of the decision’s results, irrespective of the merits.
Conservative jurists tend to think of the decision’s merits, irrespective of the results.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:43 amBut what do you do with an already convicted felon of dual nationality, facing prison, as well as more criminal charges and more prison, and on friendly terms with America’s enemies, who is in possession of critical national security secrets?
Well, despite him leading you in the upcoming election, you have no choice but to arrest him and hold him incommunicado. For national security. What could go wrong?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:46 amOrin Kerr, as usual, nails it:
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:47 amWould Nixon’s order of hush money payments to subordinates who were acting on his orders, or those of his delegatees, have been immune? For that matter, are subordinates who are carrying out specific orders from the CINC also immune? Such as orders to kill Bin Laden? Does it matter if the order is facially unlawful?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:54 amWhat dual nationality? I hope this isn’t another joke I’m not getting. There are shames I can endure, but that would be pushing it.
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:55 amNone of this helps him in NY. Nor would it help him if he paid hush money to a woman who he screwed in the Lincoln Bedroom. Even if he told her that it was an official act.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:57 amWhat dual nationality? I hope this isn’t another joke I’m not getting
It’s only potential. ANd apaprently not even that. His mother was a British subject, but Trump does not benefit from that for two reasons:
1) Until 1983, British subject status descended only through the father (which is a bit weird when you think about proof)
2) His mother became a US citizen before Donald was born, which under UK law severed her issue from any such benefit.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:02 amWhat dual nationality?
Mary Anne MacCleod Trump was a British subject, an immigrant to the United States.
nk (051548) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:03 amThat used to be called ”by the book”
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:04 amYeah, okay, what Kevin said too.
nk (051548) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:06 amIs that why some considered Obama a dual citizen at birth?
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:08 amFrom Steve Vladek (H/T: Patterico’s Twitter feed):
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:19 amThanks Kevin and nk.
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:21 amObama could probably claim four citizenships. British Commonwealth, post-independence Kenyan, adoptive Indonesian, and United States.
nk (051548) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:21 amImpeachment no longer exists?
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:23 amWhat does impeachment have to do with it?
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:25 amCongress gets to decide if the order was a high crime or misdemeanor.
Or is this hypothetical based on a fully cooperative military that actually executes such an outlandish order? If so, then I think there is a lot more to worry about.
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:28 am@19
This is some dumb caca. (wanted more expletive as it deserves but the swear filters won’t allow).
Two things:
1) Easily impeachable and fast too.
2) Easily not official acts, as murdering your political opponent is NOT a core executive function…anyway.
The coping here is mentally defective, and it’s a shame that our host chose to link it.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:32 amThe main thing is the Supreme Court raised the stakes in the election. They were already pretty high. I have a feeling that will end up not polling well for Trump. My feel is that most undecideds have a belief that the system will somehow constrain Trump in a second term. That seems a whole less probable now, don’t you think?
Appalled (36916d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:32 amImpeachment no longer exists?
The claim is that it no longer works. But really it will work in cases where public outrage is sufficient to put the screws to partisan senators. In Trump’s first impeachment, “public outrage” was confined to people who still talk about Iran-Contra. In the second impeachment, it might have worked had the Senate leadership (I’m looking at you Mitch) been equally outraged.
Still, it’s tough. Andrew Johnson survived despite the opposition Republicans having a supermajority in 1867 — internal rivalries worked in Johnson’s favor.
Nixon, however, would have been convicted. A president who had his opponent(s) killed would galvanize public opinion.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:32 amCongress gets to decide if the order was a high crime or misdemeanor.
I wish that canard would go away.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:33 amA) President gives highly questionable order declaring that is was an official act
B) Congress, through impeachment, proves that it was clearly not an official act.
C) through the holding from today’s opinion the president can now be prosecuted because of the declaration of congress.
Simple.
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:33 amSo, how does it supposed to work?
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:35 am…how is it…
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:35 amThe criterion for impeachment is “high crime or bad behavior” in modern language.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:37 amIsn’t this unusal?
Justice Thomas’ concurrance gives Judge Cannon a little more sustenance if she rules that Jack Smith’s Special Counsel status is unconstitutional:
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:40 amOk. I am assuming ordering the killing of your political opponent is bad behavior. Yes?
BuDuh (a6b63d) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:40 am@28
You can blame Democrats for that.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:41 amCongress can decide whatever it wants in an impeachment proceeding. That doesn’t make it admissible to rebut a constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution.
lurker (c23034) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:43 am@29
That’s actually incorrect.
The impeachment process is wholly a separate thing, and unique only to Congress’ prerogative.
The only think mentioned in this Immunity case is that SCOTUS rejected the premise that President/Former-Potus must be impeached before facing criminal charges.
What this case instructs, though, is for courts to determine what acts or official or not.
Congress can impeach to their heart’s content irrespective to what the court may or may not do.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:44 amKevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:54 am
I think the Supreme Court didn’t think this thing through carefully enough (and they often don’t)
They distinguished between official acts and non official acts. I would say official acts are things he could not do unless he was president. Speeches, unless addressed to official bodies, aren’t really official acts, as anyone can make a speech.
They said you couldn’t go into a president’s motive. This I think did not fine tune it enough. You don’t want people examining a president’s actions for political motives – they often have political motives. That is his right by virtue if holding the office. But you do want bribery to be illegal.
The second category should be things for which he has no extra ability to do because he is president. Like flinging a paperweight at an adviser because he didn’t like what he said to him and hitting him on the head and causing a concussion and killing him. Even if this took place in the Oval Office, he didn’t gain any extra power to do so by virtue of being president. Similarly, drunk driving or speeding..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/05/31/ulysses-grant-arrested-president-trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrests_of_Ulysses_S._Grant
It could be that the arrest was never made official.
Perhaps there should be two other categories:
3) Things a president has a right to do, like appoint someone or nominate someone to a position, or even where he has a doubtful but colorable right to do, like forgive student loans, where nevertheless he could be prosecuted if he was bribed to do so. But the issue of whether he had a right to take that action would not be part of the case. Just the fact of bribery.
4) Things clearly illegal, though his being president enabled him to do that. This would be like commissioning members of the U.S. Army to do murder someone where it was not part of an armed conflict.
I think they really have to leave things up in the air a bit, and they tried, imperfectly..
As for Nixon, he never authorized, even privately and unofficially agreed to, the payment of money to silence the Watergate burglars. John Dean did that on his own. And when he sought “authority” (actually cover) from Nixon on March 21, 1973 to pay money to E. Howard Hunt the argument he used was not Watergate which Nixon had no interest in covering up past about June 30 1972, but that he would talk about the break-in to Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. (Dean didn’t tell Nixon that he had already paid the money to Hunt!! That’s how dishonest he was.)
This is something which the current Supreme Court would hold was within the outer perimeters of his authority and – this is precisely what they wanted not to consider but should be an important consideration – done for government related reasons.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:44 amOk. I am assuming ordering the killing of your political opponent is bad behavior. Yes?
Also a high crime. Killing people is a serious crime in every country except Russia.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:48 amJohn Dean ordered the Watergate break-in because he wanted the burglars to get caught because Liddy was about the break into the McGovern campaign headquarters and there was a double agent in there (named Tom Gregory) who caused every attempt to bug the McGovern campaign headquarters to fail but now this was about not to be prevented.
I think John Dean wanted to make Spiro Agnew president. John Dean had an interest in McGovern being the nominee.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:54 amI would say official acts are things he could not do unless he was president.
Not quite true. There are things he can do that others can also do, but are nonetheless in furtherance of his Executive powers.
For example, anyone can call Zelensky on the phone and, if you get him to answer, can badger him until he hangs up. When a President (or a Senator…) does it, it’s an official act.
Similarly, anyone can tour a steel mill if you can arrange it with the owner. But when a presidnet does it, it’s an official act.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:03 am@40:
Unbelievable. In most meanings of the word.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:05 amOf course, if Biden did order Trump’s assassination — in the name of national security — he might well get away with it. Barring civil war or some other extra-judicial response.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:16 amand there is always the “Now who’s naive, Kay?” response.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:17 amSheesh…
Sotomayor’s Immunity dissent reads like any other O r a n g e M a n B a d hyperbolic screed from the leftist legalese community.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:19 amIf there is one Justice I agree with the most, it’s Barrett. It’s an added bonus that she’s a good writer.
Dual nationality?
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:26 amNever mind about dual nationality.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:33 amDual nationality?
Asked and answered
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:33 amAlso a high crime. Killing people is a serious crime in every country except Russia.
Yeah but don’t forget that the Mueller Report proved Trump = Putin and Putin = Russia
steveg (40d13a) — 7/1/2024 @ 11:56 amFalse.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:06 pmLOL! Show your work.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:15 pmI agree with Sotomayor. Where is the Constitutional text? Where is the historical basis?
And please, pretty please, don’t give me precedents that the President cannot be sued civilly under the Ku Klux Klan Acts or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Duh! Federal court jurisdiction does not exist unless Congress creates it. The Court can interpret those statutes’ reach in regard to the President and other Officers.
The six gerbils just made this whole pile of toilet paper up. Like they were a Constitutional Convention. Worse than Roe v. Wade.
nk (12b5ef) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:31 pmRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:15 pm
For some of these tings I have, or had things the rest is deduction:
John Dean ordered the Watergate break-in: This is what the testimony shows. He attributed it to other people.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/james-rosen/john-deans-watergate-whitewash
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:50 pm@52
The majority addresses that too…
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 12:59 pmThe Haldeman tapes show that AG Mitchell ordered the break-in.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:04 pmThe only explanation.
Silent Coup and other sources.
Liddy had an inside man (recruited by Robert F, Bennett later Senator from Utah) who planted bugs that never worked.
Right now I find this:
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/12/archives/studentspy-may-lose-credits-for-political-job-absence-not-explained.html
Actually he was. Or he was a double agent, maybe a triple agent. There was a Senate report I think that mentioned the failed bugs
Liddy was going to go ahead with a break into McGovern headquarters since Gregory did not seem to have any success in planting the bugs – and Gregory quit in order not to be involved. I think it was too much for him to be a triple agent.
John Dean prevented that burglary.
John Dean told Liddy to go first into the DNC. I think hoping or planning for them to get caught. I don’t know how he expected the burglars to get caught but that he expected them to be caught is the best explanation. Not something having to do with prostitutes.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:04 pmA horrible oversight by the Founders that makes one wonder how the Nation managed to survive for 235 years, eh? Thank Heaven Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett finally came along and received Enlightenment.
nk (9946e9) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:06 pmAs long as official acts isn’t too broad I’m OK with this. But if it would be an official act for Biden to have Trump targeted for prosecution (and I can see how it would be) I think this is to far. But we’ll see. Devil is in the details.
Time123 (ab3cfe) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:13 pmPaul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:04 pm
Liddy came up with a massive espionage plan. John Mitchell was afraid to say no, because he had confidence in Nixon, and he told him to reduce it two times. The third time he was kind of noncommittal. According to Larue.
Your source does not give Haldeman’s exact words about what Mitchell said. I think Mitchell clearly did not want the whole thing to take place. . It is possible that Mitchell knew but could not flatly refuse permission because he felt Liddy had the confidence of Nixon.
But there is some testimony that John Dean and Jeb Stuart Magruder told Liddy to do it. It wasn’t Liddy’s idea to break into the DNC. He wanted to go into the McGovern campaign headquarters. Liddy never spoke with anyone higher up like Haldeman. Only Magruder and Dean.
I think it is all connected with not wanting Tom Gregory to be exposed.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:22 pm@58
I think this immunity case states that Biden would also be immune to future criminal prosecution, even if anyone else would be charged under the various civil rights statutes.
Because only the POTUS (and delegated prosecutors) has the power and discretion to investigate and bring charges.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:35 pmhttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/when-does-robert-hur-get-his-apology/
Indeed…
…and people wonder why trust in the media is at an all time low.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:38 pmRyan Goodman has a helpful graph. The problem is that a president or ex-president is going to declare everything he does as official acts, therefore a prosecutor must overcome presumptive immunity at every turn, at least until there are more court decisions to establish a clear line. Advantage: Criminal president.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:39 pmAgain, without any direct evidence, it is completely pure speculation.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:41 pmTrump would, if reelected again, be a domineering Executive.
From my dictionary: “a boss who shifts between autocracy, persuasion, and consultation”
A King is completely unchecked, a King could chop the heads off of the Court, Congress and abolish the institutions. Then have morning coffee.
Every branch of our government should autocratic in the sense that it should absolutely wield the all of the powers invested in that branch by the Constitution, absolutely.
Here is what the Court has ruled for the immunity from liability of the legislative branch. “even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.”
steveg (40d13a) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:43 pmSo Orin Kerr linked above knows that every member of the legislature can also say “this is an official act” (within context) as can every member of the Supreme Court. The dispute arises over “in context” and context is most difficult in the Executive because its a 24/7 gig
Scholars have always noted “the uncertainty at the margins” and that remains.
I don’t think official acts are what a president declares to be official acts, but something either is or isn’t. I don’t like that speeches are – on the other hand things officially archived by the White House probably are.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:43 pmThis immunity existed before Trump 6-3, so he wasn’t “given” anything
steveg (40d13a) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:51 pmBut that’s exactly what Trump’s lawyers will present wrt the Jack Smith and Fani Willis prosecutions, if they proceed.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:52 pmhttps://www.commentary.org/articles/james-rosen/john-deans-watergate-whitewash
I know John Dean lied in a 1982 book (Lost Honor) about what Taylor Branch’s column in Esquire said in 1976 about who was Deep Throat.
(You couldn’t check the column – they weren’t individually indexed in the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature.
It was obvious to me that John Dean was lying in his testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee because he spoke in a monotone – which could only be because he was afraid that the Voice Stress Analyzer would catch him in lies.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:00 pm@67
Of couse Trump’s lawyers is going to present that defense.
It’s up to Jack Smith and the courts to adjudicate whether or not immunity applies.
SCOTUS basically scolded the district/appellate courts that they didn’t do their homework… meaning, no determination was made which acts where official v. not-official acts when determining immunity.
It’s the ultimate “show your work” admonishment.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:03 pmPaul Montagu (383f45) — 7/1/2024 @ 1:52 pm
Trumps lawyers will argue after the fact
This is not a president attempting to immunize himself before the fact by memorializing certain things as official acts.
I think the Supreme Court went a little bit too far – but not much too far.
They don’t want another Rick Perry prosecution, which involved the motivation for a veto threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry_veto_controversy
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:08 pmYou maybe didn’t need special presidential “in the course of his duties” immunity.
The Supreme Court intended to put a stop to any nonsense like that indictment.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:11 pmJust a thought — since the stakes for the election went up, given what Trump will likely do with the power granted to him, don’t be surprised by three possibles:
1. Biden suddenly agrees to drop out in favor of Harris immediatley
2. The New York court says Trump has to go to jail and he does not stay out pending appeal.
3. Biden (or Harris) uses new found powers to make a finding regarding Trump’s abuse of classified documents requiring his detention. All officials implementing decision operate under a Presidential pardon.
People do not always play by the expected rules when threatened by somene who never plays by the rules. Since the Supreme’s pulled a Dredd Scott out of their robes, we are in a Constitutional crisis, and some interesting things may now happen.
Appalled (36916d) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:13 pmAnybody else struck by Thomas pulling a textual (so to speak) about the legitimacy of the Special Counsel while concurring in the antithesis?
nk (e0cb65) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:20 pmI don’t think any of these three things would happen and the last two could be seen as illegitimate.
And what would be the point of Judge Merchan remanding Trump to jail? And Trump doesn’t have any more secret documents and wouldn’t sell them or flee the country, and they never were very important.
Trump isn’t yet threatening to throw out all the rules.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:21 pm@72
What “power” will be “granted” to him?
SCOTUS emphatically said to treat all presidents equally.
I think that’s their only option.
We need some more cogent than Biden… and VP Harris can take over there. She’s wrong on 99.9% of the politics, but at least she has all of her marbles.
If Merchand tries to jail Trump, Democrats are going to get rolled.
But, that won’t happen, as Trump has very appealable paths to stay prison.
LOL… there’s a lot of fantasy in this sort of conjecture.
The idea that SCOTUS pulled a “Dredd Scott” is so farcical… I can’t think of a more stronger synonym for ‘absurdity’.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:23 pm@73
I’m struck how he snuck that in…
As, the controversy over the Special Counsel was NOT part of the main immunity arguments.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:24 pmThomas was saying there’s another issue that the district court would do good to deal with sooner.
Was Smith’s appointment even legal?
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:42 pmThere’s a problem with transferring money to another candidate. Hard money is limited to $3,300 a person per campaign.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/1/2024 @ 2:43 pmI agree with Sotomayor. Where is the Constitutional text? Where is the historical basis?
Washington. Jefferson. Lincoln. These folks all did things that involved either the use of military force against US citizen, or in Jefferson’s case an enormous payment of government money without permission.
The Constitution sets the Executive up as a powerful figure with unique duties. He should no more be subject to petty laws than a police officer should be treated the same as a private citizen in a shooting. Both have DUTIES that require them to make choices and take actions that the average citizen does not have.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:04 pmA horrible oversight by the Founders that makes one wonder how the Nation managed to survive for 235 years, eh? Thank Heaven Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett finally came along and received Enlightenment.
Except for all the cases over the last 230 years where this principle was constructed.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:07 pmNow, it’s perfectly fine to argue that precedent should not have constitutional weight, that only what is printed in the Constitution or its amendments matters. If one wants to promulgate Executive Privilege, say, go write an amendment and try to get it passed. There are good reasons to want this, such that it is nearly impossible to repeal a precedent as things will just get reinterpreted to mean the same thing anyway.
But we don’t work it like this. It is precedent that precedent matters. Sotomayor’s dissent is a dishonest use of textualism, pretending that there haven’t been a pile of decisions over the last 2 centuries establishing that the Presidency is a unique office which MUST be set apart in some ways.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:13 pmWashington. Jefferson. Lincoln.
The poor old guys. Paralyzed by fear that they would be prosecuted for carrying out their duties as President.
Except for all the cases over the last 230 years where this principle was constructed.
What cases? Nixon was made to turn over some stuff to a grand jury in one case, and got a civil case against him for wrongful termination dismissed. What else?
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:17 pmIf impeachment is insufficient to correct an out-of-control Executive, feel free to fashion something that works better. But note that for every frustrated righteous impeachment there are probably 20 unreasonable attempts, so you cannot make it too easy, either.
The Founders had real problems with who tried impeachments, as well as who held the pardon power and what limits could be imposed. In the end, they decided that these were political questions. As they are.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:18 pmYou know that Caesar still divorced Pompeiia, right? The principle is above suspicion, not above the law.
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:20 pmWhat cases? Nixon was made to turn over some stuff to a grand jury in one case, and got a civil case against him for wrongful termination dismissed. What else?
Executive privilege was an old idea even then. Did it appear on a stone tablet? Why wasn’t Nixon indicted? Did they have nothing to base that on? YOU’RE the effing lawyer, don’t ask me to cite cases.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:21 pmPompeia
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:21 pmThis does not mean that anything he does is immune. The preposterous “shooting his opponent” thing is just there to inflame, as are most of the horribles on parade. Is asking his DoJ what the limits of the law are a crime? Probably not. Even for anyone else. Directing subordinates to do something the DoJ TOLD him was illegal WOULD be a problem, even with immunity (assuming they were correct), as illegal acts are likely outside his legal powers.
Probably the best historical case would have been the Ellsberg burglary as it at least marginally touched on national security (attempting to discredit the Pentagon Papers was a valid, if futile, national security objective). Had Nixon authorized it, could he be prosecuted? Likely not with today’s ruling.
But the bugging of the DNC offices at the Watergate? I’m sure that there were national security cover stories, but it seemed more likely to be for illegitimate reasons. It is not a presidential duty to undermine political opponents.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:23 pmWith Trump… I’m still very irked that he’s the GOP candidate and could win. I was a DeSantis guy, but would’ve eagerly supported any other GOP candidates moreso than Trump.
I just happen to read and understand that what SCOTUS did today and it didn’t give the president any additional power.
It reaffirmed the power the presidency already has, only that it’s taken this long for a controversy like this to reach SCOTUS>
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:24 pmI don’t know, Kevin, why wasn’t Nixon indicted? Or any other President? Maybe because the sound sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion turned out to be as good enough as the Founders thought it would be?
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:25 pmThe real problem the Court addressed is that not only does the Executive have duties that may require him to take resolute action, but he also has political enemies who will question any action that can be questioned.
Biden has taken a number of actions with respect to the Southern border. While many of them have seemed poorly chosen, the operation of the Border Patrol is within his remit. Without immunity for those choices, established today, a subsequent hostile administration could ruin what remains of his life with legal tomfoolery.
The question here is what is and is not a Presidential duty, and I see no reason to think that undermining the Electoral Count is one. Wishes are not duties.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:30 pmPut it another way.
SCOTUS has now emphatically closed the door that Biden, nor Mayorkas could be criminally prosecuted for not following the law for their border policies.
The *only* avenues to check these sort of mis/maladministration is impeachment, power of the purse, passing veto-proof statutes demanding enforcements and at the ballot box.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:31 pmMaybe because the sound sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion turned out to be as good enough as the Founders thought it would be?
The thing that informed that “discretion” was the belief that he was immune while still president. You have a better case pointing at the pardon.
But even with this decision, he still has to answer for the documents case and he still has to answer for the false elector fraud, neither of which invoke ANY presidential duty, and only the possible involvement of Grant in the resolution of the 1876 election as an historical argument (and even there his efforts were to diminish the false electors).
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:34 pmpassing veto-proof statutes demanding enforcement
I think “imposing administrative penalties” for lack of enforcement would be better. Making it a crime not to enforce would be a dead letter now. Zeroing out budgets in response would be much better.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:37 pmthe sound sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion turned out to be as good enough as the Founders thought it would be?
Where is that in the Constitution? Oh, yeah, precedent.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:38 pmWhere is the 25th Amendment in the Constitution? Your arguments are for an Article V Convention, not for a Partisan 6 decision.
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:50 pm@93
I’ve been advocating for that for years.
Congress has to do more to jealously protect their turf AND demand an executive to enforce the laws on the books.
The “power of the purse” is probably *the* hammer at Congress’ disposal to push the executive.
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:52 pm@95
Are you… currently imbibing on your favorite drink?
I’m not following your positions lately…
whembly (86df54) — 7/1/2024 @ 3:53 pm@89 I suppose Booth saved Lincoln from being prosecuted for suspending habeas corpus. We’ve been able to rely on prosecutorial discretion up until now, because up until now discretion was the operative word.
lloyd (7935a8) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:05 pmNixon was pardoned one month after he resigned, which would have been very little time for the Justice Department to obtain an indictment. The whole point of the pardon was to forestall an indictment. In fact, a pardon was discussed between then WH Chief of Staff Alexander Haig and VP Ford weeks before Nixon’s actual resignation.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:14 pmYour arguments are for an Article V Convention
Yeah, let’s freeze everything to 1789 unless we can get an amendment passed.
Look, the Constitution sets up a structure, and a number of things are inherent to that structure. Separation of Powers is an obvious one. The Executive is an entire branch of government and therefore has significant governmental powers not explicitly listed. Conducting foreign affairs can be pretty broad (puns not intended). Commander-in-chief encompasses what? Then here are the various departments.
There are parts of this decision that I find vague and dislike. Is ordering the IRS to audit someone an official act? I don’t think that I like it being after-the-fact and case-by-case. I assume that there will be more said by the DC Circuit, now that their claim that there was no immunity of any kind has been put to rest.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:16 pmAre you… currently imbibing on your favorite drink?
Yes. Nescafe Colombian blend.
I don’t know about my other positions, but my position here is that the Court fixed something that did not need fixing, and did it without a Constitutional basis, out of practically whole cloth, with dubious precedents and spurious arguments, based on phantasmagorical concerns, from partisan and not juridical reasons.
nk (20d4ea) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:16 pmWhere is the 25th Amendment in the Constitution?
Could the 25th have been constructed from 1st principles? I doubt it. Other things can be, such as whether a revolver is covered by the 2nd. And the 25th is unworkable as we have seen — it is only useful in a non-adversarial situation, like when the president’s personal interest conflicts with the country’s and there is no good way to finesse that (e.g. West Wing 4×23)
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:22 pmRip, see @92 where I suggest that the pardon DOES suggest they thought the president could be indicted. OTOH, the potential charges had little to do with core duties.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:25 pmI’ve added more of Sotomayor’s dissent to the post. Good reading.
Dana (cd2f0f) — 7/1/2024 @ 4:45 pmSotomayor is just working the knife on textualism and “history and tradition.” And the president IS equal under the law … to all the other Executives. Really, it’s a unique position and it has unique duties and requirements. Do we really want a world where President AOC can haul Biden before a court to answer for “his genocide in Palestine”?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:12 pmLong live the king.
Meh.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:13 pmDo we really want an America where Trump can request Putin to send over the Wagner Group to “preserve order” and order our Armed Forces to stand down, and the only thing he’ll need to worry about is an Allied landing on the Jersey Shore?
“Vote for the zombie! It’s important.”
nk (a71d91) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:21 pm“Sotomayor” and “good reading” are words that go together like “nails” and “chalkboard”.
lloyd (1367ae) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:22 pmWhat does he have on those six gerbils? Were they all guests at Jeffrey Epstein’s island at some time or another?
nk (a71d91) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:23 pmOfficial act can mean, for some purposes:
An official, including Presidents, should have immunity for doing something they should be doing, since government officials are supposed to act according to law in the public interest.
They don’t always do that but if it can be proven that an action was not part of the job, or not done according to the law, not in the public intersst, or for personal gain, etc., then it would not be an official act. No immunity.
I think this is the right rule. I think the Court could have held that attempting to overturn a valid election can never be an official act, but I would never expect the Roberts Court to jump to that holding, instead of remanding to a trial court to develop the evidence.
DRJ (496584) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:27 pm@107:
The Founders clearly thought that the Executive could be guilty of treason. They discussed it as a reason to limit the pardon power. What you suggest would be treason. How would you place that in his core powers? I’m not sure that being CinC or boss of foreign affairs includes “surrender” as it would grossly violate his oath.
Also, there is still impeachment, either the formal method, or what Franklin described as “the alternative.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:28 pmbut I would never expect the Roberts Court to jump to that holding
See Kagan’s torturing of the Texas social media law and the 6th Circuit’s bad, no good, awful opinion, while refusing to actually rule it unconstitutional as the lower court didn’t address the necessary issues. Again the Court refused to jump in. Reading it, I had the feeling that there was no consensus on what to do, particularly with the less fraught Florida law.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:32 pmAlso @107:
What you describe would be adequate grounds for a military coup.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:33 pmI can’t see, in practical terms, how this is much of any benefit to Trump since it didn’t rule these charges were official. Smith will argue the things he did weren’t official, Trump’s team will argue it is, DC Circuit has already ruled that they weren’t.
So the delay may be helpful, but the ruling only supplied the delay, not a win. If Trump wins he can pardon himself, and if Congress doesn’t like it, they can impeach, but good luck.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 5:59 pmExactly, Colonel.
It isn’t surprising that the majority of the Court (especially this majoroty) would hold that a government official can’t be targeted for motives. This is as much about Justices servong as government officials as it is about Presidents.
DRJ (9d44fe) — 7/1/2024 @ 6:48 pmShould Obama have been subject to prosecution for ordering the drone strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaki (sp?), an American citizen, in 2011? Awlaki had actively encouraged war against the US, but no court ever sentenced him to death.
On the other side of things, does anyone seriously believe that Seal Team 6, or any other unit in the US military, would obey such an obviously unconstitutional order such as Sotomayor hypothesized? If so, why?
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 7/1/2024 @ 7:26 pmdoes anyone seriously believe that Seal Team 6, or any other unit in the US military, would obey such an obviously unconstitutional order such as Sotomayor hypothesized? If so, why?
The only reason is because they are unhinged wrt Donald Trump and assume that he will infect all around him with the madness they project.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 8:07 pmDoesn’t really matter if they complied, but probably not.
In this ruling, Robert’s basically said “core” acts are specifically limited by Article 2, and in that the duties are specified, or not, in Section 2.
So there are really high level guidelines, but the details are where it matters, and there aren’t many. If you’re purely textual, the presidency is a part time job outside of wartime and he has few duties.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 8:16 pmJust when you thought that it could not get any crazier:
Trump Amplifies Calls to Jail Top Elected Officials, Invokes Military Tribunals
This doesn’t seem like the guy I want to hand power and immunity over to.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 8:34 pmIf you’re purely textual, the presidency is a part time job outside of wartime and he has few duties.
That “heads of departments” suggests that the Executive branch has lots to do. But it also argues against the Unitary Executive who commands those countless minions to do his bidding.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/1/2024 @ 8:38 pmProbably not because the Bush era Authorization to Use Military Force which states:
This was defined by Congress to give powers to the President as defined by the war powers act. Anwar al-Awlaki was a high ranking member of Al Queda and as such was a legitimate target. A Republican Congress reviewed this case and had questions about it, but said that unfortunately the justification was, at least, arguable, and changing the AUMF by Congress (as defined by the WPA) would be needed to clarify. That was 11 years ago and it still hasn’t.
There’s a nice discussion of it here.
Basically, the AUMF gave Pres Bush incredibly broad latitude, hence SOF deployment all over the world, Africa, Malaysia…Obama traded out some of the boots on the ground for drone strikes, Trump continued. The AUMF allowed the President to designate enemy combattants, and al-Awlaki was certainly an AQ leader, and we’ve been targetting them pretty much everywhere. We’re hitting the Houthis today under the AUMF. Both Republican and Democrat Congresses have continued to let it stand. Every few years there’s an attempt to end it, but it’s failed every time.
I’d be for ending it, replacing it with something a bit more judicious. Don’t get your hopes up though, if a President wants someone in Somalia dead, justification is pretty easy to get. Get a finding, have Congressional leaders briefed, Bob’s your uncle. There’s also the ticking time bomb scenario, some things you just have to do.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:04 pmAfter reviewing all the findings on the AUMF, this might be time to end it. Naming enemy combattants isn’t something I want Trump to be choosing with all his current rhetoric. He did say a lot last time but basically just thought telling everyone he was doing it was easier than actually doing it, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:15 pmTrump, personally, is clearly undeserving of any immunity, but this issue should not be about Trump but about what protection the president should receive. If today’s decision did not involve Trump, would it still be setting up an unaccountable king?
Am looking forward to the day when Trump is not part of our politics in the hope that the unhinged reactions he’s provoked, pro and con, will be a thing of the past. Am still bothered by Sotomayor’s hypothetical which seems to me straight out of fantasy world. I have several lifelong friends who served in the military and they all took their oath to defend the Constitution seriously. If the country ever got to the point where Seal Team 6, or any unit in the military, even contemplated for a second obeying an order to assassinate a political leader, then a controversial Supreme Court decision on immunity would be the least of our problems. Can’t wait for the end of this sort of video game rhetoric.
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:22 pmSotomayor putting that in was just dumb. This ruling doesn’t do what the headlines say it does.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:28 pmIts getting more difficult to watch, listen to the nevertrumpers who would gladly sacrifice the power of the executive for all tomorrows in order to get a leg up on Trump today.
steveg (8dac75) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:51 pmThey reflexively default to “Trump is existential threat to our democracy” therefore whatever diminishes Trump = the greatest good
It‘s getting more difficult to watch, listen to the MAGATrumps who would gladly sacrifice the nation for all tomorrows in order to get a leg up on the libz today, LOLZ.
They reflexively default to “Trump isn’t an existential threat to our democracy” therefore whatever diminishes the nation = the greatest good for Trump
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:09 pmThis ruling comes at a time when we have one of the weakest executives since July 2 1881. Robert Hur’s findings meant immunity for Biden would be an unnecessary redundancy
steveg (8dac75) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:16 pm#121
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 7/1/2024 @ 10:58 pmI appreciate that Awlaki was a bad guy who appears to have committed treason and probably met the fate he deserved. Also appreciate that the AUMF was crafted by serious people and that Obama did not take lightly the decision to order the drone strike. But I still don’t see how even an AUMF can override the guarantee in the Constitution that no American be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, especially since the Constitution sets forth particular requirements for finding someone guilty of treason. I just don’t see how the Executive can order the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen like that — by what standards and by whom will the president be held accountable? I don’t think Obama should have faced prosecution for making the order but have a difficult time squaring the vast national security state erected since 1947 with the restrictions the Constitution imposes on government power.
On the other side of things, does anyone seriously believe that Seal Team 6, or any other unit in the US military, would obey such an obviously unconstitutional order such as Sotomayor hypothesized?
Yes.
If so, why?
Because the U.S. military is no saintlier than any other collection of murderers, rapists, and thieves who have rampaged across the Earth killing, raping, burning, and pillaging since the beginning of time.
Or we can go playing fields of Eton with “Theirs not to reason why. There but to do and die.”
Whichever best lets us sleep peacefully in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. Cf. George Orwell
nk (c20c59) — 7/2/2024 @ 5:02 amWas the 20th century all that long ago?
Was the the U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed Zemari Ahmadi, an Afghan aid worker, and nine members of his family, including seven children, to cover Biden’s senile old ass for the Kabul airport terror attack on our troops, that long ago?
nk (c20c59) — 7/2/2024 @ 5:17 amI’m struck. Seems like Thomas is sending a message to Judge Cannon, as now she could use his dicta to dismiss the case.
Paul Montagu (b7a39f) — 7/2/2024 @ 5:54 am@131
Yeah, she cannot just dismiss the case on that basis. She could probably kick Jack Smith off the case, but they have other DOJ prosecutors, appointed/nominated that can take over.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:21 amIm not shocked by this ruling.
Joe (844973) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:44 amIt does seem consistent with the qualified immunity we give police and district attorneys.
I have had little regard for Thomas since Navarette v. California. In his dissent, Antonin Scalia called the majority opinion authored by Thomas a “freedom-destroying cocktail”. And now Thomas and company have served up a double.
nk (eee80d) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:48 am@133 It’s especially rich that prosecutors and judges, enjoying qualified immunity, are bitching about the President getting a version of that.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:58 amHe had also claimed immunity in the E, Jean Carroll case on the basis that he was defending the reputation of the Presidency.
Yeah, a conscienceless sociopath is just the person to grant immunity to, certain to count the nuanced angels dancing on the opinion authored by six pinheads, and not claim and act on absolute immunity for everything he does.
nk (eee80d) — 7/2/2024 @ 7:19 amwhembly (#135 and others),
Your stance, in general, is that the current court decision is inherent in the constitution — these are not new rights granted to the President. (Guess you are a Bob Barr unitary presidency kind of guy.) Since neither of us are lawyers, arguing this out will probably result in both of us sounding uninformed and stupid.
Even you should agree that the ruling raises the stakes of the election, as it provides that there are less restraints on the Presidency than many thought (or imagined, if you prefer). Now you might say, that makes it super important that the President show that he still can function. I’m more concerned with someone who will not abuse his power. (See #119 above).
This isn’t an election about inflation, tariffs, or immigration. It is about whether we just continue to muddle along or decide we just need a strong man to shake everything up and put all the bad people on the unemployment line if not in jail and hope that he won’t pick on me.
The choice stinks. But it’s pretty obvious. I prefer muddle than to trust that the system can handle a Mussolini wannabe.
Appalled (b1f725) — 7/2/2024 @ 7:47 amColonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/1/2024 @ 9:04 pm
I’ve said here, repeatedly, that the AUMF wasn’t a good path. The semi-war it authorized left the matter of wartime rules ambiguous and didn’t offer a good way to declare the war over. Congress should rescind the AUMF now, replacing it if needed with something far less encompassing. Or perhaps just rescind it, forcing the President to justify any action he orders on its own merits (e.g. Reagan’s Libya bombing).
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 8:15 amTo me, this decision says three things:
1. The president has absolute immunity over his Section 2 actions (although I wonder about taking a bribe to appoint an Ambassador)
2. The president has presumptive immunity over other official acts, such as his management of executive departments or delegated authority (e.g. tariffs). He can be charged here, but the FIRST order of business is a determination of whether immunity applies.
3. The president has no immunity over unofficial acts, such as exhorting a mob to intimidate Congressfolk.
How is this fundamentally different from the qualified immunity that many government actors enjoy?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 8:25 amno American be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,
He got due process of law — the AUMF. Police shoot criminals all the time, and it’s allowed if it happens under conditions specified in the law and/or police regulations.
Had Al Awlaki surrendered to US authorities, he would have been given a trial and if found guilty been punished under the law. HE didn’t. Instead he said “Come and get me, coppers!” and they did.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 8:32 amYeah, a conscienceless sociopath is just the person to grant immunity to
Well, nominate and elect better people.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 8:40 amMaybe we need a constitutional amendment allowing vetting of all presidential candidates as to mental and physical suitability. It’s not like that could be abused, right?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 8:43 amTrump NY sentencing to be delayed to allow time for him to file an immunity claim.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:12 amAIUI, Trump’s immunity motion involves evidence used at trial from his presidential correspondence.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:13 amI don’t really have a stand per se… I’m just reading what the majority ruled in the Immunity case.
I think I dig ACB’s concurrence/minor dissent than the full majority. In that she’s saying that POTUS doesn’t have express immunity per Constitution, but does have constitutional claims to challenge alleged criminal charges as unconstitutional. (which places the burden on POTUS).
Whereas the majority, in short, gave qualified immunity to POTUS. (thus the government having the burden to pierce immunity claims).
Speak for yourself.
This SCOTUS rule isn’t even that hard to read and understand.
In practice, this really doesn’t change all that much.
It’s just that SCOTUS chose to go the same route, namely qualified immunity, that is afforded to prosecutor, judges and public officials.
I think I like ACB’s position more, (still marinating her ideas) as its much more neat and tidy textually…. but that ‘qualified immunity’ box is now open and I understand why the majority chose this route. It’s consistent with the judicial fiction that is Qualified Immunity.
What you have is some sort of (non-enemy) Manchurian Candidate situation. Biden isn’t calling the shots. It’s obvious.
That’s a problem, and moreso dangerous than someone you believe may/may not abuse his power.
I disagree. It’s about all of that.
Life hasn’t been good under the Biden era.
That will definitely be on the ballot box as it should.
The choice does stink.
But with Biden… that is not something to “muddle” through. I’d agree with you if it’s Harris, rather than Biden. But, a demented figurehead whereby the powers-that-be that is control Biden is a far danger that you appreciate.
whembly (a43e5a) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:24 am“Im not shocked by this ruling.”
My problem is with the process…it does appear that a President can goof with the electoral process, evade impeachment because “it’s too late in his term”, and then evade prosecution by claiming a witch hunt and using endless delay tactics. There should be an accounting for the electoral mischief, and it should have been timely. Whatever the result. The Court could have accelerated the process as Jack Smith requested. The idea of official and unofficial is pretty obvious stuff. It’s quite the stretch to insinuate that swapping electoral votes was in any way official…or obstructing a Congressional proceeding. We can argue whether it elevates to criminal; we can’t argue that a President should be allowed to push Constitutionally-dumb schemes as part of Article II.
nk: “Because the U.S. military is no saintlier than any other collection of murderers, rapists, and thieves who have rampaged across the Earth killing, raping, burning, and pillaging since the beginning of time.”
Wow, that’s quite the slander….seems to casually dismiss much of the required sacrifice…and the code of ethics. There’s good and bad across society. Just as there are good and bad lawyers despite having a code of ethics there to. But a code does suggest an expectation and a self-policing. Personally, I don’t think an illegal order would be followed
AJ_Liberty (86087a) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:43 amAll of this makes Biden’s decision to hog the stage awfuller.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:49 amThis bit keeps coming back to me.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:51 amevade prosecution by claiming a witch hunt and using endless delay tactics.
2/3rds of the delay were at the DoJ before Smith was even appointed.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 9:53 am#140
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 7/2/2024 @ 10:03 amI get the point, and of course the AUMF has a lot of legal weight, but still don’t think it’s due process when the Executive gets to sentence an American citizen to death without a trial. If Awlaki was engaged in combat against the US (I don’t recall if he was) it would be different as of course our troops get to shoot back, but targeting someone with a drone strike seems like an execution, more like a Star Chamber proceeding than what the Constitution allows, or should allow anyway.
#145
Part of the art of legal opinion writing is asserting whatever the judge has in mind is in the Constitution, awaiting discovery by the wise justice wielding the pen. You objected to my assertion that the Court granted the Presidency some additional immunity he did not have.
Funny thing — lawyers disagree. There are now fights going on about the ability to prosecute a President for taking a bribe to deliver a pardon. (By the way, something yielding that result directly conflicts with Federalist 69 — “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”)
https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1808153938832568617?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
This is our fundamental disagreement. I accept that and move on. Biden isn’t drooling, by the way. He’s just too old for the job (as is Trump) and has about 6 good hours a day, per the reporting leaking out.
A lot of bad happened because of COVID and lingering issues from how the government dealt with that. (See inflation). I think a lot of the bad feeling isn’t the economy, it’s MAGA and adjacent media complaining incessantly. I would prefer a resolution to immigration. Trump tossed that into the dumpster because that would interfere with his campaign. But Biden certainly allowed his left flank to talk him into opening the borders in an unacceptable fashion. By voting for him, I end up “accepting” that, but Trump dishes out a whole lot more unacceptable to me.
Appalled (b1f725) — 7/2/2024 @ 10:57 amThe ruling is a net win for the Biden campaign and nevertrump because Trump will run his mouth about putting people in jail.
steveg (8dac75) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:06 amHe could easily say he believes there are some people who have done very bad things, but it would be best for our country if we move on-then move on
But he can’t control his mouth. Trump has a very good shot to win, but his lack of a verbal filter could lose it for him at anytime
al-Awlaki was not just any American, he served in an Al-Qaeda operational role, with involvement in numerous terrorist plots, including the including the 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing attempt in Detroit and the 2010 plot to blow up U.S.-bound cargo planes. He also had e-mail contacts with Nidal Hassan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood Massacre, and served as an English language propagandist for Al-Qaeda. The US government designated him as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” and at the same time the UN Security Council in 2010 described him as a “leader, recruiter, and trainer for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Had al-Awlaki been located in the United States he would have received due process, but he was located on the battlefield actively engaged in activities against the United States. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments don’t apply on foreign battlefields.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:28 amThere are now fights going on about the ability to prosecute a President for taking a bribe to deliver a pardon.
You know, like a pardon to Marc Rich after his wife gave millions to the DNC.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:28 amI would prefer a resolution to immigration. Trump tossed that into the dumpster because that would interfere with his campaign.
So would I. But neither side was offering a resolution. Once side offered a stopgap and the other side loaded the stopgap down with poison pills. A resolution involves a final status for the millions of illegals, the conditions imposed if any, and a thorough revamp of our unworkable immigration laws.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:32 amit would be best for our country if we move on-then move on
But he can’t move on. He couldn’t even move on in that debate, always going on about BIden’s last answer. The man is self-centered in the extreme, so insecure that the least slight has to be avenged. An inferiority complex masked by a superiority bluster.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:35 am#154
A lot of the left ties the original sin afflicting our country to Bush v. Gore. I tie it to Clinton’s decision to hang on at all costs after he was caught lying in a judicial poceeding.
Appalled (b1f725) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:44 am155
All I ask for is imigration law that we can agree to enforce.
Appalled (b1f725) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:48 amYou know, like a pardon to Marc Rich after his wife gave millions to the DNC.
ex-wife
bribe sent to DNC
Clintonesque
steveg (8dac75) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:26 pmPardons and appointments have always been suspect.
Back before the IRS, the most coveted political appointment was Collector for the Port of New York.
steveg (8dac75) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:30 pmI wonder why
Kevin
Your post on Marc Rich made me think about pardons, so I went to the link below
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-controversial-presidential-pardons-commutations-in-us-history-2023-4
Andrew Jackson tried to pardon George Wilson for the crimes of stealing mail and endangering a mail carrier, but Wilson refused to accept. The Supreme Court ruled the pardon could be rejected.
Wilson was hanged for his crimes
This made me think on a couple levels
1. Odd
2. Law enforcement and punishment have changed
3. The Supreme Court got involved
Another interesting pardon was Andrew Johnson in 1868 offering a blanket pardon for all Confederates and then backtracking and only pardoning the confederates who asked for one
steveg (8dac75) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:52 pm@139
Appointing Ambassador and accepting a bribe are two distinct things.
No one could criminally charge POTUS for appointing anyone, as POTUS alone can do so via Article II. But, accepting a bribe would NOT fall under Article 2 actions, and thus should be held liable criminally (with proof of bribe of course).
That’s my understanding as well.
Correct too. But POTUS may have 1st Amendment claims though.
Precisely my question too.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:52 pm@143
That surprises me… Merchan should’ve rejected it immediately as none of the NY trials was over any Article 2 acts.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:54 pm@157
I’d go back further…
To the Borking and technical lynching of Thomas (led by our current POTUS).
Funny how politics is nothing more than the old adage of “what comes around, goes around”.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 12:59 pmHow is this fundamentally different from the qualified immunity that many government actors enjoy?
Since I said that, I’ve reconsidered. “Qualified immunity” for the President would be MUCH more favorable to the President than this.
Why? Because to get past qualified immunity, you have to point to an exact matching case showing they should have known better, and there are few if any cases limiting what Presidents can do.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 1:13 pmThat surprises me… Merchan should’ve rejected it immediately as none of the NY trials was over any Article 2 acts.
But some of the evidence at trial was from presidential communications, which is at least presumptively out of bounds.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 1:15 pmTo the Borking and technical lynching of Thomas (led by our current POTUS).
They were getting even for Abe Fortas.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 1:16 pm@165
That’s a very astute observation.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:25 pmI had to look it up to remember. Thomas is the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit. So if Aileen Cannon who is in the tank for Trump — a tank cannon? — dismisses the case and the DOJ appeals, Thomas will have his thumb on the scale no matter how the Circuit judges may be inclined to rule. At least delay it if not bump it up to the Supremes for decision.
nk (a7f00b) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:25 pm@166
Was that presumption borne out of the Nixon case?
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:28 pm@169
Put the politics aside, please and humor me.
Considering how Jack Smith was tapped by Garland to be the Special Counsel… an attorney who was not appointed/confirmed…
Do you think Justice Thomas is right? Or not?
Let’s play the hypothetical… let’s say Thomas was wrong and SCOTUS “blessed” what Garland did in selecting Smith as Special Counsel.
…fast forward to a hypo 2nd Trump Term (or really any future GOP potus).
What’s to stop Trump’s AG from tapping one of the following from conducting prosecution of the Bidens, Obamas and Clintons, who hasn’t been POTUS nominated/Senate confirmed as US Attorney:
Rudy Giuliani
Alina Habba
Alan Dershowitz
John Eastman
Mike Davis (the honey badger)
…
…
…
or even:
Sidney Powell????
Or maybe, just maybe… Trump’s defense attorney in Florida and even Justice Thomas might be on more solid ground than you give credit.
Just a thought?
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:37 pmBecause it relates to his non-core duties, I imagine. I’d have to read the appeal. Some correspondence may have stronger protection that “executive privilege” especially after leaving office.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:44 pm@172
Roger that bud… I need to read his new appeal when I get a chance.
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:53 pmThe DC Circuit answered that question five years ago when they rejected Roger Stone’s challenge on the legality of the Special Counsel, so the prevailing law says it’s right.
Paul Montagu (8a5990) — 7/2/2024 @ 2:53 pmAs a lawyer friend of mine once said, another word for dicta is “bullsh-t”, but if a case goes to the Supreme Court, I expect Thomas to be writing the majority opinion.
@174
So consider my hypo above.
Would you accept that a future GOP potus’s AG tapping Sidney Powell as Special Counsel to investigate Democrats?
whembly (86df54) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:07 pmTo the Borking and technical lynching of Thomas (led by our current POTUS).
They were getting even for Abe Fortas.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 1:16 pm
That is quite a lag time.
norcal (df08ac) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:14 pmWould you accept that a future GOP potus’s AG tapping Sidney Powell as Special Counsel to investigate Democrats?
I would hope that they would find someone more competent and less ethically vulnerable to spend the taxpayers’ money on, but that’s about the only objection I would have.
I’m not crazy about Jack Smith’s performance, either. He seems to have trouble in an adversarial system, which is to say ours, where he is not both judge and prosecutor like in the European system or where the judge is not on the side of the government.
nk (15d18f) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:16 pmClarence Thomas was replacing Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice. I’ll keep it clean and say that Clarence Thomas was like Thurgood Marshall the way George H. W. Bush was like Lyndon B. Johnson.
nk (15d18f) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:23 pmWould you accept that a future GOP potus’s AG tapping Sidney Powell as Special Counsel to investigate Democrats?
No, of course not. Nor John Eastman. Are you seriously arguing that Smith is of the same sort of whackadoodle Yahoo as Sidney Powell?
I could accept a GOP lawyer of repute, however. What is your point? That Smith would have been unlike to be confirmed?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:31 pmClarence Thomas had cred as a black southerner during Jim Crow. That he was appointed by Bush only shows that elections matter. I’m getting the feeling that Thomas has had about as much whitesplaining as he can stand.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:35 pmThurgood Marshall’s words are so apropos right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
Here’s looking at you, Joe.
norcal (df08ac) — 7/2/2024 @ 3:43 pmJudge Aileen Cannon is carefully examining every question. I don’t know if it is true that this was settled.
The question is: What is the universe from which an Attorney General can select a special counsel?
Is it limited to people who were confirmed by the Senate and hold some position at DOJ?
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 7/2/2024 @ 4:37 pmTrump used this ruling to postpone his sentencing.
It’s really frivolous, as his payment of money to Michael Cohen has nothing to do with his presidential authority, but his sentencing will no longer be on July 11 but September 18 or later, so they can hold a hearing.
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 7/2/2024 @ 4:39 pmanyone at all as a prosecutor?
Basically politics or a written by Clarence Thomas Supreme Court opinion.
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 7/2/2024 @ 4:42 pmThe answer is this one, as it’s a Section 2 responsibility of the executive branch and has been the case all the way back to 1875.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/2/2024 @ 5:10 pmI’m a little surprised, I would think that an triumphal appearance at the convention following sentencing (to prison, in order to make his martyrdom complete) would be just the kind of spectacle that Trump enjoys.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 7/2/2024 @ 5:29 pm#153
Thanks for the DOJ analysis. Even though I agree with the ultimate result, as Awlaki was not a good guy and probably deserved it, I’m not happy with, and don’t believe the Constitution supports, the idea that a “high ranking” official can unilaterally decide that a US citizen living abroad should be killed. I hate making these comparisons because I believe that we in fact are the “good guys” and our foreign adversaries are not, but the principle the DOJ enunciated sounds like something Putin might say to justify the murder of a Russian expatriate. The executive, through the DOJ, concluding that the executive has the power to order an extrajudicial execution does not strike me as an adequate guarantee of due process, even though the DOJ analysis reflects some serious and careful consideration of the issues.
Anyway, to continue in this vein would probably require me to propose a feasible alternative, which at least for now escapes me. Hopefully an Awlaki situation doesn’t come up again.
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:42 pmHere are the details on why the court allowed the sentencing to be postponed:
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 6:49 pmThe judge is letting Trump’s defense to throw some stuff at the wall, it’s going to get denied, he’ll be sentenced.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/2/2024 @ 7:25 pmOn your last point, I see a lot of hand wringing over delays the immunity decision will cause, and frankly I don’t get it (i.e., it’s the hand-wringing I don’t get; the delays themselves are certain).
If, as seems likely, Trump is re-elected, does anyone in the known universe doubt he’ll fire Smith and order all federal charges against him dropped? Since he’s already obtained delays that assure no verdict before Inauguration Day, who cares if his doomed prosecutions are delayed further? Maybe he’ll wait for the appeals to be adjudicated before he orders the cases closed, and maybe he won’t, but that he’ll kill them sooner or later isn’t in question. For some time now, the only possibility of prosecuting and punishing him has required that he first be defeated at the polls, and that door closed Thursday.
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:11 pmKen White isn’t so sure:
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:13 pmMore from Popehat, expressing my own views and, if you’ve followed our host’s Twitter feed, you know they’re his as well:
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:15 pmAnd just to close the loop, here’s Pat on Twitter:
Indeed.
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:16 pmbut the central principle of the founding—the idea that no man is above the law
Was that really the central principle? I though “liberty” was in there someplace.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:20 pm“If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:22 pmIt may not be the central principle, but it’s one of them.
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:23 pmFor all the decades that’s been a punchline for which Nixon was universally and properly mocked, it’s just SMDH unbelievable that it’s now actually the law.
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:27 pmPeople may have mocked Nixon, but he wasn’t wrong. This ruling just brought it out in the open.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:34 pmHe was wrong for 50 years until yesterday when the Court all but explicitly overruled US v Nixon.
lurker (c23034) — 7/2/2024 @ 11:42 pm@179
My point, is Justice Thomas’ point.
If you’re going to give someone the power of the US Attorney, with near unlimited budget, that is the DOJ’s Special Counsel. Then, it must be someone who’s already been nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.
Special Counsel office is a far more powerful office, than that of the regular US Attorney office (locked into their respective states). At a minimum, it should be someone who was appointed/confirmed.
Otherwise, we’d would have the likes of Sidney Powell heading the SCO.
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 5:48 am@188
Kev has made me re-evaluate my original position.
In light of the recent SCOTUS ruling, it looks like Merchand has an off ramp to declare a mistrial, as he allowed into court and jury instructions presidential communications that was NOT given a chance to determine if it was official or not.
I think this borks the DC and Georgia case as well and… possibly even the FL documents case (excepting the obstructing charges).
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 5:55 amExcept that conflicts with established law, and would require Thomas argument to be exactly the opposite of his unitary executive argument in this and a dozen other cases. Thomas is a hack, so consistency and logic are fairly foreign to him, as well as ethics and a solid understanding of the founding principles.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/3/2024 @ 5:56 amThe drumbeat of freedom used to be “innocent until proven guilty.” Is it now “no man is above the law?” “I was blind, but now, I see.” – Justice
——-
I’ll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too.
It’s so beautiful walking through the zoo.
felipe (44e42a) — 7/3/2024 @ 5:59 am@193 “Our country will continue, at least in name, but the central principle of the founding—the idea that no man is above the law—has been taken from us.[…]”
This was never the central principle. The founders were personally aware of how the law could be abused. The central principle was limited government with the people as the ultimate check on power, (not prosecutors from one branch) and this ruling is in keeping with that.
lloyd (a3fdf9) — 7/3/2024 @ 6:01 am@202
Nothing here is providing a rebuttal.
Please try again.
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 6:05 amExcept that conflicts with established law, and would require Thomas argument to be exactly the opposite of his unitary executive argument in this and a dozen other cases.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/3/2024 @ 6:21 am@206
Okay, can you show your work though?
*How* would it conflict with established law?
*Why* it would be the opposite of this unitary executive theory?
*What* dozen of other cases?
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 6:25 amOh my goodness, Whembly! If Klink answered those questions he might actually present a persuasive argument.
felipe (e0a511) — 7/3/2024 @ 6:33 amIf an AG is going to make the preposterously bad decision of picking Ms. Powell to investigate something, the AG should be able to do so. She reports directly to him, so the buck stops at the AG. There are arguments that question whether the SC is actually an officer subject to the Appointments Clause, and they’re arguments should not be settled by dicta from a single partisan judge.
Paul Montagu (6dd6cb) — 7/3/2024 @ 7:28 am@209
Yeah, I don’t think AG should circumvent the Appointment Clause.
…and it’s far from settled either.
Hence why Judge Cannon is seemingly doing her due diligence in establishing the record to make such a determination.
What I don’t understand, is that let’s say all the courts says Jack Smith was improperly tapped and can’t continue to prosecute. That doesn’t mean the case is over… Garland can simply tap an existing appointed/confirmed US prosecutor and continue the case.
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 7:51 am@208
Just trying to help a fella out. 😉
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 7:51 amIt’s not a matter of matter of circumvention, it’s a matter about whether it even applies. But like I said about dicta and a single partisan judge.
Paul Montagu (6dd6cb) — 7/3/2024 @ 8:14 amhttps://www.justsecurity.org/61227/constitutional-challenge-special-counsel-mueller-post-no-2-office-appointments-clause-applies/
It doesn’t matter what the established law is. Trump’s gerbils will make up whatever they want.
nk (117916) — 7/3/2024 @ 8:52 amAnyway, here’s the DC Circuit opinion in the case which Paul referenced @212.
TL;DR [T]he Congress may by Law vest Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
nk (9e5b9f) — 7/3/2024 @ 9:13 amU.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
Whembly @ 201, considering the ramifications of the immunity case:
I have to ask if this actually bothers you. I have to wonder why a political tendency anxious to dismantle the administrative state now wants to concentrate more power in the executive.
Appalled (88a1a3) — 7/3/2024 @ 10:53 am@215
That the cases are mostly falling apart?
Eh… not really, since I recognize that most of this political lawfare, treating Trump differently than every other President.
I don’t buy into arguments that Trump is this unique horrible person that would destroy this country. I have more faith in our constitutional order.
This isn’t new. It’s always been this way.
It just took this long for a controversy to appear before SCOTUS to rule on something that was always there. (namely POTUS has criminal immunity for official “good faith” acts).
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 11:11 amFormer crack head ? hunter now advising joe and sitting in presidential meetings! Woodrow wilson again!
asset (e04d5e) — 7/3/2024 @ 11:20 am@214
Great. Good thing DC Circuit opinions never gets overturned.
…oh wait.
You do know what you are advocating for…right?
AG Garland could tap *YOU* as Special Counsel to investigate/prosecute “x”.
Would that be a good thing? Maybe for you… but will it be a good thing for America that future AGs can simply tap anyone they want to investigate their political opponent? Having FAR MORE power and budget than even an US Attorney nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate?
The key bit is the following:
After reading Thomas’ and other amici briefs (ie, Meese)… the basic premise of the arguments is that SC Smith is exercising the massive prosecutorial powers of the Executive Branch from inside an “Office” of the United States, as only “Officers” of the United States have the authority to act on behalf of the DoJ in the way he has acted, such as:
-convene a grand jury
-gather evidence
-seek an indictment
-prosecute the indictment in a federal district court.
The DoJ and the AG were both created by Congress and given the authority to exercise those powers. Congress has also created many other “Offices” within the DoJ that are to be headed up by “Officers of the United States” nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Those include the 93 “US Attorneys.”
But there is no “Office of Special Counsel” within the DoJ that was created by Congress. That “Office” is a DoJ regulation put in place by for AG J. Reno during the Clinton Administration. No one can convincingly argue that this current iteration of the “Office of Special Counsel” is truly an “Office of the United States” in the same sense as a U.S. Attorney.
Furthermore Jack Smith has never been nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate to be an “Officer” of the United States.
The AG can certainly create positions within DoJ, those positions are normally “inferior officers” or “employees.” However, neither of which can wield the prosecutorial authority of the Executive in the same manner as SC Smith has been able to via the DoJ’s own regulation of the “Office of Special Counsel”.
The AG *is* allowed to re-allocate responsibilities between already existing Offices and Officers, which is why moving a Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney into a position as “Special Counsel” with a specific mission or area of responsibility is different than bringing in a private citizen to do the same.
All Garland had to do is tap an existing US Attorney. But because he didn’t, he allowed the Trump defense an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of his charges simply because Garland tapped a private citizen, rather than an existing US Attorney.
I think there’s merits to review this.
whembly (86df54) — 7/3/2024 @ 11:34 amWhich meetings? I think one argument Jill has for Joe not quitting is that if he does, Hunter Biden may relapse, and the longer he stays president, and off drugs, the better. Or maybe Joe Biden does not yet want o pardon his son. But this is probably so that there is someone Joe Biden trusts who can remind him of what was said.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 7/3/2024 @ 11:36 amThat anyone would claim that “no man is above the law” isn’t a founding principle is gob smacking.
lurker (c23034) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:01 pmThe rebuttal is that dicta isn’t law. Josh Blackman and Set Tillman made Thomas’ argument in an amicus brief, and the majority ignored it. No one can stop Thomas from blathering on Supreme Court letterhead about anything he wants, but until five justices put it in an opinion, the DC Circuit holding is law and Thomas’ blather is just blather.
lurker (c23034) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:02 pmTrump’s crimes are “unique”, no other person having been or running for the presidency has tried to subvert the constitution to stay in office via a coup.
His state court charges continue to stem from his personal crimes and their coverup.
I still don’t see any of the people claiming “lawfare” also claiming he didn’t do it. Mainly because he did it out and the open and dared anyone to hold him to account. Lots of them just spout tweeters/bookface level, but when you call them on their complete lack of understanding, they want you to tutor them. How about this, why don’t you research it by reading federal law, the constitution, all things that might be more reliable than uncle Bob’s Facebook post of a meme picture, and are free to read online.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:22 pmColonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:22 pm
A peaceful (and doomed) attempted coup. The riot was someone else’s idea
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:41 pmAs I said, coup, whether successful or not. Because the attempted murder (of democracy) didn’t succeed, doesn’t make it not a crime.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 7/3/2024 @ 2:43 pm