I agree that the justices are going way beyond bounds. But if they remand to have Judge C decide what acts are official or not, her answer is pretty easy and should show up the court for the partisan idiots they seem to be.
Here is a proposed answer to that demand.
A sitting president is not immune to prosecution for
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) or
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights [of voters])
[That's what he is charged with. Whether he VIOLATED those statutes by his actions is a jury question. That's the way crimes work. Is the Xtreme Court going to honestly say that a president is immune from breaking those laws? Except those who go with "well, if the statute doesn't SAY president" bit.]
Judge C could go on to say something like:
---"The president is not immune to murder charges for strangling his wife, or for charges he cheated on his income tax, or for a charge of DUI, or for posting pedophilia on the internet. Since we have not been presented with allegations that he has done those things, we do not have to address whether there is evidence to support such allegations. I cite them only as examples of statutes that could be violated which do not explicitly include the president as a defendant. If the president can convince a jury that he did the various acts alleged to have resulted in those violations as part of his official powers and duties as president, he can claim immunity for them and the jury will be so instructed."
Both sides have gone off on a tangent by focusing on ACTS and whether or not they are official. What matters is whether they were done in accord with his official POWERS AND DUTIES. I really hope Chutkan is smart-ass enough to do something like this. What are they going to do, fire her??
Ditto, and so deeply grateful. It's so dreadful an aspect of the times we find ourselves in, wherein in one can get all the bs in the world for free, yet truth costs so dearly.
I don't know what such a machine does though if it were to predict that the MAGAts are likely to win the election. Would it then side with the 'winners'?
“allowing Trump’s prosecution for an actual attempted to overturn an election might encourage a future president to mount an insurrection to stay in power rather than leave office because, otherwise, they might face prosecution.”
So is this because Trump wants to get out of what he did or is it because he is planning to do it again and pardon himself, perhaps both…
Other democratic countries don’t seem to have an issue prosecuting their leaders if they break the law 🤷♂️
"The law does not work if it is used merely as a tool to protect one man. "
Sadly, this has been largely the right-wing's majority thrust in re: tRump. Some of the Court's questioning bordered on sheer farce, e.g., J. Kavanaugh and his business about "clear statements", and if a law doesn't specifically include the president - or ex-president, can it be applied to that person? But, ultimately, we WILL be getting an order for remand to the district court in order to sort the "official" v "private" actions comprising the original indictment.
Delay-delay-delay wins yet again, as in FL docs case and the train-wreck that the GA case has become.
Parenthetically, why was there citations to *Blassingame*, a civil suit? Did "official" v "private" acts surface there in arguments or in the (appellate) decision itself?
So deeply grateful Chris. It's so dreadful an aspect of the times we find ourselves in, wherein in one can get all the bs in the world for free, yet truth costs so dearly.
Four justices comported themselves as lawless, fact-averse theoreticians. They showed themselves to be completely unfit. What slight hope remains for the rule of law rests with the Chief Justice, who may yet wish not to join the arsonist faction.
The irony of a Supreme Court justice wondering if future presidents would pardon themselves on the way out if they don't have some immunity... a thing that also doesn't seem to exist and also hasn't been tested in the court... like they realize if they think that's a problem they can just... say a president can't pardon themself?
One aspect of the trump presidency has shown that we need to shore up our laws. The supremes try sooo hard to convolute the text of the Constitution, instead of just reading it and acting accordingly. See the 14 amendment ruling.
Beware of "reasonable" sounding opinions that paper over that they already helped Trump significantly. See also, the rulings on Trump financial matters that helped him run out the clock.
Alito is stark raving mad. A commenter called his "reasoning" mobious logic. I think that described it perfectly.
Yup Greek for convoluted!
Exactly.
I’m an optimist by nature but this past week has left me profoundly depressed and seriously worried about our future.
I agree that the justices are going way beyond bounds. But if they remand to have Judge C decide what acts are official or not, her answer is pretty easy and should show up the court for the partisan idiots they seem to be.
Here is a proposed answer to that demand.
A sitting president is not immune to prosecution for
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) or
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights [of voters])
[That's what he is charged with. Whether he VIOLATED those statutes by his actions is a jury question. That's the way crimes work. Is the Xtreme Court going to honestly say that a president is immune from breaking those laws? Except those who go with "well, if the statute doesn't SAY president" bit.]
Judge C could go on to say something like:
---"The president is not immune to murder charges for strangling his wife, or for charges he cheated on his income tax, or for a charge of DUI, or for posting pedophilia on the internet. Since we have not been presented with allegations that he has done those things, we do not have to address whether there is evidence to support such allegations. I cite them only as examples of statutes that could be violated which do not explicitly include the president as a defendant. If the president can convince a jury that he did the various acts alleged to have resulted in those violations as part of his official powers and duties as president, he can claim immunity for them and the jury will be so instructed."
Both sides have gone off on a tangent by focusing on ACTS and whether or not they are official. What matters is whether they were done in accord with his official POWERS AND DUTIES. I really hope Chutkan is smart-ass enough to do something like this. What are they going to do, fire her??
Thank you for this excellent article. It's all so unreal, but here we are staring it right in the face.
thank you for your always clear and informative articles - - I depend on you and
Joyce Vance to keep me on the right track.
Ditto, and so deeply grateful. It's so dreadful an aspect of the times we find ourselves in, wherein in one can get all the bs in the world for free, yet truth costs so dearly.
That footnote. Sometimes the pretending works, and at other times, like now, the truth forces its way to the surface.
Roberts is a soulless automaton who looks out for for the ruling class and his own legacy. Not sure that helps Trump in this case.
I don't know what such a machine does though if it were to predict that the MAGAts are likely to win the election. Would it then side with the 'winners'?
“allowing Trump’s prosecution for an actual attempted to overturn an election might encourage a future president to mount an insurrection to stay in power rather than leave office because, otherwise, they might face prosecution.”
So is this because Trump wants to get out of what he did or is it because he is planning to do it again and pardon himself, perhaps both…
Other democratic countries don’t seem to have an issue prosecuting their leaders if they break the law 🤷♂️
Cue the cries of “but the US is not a democracy!” they seem so fond of nowadays.
That footnote got me. Thank you. I paid up.
"The law does not work if it is used merely as a tool to protect one man. "
Sadly, this has been largely the right-wing's majority thrust in re: tRump. Some of the Court's questioning bordered on sheer farce, e.g., J. Kavanaugh and his business about "clear statements", and if a law doesn't specifically include the president - or ex-president, can it be applied to that person? But, ultimately, we WILL be getting an order for remand to the district court in order to sort the "official" v "private" actions comprising the original indictment.
Delay-delay-delay wins yet again, as in FL docs case and the train-wreck that the GA case has become.
Parenthetically, why was there citations to *Blassingame*, a civil suit? Did "official" v "private" acts surface there in arguments or in the (appellate) decision itself?
So deeply grateful Chris. It's so dreadful an aspect of the times we find ourselves in, wherein in one can get all the bs in the world for free, yet truth costs so dearly.
Four justices comported themselves as lawless, fact-averse theoreticians. They showed themselves to be completely unfit. What slight hope remains for the rule of law rests with the Chief Justice, who may yet wish not to join the arsonist faction.
The irony of a Supreme Court justice wondering if future presidents would pardon themselves on the way out if they don't have some immunity... a thing that also doesn't seem to exist and also hasn't been tested in the court... like they realize if they think that's a problem they can just... say a president can't pardon themself?
If SCOTUS rules for presidential immunity, perhaps Biden could create six vacancies on the court to fill immediately.
One aspect of the trump presidency has shown that we need to shore up our laws. The supremes try sooo hard to convolute the text of the Constitution, instead of just reading it and acting accordingly. See the 14 amendment ruling.
Beware of "reasonable" sounding opinions that paper over that they already helped Trump significantly. See also, the rulings on Trump financial matters that helped him run out the clock.