Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

The District and Circuit Court did already spell out a standard. Do you know of specific things the SC may want them to revise and resubmit?

[THE_WIZARD_]

All I can say is...if I were a Democrat in the Biden administration and Trump wins...I'm leaving the fucking country and changing my identity...

[iam416]

The District and Circuit Court did already spell out a standard. Do you know of specific things the SC may want them to revise and resubmit?

I don't. If they adopt the same standard then there shouldn't be anything to reconsider.

And this is actually a case with at least 1 leg to stand on. As opposed to NY and Georgia. I guess the documents case is solid, but -- I mean -- it's documents, so meh.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And the documents case is really an obstruction/evidence tampering case. Because, I mean, he's only facing charges because he was a complete asshat and apparently ignored all the sound legal advice being given to him and listened to Tom Fitton instead.

I suppose Georgia might've gone too far in charging Trump specifically and not sticking to the underlings. Trump himself didn't get charged in Michigan, Nevada, and now Arizona alongside the fake electors.

[Dr. Strangelove]

All I can say is...if I were a Democrat in the Biden administration and Trump wins...I'm leaving the fucking country and changing my identity...

One thing the Dems have going for them is he tends to hire based on flattery skills and bra size. There's still hope the tinpot dictator will implode on himself.

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL...you may need to change your moniker to THE_WIZARD_Jr.

[Dr. Strangelove]

horrifying

[THE_WIZARD_]

heh

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, no one's going to buy that you sired a son.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think this "shared link" is accessible. It's commentary on the legal arguments that have been advanced so far in Trump's immunity claim. IMO, the Supremes that are quoted are asking the right questions and offering some interesting comments on them.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/25/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court/trump-supreme-court-immunity-case?smid=url-share

[iam416]

And the documents case is really an obstruction/evidence tampering case. Because, I mean, he's only facing charges because he was a complete asshat and apparently ignored all the sound legal advice being given to him and listened to Tom Fitton instead.

I suppose Georgia might've gone too far in charging Trump specifically and not sticking to the underlings. Trump himself didn't get charged in Michigan, Nevada, and now Arizona alongside the fake electors.

Georgia is dubious. It's a pretty big stretch. NY is the case that's honestly appalling.

[Da Geezer]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

Absolute immunity is 9-0 no. The hypotheticals show that. What is reasonable is for the SC to say it is unconstitutional to prosecute a former president for political reasons. Look at how the reputation of Jerry Ford has been rehabilitated BECAUSE he pardoned Nixon (arguably costing him the election in 1976). I understand this would not be a bright line but I could see some test of whether the prosecution would be because of policy differences rather than criminal acts.

I don't know if it is criminal for the executive branch to, as a matter of policy, refuse to "faithfully execute the laws" passed by the legislative branch. But blocking a proceeding (meant as destroying documents after Enron), or questioning the outcome of an election (by most losing presidential contenders this century) certainly is a lesser mens rea (evil intent) than outright refusing to obey the law.

It is not good for people like Talent to reasonably wonder what "payback" Trump might seek. The country needs the SC to speak forcefully to try to break the "power at all costs..." ethos that is so prevalent.

[Da Geezer]

I was reading the WSJ just now, and this is what the editorial page had to say about immunity:

The most distressing fact of U.S. politics since Donald Trump arrived on the scene is the accelerating decline of political and legal norms. It isn’t all Mr. Trump’s fault. His opponents have, in their obsession to take him down, also stretched the law and degraded American institutions. (See FBI, Russia collusion narrative.) That’s where the courts are essential, and Thursday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity from prosecution is a case in point.


We say immunity for Presidents because the future of the office is as much at stake as Mr. Trump’s political fate. In Trump v. U.S., the former President is claiming he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Special counsel Jack Smith says Mr. Trump has no more immunity than any average citizen. ***


The burden on the Justices will be finding a balance that recognizes the unique duties of the Presidency while also holding Presidents accountable for genuine law-breaking. A President needs to be free to make controversial decisions without having to worry that he’ll be prosecuted for them after he leaves office. But he shouldn’t be free to commit crimes that are unrelated to the office.

The Trump case will set a new precedent because no former President has ever been prosecuted. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon—bravely and at great political cost—before Nixon could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. But as it happens, a precedent exists from that era that is highly relevant to the Trump case.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that a President has “absolute immunity” from civil lawsuits for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his presidential duties. Mr. Smith’s charges are criminal, so one question for the High Court will be whether the Nixon precedent also applies to criminal prosecution.

It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t, since the threat of prison could influence a President far more than a civil lawsuit. Yet the trial judge in the Jan. 6 case and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blew through this precedent as if it didn’t exist. The three-judge circuit panel also wrote its opinion as if Mr. Trump is sui generis—a unique threat to democracy—and thus no other former President would ever be charged with a crime.

But as David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley argue nearby, this ignores the reality of our current politics. Four Democratic prosecutors have decided to charge Mr. Trump (three on criminal charges). In doing so they have unleashed partisan furies that future prosecutors will exploit. If Democrats think President Biden won’t at least be investigated for crimes by GOP prosecutors after he leaves office, they aren’t paying attention.

If the Court rules that Nixon v. Fitzgerald applies, the next question concerns whether the acts Mr. Trump is charged with fall within that “outer perimeter” of his duties. This is in part a factual question about Mr. Trump’s actions and motivations.

In the Jan. 6 case, Mr. Smith has cited numerous Trump actions to justify his four charges. One of them is lobbying Vice President Mike Pence to block Congress’s certification of Electoral College votes. That was wrong about what Mr. Pence could do under the Constitution, but Presidents talk to their Veeps all the time and Mr. Pence was free to say no. The same goes for Mr. Trump’s calls asking state election officials to look for electoral fraud. Mr. Trump argues that he was merely trying to ensure the election was honestly conducted, which he says was part of his duty as President.

The Supreme Court could decide this question in the current proceeding, though it doesn’t have to. As the three liberal Justices wrote recently in their unhappy concurrence in Trump v. Anderson, the Court shouldn’t address more questions than it must be to decide a case. On that logic, the Justices could (and probably should) remand the “outer perimeter” question to the trial court for fact-finding and judgment. Some of Mr. Trump’s actions might then qualify for immunity while others might not. ***


Such a remand would infuriate Democrats and the media who want Mr. Smith’s trial to begin soon and convict him before the election. Sending the case back to the trial court could delay the trial past the election. But this is one of the risks of using lawfare to defeat a political opponent.

The job of the Supreme Court isn’t to follow the election calendar. Its duty is to consider the facts and law in the context of America’s constitutional order. It needs to think of the Presidency, and the separation of powers, as much as it does this former President.

The current Court has been acting as if it is up to this job, no matter how unpopular a decision might be politically. What matters is buttressing our institutions against today’s gale force partisan winds.

[Jeff Buchanan]

What I liked about this Op-ed is it's tone, especially as it relates to the application of Lawfare. I wonder if Trump understands any of this beyond the D's are trying hard to make sure I will not be elected to the presidency...... instead the electorate will get a tottering victim of dementia who cannot competently act as president [PAUSE] .

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's alternate electors from Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan are being prosecuted. The common theme is that all 4 groups signed documents, under oath, attesting that they were the one and only true electors from their state and had been duly certified by their state legislature. In every case this was a complete lie. None of them had. But these slates were sent to Congress, the Archives, and VP Pence. I believe in Michigan they even lied (under oath) about meeting in the statehouse as required by law.

Trump's electors in WI and PA were much smarter and only claimed to be alternates, to be used in the event that the original electors were discarded. None of these electors have been indicted and likely never will be despite Dems AGs being in control of those states for the past 4 years.

I think there's more than enough evidence to prove these electors were not all acting spontaneously but were being directed and organized by either people in the White House or extremely Trump-adjacent.

Did they think this would work? Probably not but they were hoping that the alternates suddenly appearing at Congress on Jan 6th could cause enough confusion and justification for Pence to declare that the electoral count could not happen for days, possibly weeks, who knows how long. It was a stall for additional time. To do what? Who knows? These people aren't smart enough to think 9 steps ahead. Pence wouldn't play ball and rightly so.