Below is a slightly expanded version of my column on Fox.com on the attacks on the Court for granting review of the immunity challenge brought by former president Donald Trump. The scheduling of oral argument has unleashed the familiar voices against the justices and allegations of political machinations. The claims of “slow walking” the appeal ignore the history and culture of the Court.
Here is the column:
The decision of the Supreme Court to review the immunity question in the Trump prosecution has brought forth the usual (and a couple not so usual) attacks on the integrity of the Court. While some are calling the justices now part of the “insurrection,” others are accusing them of “slow-walking” the appeal to push any trial past the election. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin added that, due to the delay for a review of the matter, she was “beyond terrified for our country”
In reality, the claim that the Court is moving slowly is factually and historically untrue. Indeed, in comparison to most cases, this is a NASCAR pace for an institution that is more focused on issuing right rather than rapid decisions.
While the Court has had shorter schedules on emergency matters, this case will be heard in a fraction of the usual period for appeals and the calendar is consistent with past expedited cases. Moreover, the conditions that led to the shorter expedited calendars in a few past cases are not present in this case.
Craven Insurrectionists
Some of the usual voices immediately came forward to declare that, once again, the justices are exposing themselves as raw partisans. MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow declared the review of the matter as “BS” and exposed “the cravenness of the court.” She further declared, again, that the action undermined “legitimacy of the court.”
MSNBC host Chris Hayes alleged declared “Today, the Supreme Court signaled that it is in cahoots. The plot is on. It is a go.”
Mary Trump, the niece of the former president, went further and declared that “the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”
Former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney (R., Wy) said that the review effectively “suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear.”
Regular MSNBC guest Elie Mystal (who previously called the Constitution “trash“) had a more novel take. With MSNBC host Alex Wagner nodding in apparent agreement, Mystal explained to viewers that this was just an effort of Justice Clarence Thomas (and possibly Samuel Alito) to retire. The theory goes something like this: Thomas does not want to have a Democrat fill his seat, so he is going to postpone the appeal, which will delay a trial for Trump, which will allow Trump to be elected, which will permit Trump to appoint his successor, which will allow Thomas to drive off in his RV for an unending retiree roadtrip. See, it’s that simple.
There is, of course, another possible explanation. Some justices have serious concerns about the lower court decision.
The Historical Comparisons
At the outset, there are a couple of glaring problems with the claim of “slow-walking” to push the trial past the election.
First, the Court did not create this collision with the election. Both state and federal prosecutors have waited until shortly before the election to bring charges for actions taken almost four years ago. They are now demanding expedited and in some cases abridged reviews due to an urgency that they created.
Second, this matter has already been curtailed and expedited. Special Counsel Jack Smith has repeatedly pushed to deny Trump standard appellate options and time to present his case. After the Supreme Court refused to effectively cut off his right to an appellate review, the D.C. Circuit did so by pressuring Trump to file directly with the Supreme Court rather than seeking the review of the entire court in an en banc appeal. That standard en banc option was all but eliminated by an order that would have returned the mandate to the district court within days — forcing Trump to argue an appeal while being forced into the resumption of pre-trial proceedings.
Third, the Court has expedited the matter. The fact is that this is a much shorter schedule and the Court is fitting the case in the middle of a long scheduled and crowded calendar. It allowed the parties a few weeks to fully brief a question with major implications for our constitutional system.
It ordinarily takes months for the Court to even accept a case. The Court has set this matter for argument in April to allow the parties to fully brief the issue and will likely rule by June.
Some have pointed out that there are cases where the Court moved more swiftly. However, those cases have important distinctions.
For example, Michael Waldman, president of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, noted that in 1974 the Court considered United States v. Nixon “in a matter of weeks.” That is a valid point, but there are a couple of missing relevant facts.
The district court issued the subpoena to Nixon to turn over the famous White House tapes in April 1974. It then ordered compliance in May 1974 when Nixon refused. In allowing a direct appeal, the Court then held oral argument on July 8, 1975. It issued its unanimous decision on July 24, 2975. That was roughly two months after the initial appeal.
That is certainly a faster track by a few weeks. However, the Court was unanimous and this was not an appeal by a criminal defendant. While there was always the chance of an indictment of Nixon (until his pardon by Gerald Ford after he left office), the case concerned the access to evidence in the Watergate investigation. Criminal defendants are afforded the highest level of protection and review in cases.
Critics also cite the Bush v. Gore decision where the Supreme Court decided the matter in days. Once again, that is true. I covered that decision for CBS as a legal analyst and it was a rocket pace. However, the Court was not looking at an approaching election but an approaching inauguration of the next president. The case was decided on December 12, 2000 — roughly three weeks away from the certification of the election by Congress.
The Issue Presented
This case is not going to decide whether an election can be held or whether a candidate can be certified. The original March trial date has already been discarded. It is not clear if a trial will occur before the election. It could still theoretically occur even with a June decision of the Court, though it is admittedly less likely with every delay.
That trial could cut both ways. Trump could be acquitted or convicted or it could result in a hung jury. The Court, however, rarely engages in such political calculations. Indeed, some justices may not agree with the exceptional treatment given this case by the appellate panel, including effectively cutting off the option of an en banc review.
For some, this case has been marked by fast walking, not slow walking, by courts. The Supreme Court previously rejected Smith’s arguments that the urgency of trying Trump should override the ordinary appellate process or schedule. Some justices may resent the pressure to dispatch these claims to allow for a trial that may influence an election.
Notably, the Court has previously rejected expedited appeal requests from Trump, including some issues related to the last presidential election. This appeal is not dependent on the election or tied to its certification.
The Court has laid out a difficult question for review:
“Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
It is clear that, unlike the Nixon case, the court is not likely to be unanimous on this question. I have previously expressed doubt over the sweeping claim of immunity presented by the Trump team. However, justices may have good-faith concerns over the implications of the lower court decision as well.
The Court has had a long, collegial tradition in allowing justices to resolve such questions even when they may be in the minority.
Some justices have long supported a robust view of executive privilege and power. They may want to delineate the scope of this privilege with greater precision. In that sense, the Court could uphold the result of the D.C. Circuit while offering a different or more nuanced view of the immunity.
Of course, none of that is nearly as captivating as calling the justices “insurrectionists” or spinning tales of some retirement conspiracy with the RNC and the AARP.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court. He is also a Fox New contributor.
Over the course of the last several years several journalists have voluntarily testified in various Congressional hearings, especially issues dealing with the censorship scandals surrounding 2020 election interference against President Trump. I’d like to see various so-called “journalists”, producers, and editors brought to Congress and compelled to answer questions from members of Congress. The cast of characters occupying powerful positions within deep state propaganda outlets like MSNBC, CNN, PBSCBSNBCABC, the NYT, the WaPo, Meta, Google, need to answer questions about their activities between 2016 to the present. From the Russia Collusion Hoax, to Ukraine War coverage, to coverage of Covid related scandals, to the J6 ‘fedsurrection’ narrative, to the rigging of the 2020 election, to the open border catastrophe, through the Maui-fire massacre, and the rampant Biden family corruption scandal and cover-ups. Members of the press need to be brought to account for their lies, their collusion with the CIA, FBI, DOJ, NSA, and the DNC is beyond free speech and into the realm of sedition. It is illegal undermine, and sabotage the duly elected POTUS and heads must roll.
Still it’s an interlocutory appeal – the black ops of our court side stepping article 3 really. But I like potatoe soup with saltine crackers – what’s being back burned is the scotus decision re ballot in Colorado. Do they need the immunity case to decide that on its merits? So as to say yeah it was an insurrection but he’s immune – thereby setting ant vet up to be dq from office – if the supported Trump. That is they don’t even need to cut off the snakes head to get to their goal of destroying Maga. Twisted
Worse the immunity case has devoted from an actual article 3 case and controversy – to a hypo thetical ? Could the president order seal team six to kill his political rival? Yeah he could but everyone on seal team six took an oath to only obey lawful orders! The court really gunnar hypo thetical that our best men are idiots and their oath was blind? Please give them more credit – and decide the actual article 3 case and controversy and not a hypothetical that derivatives slanders our bravest men. Whoa
I would argue the president oath to protect and defend the constitution- puts him squarely in his office duties- ot doesn’t matter there wasn’t enough fraud to reverse the mid night count – what matters is states didn’t even obey their own laws- alito said as much. Trump had a duty via his unique oath to challenge states that dispensed with their own laws. Bc his path was to protect and preserve out constitution. Period. By trying to he was definitely in scope of office. It’s only the courts who were like – not enough wide spread. Like widespread spread trumps ourconstitutuon? Yet this case isn’t about slandering the oaths men of seal team six take – hypothetically- it’s about the actual case is Trump immune when he was president from the acts of making states obey our system? They didn’t- he said to peaceful tell their ppl that. It took a not cryptologic guy to find a code?
Whos
On the issue of delay or not, the timeline is set out in more detail in “No, the Courts Are Not ‘Slow-Walking’ Trump’s Immunity Claim,” Dilan Esper, X, reprinted by Real Clear Politics today. Esper makes it clear that Trump’s case is moving much faster than similar cases. If the usual schedules were applied, Trump’s case would not come for trial until November 2025. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Edwardmahl, I read Esper’s thread too and found it persuasive. I also think this is a hard decision. It’s very unfortunate that Biden forced it by breaking a 230-year tradition of not indicting former Presidents. Nothing is gained by having to resolve this, and much harm could ensue.
Welcome to your new Republican, oops, trump party.
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/education/article286071281.html
Maybe you can’t read the article. Look up the situation. he was fired because he wasn’t qualified to be hired in the first place. So he is suing because he was unfit for the job. Sheeeeeesh, you repos are one weird bunch.
The similarities to Biden are overwhelming.
Supers are the good ol boys club- we ain’t in it Bob. La
The question of immunity for acts as President is a very hard case. The Constitution is almost silent on this, as there are many indirect inferences, but nothing that explicitly grants that immunity. The only reason former presidents have not been prosecuted before is the successor knows that his own successor will retaliate if he is of the opposite party. The prospect of tit for tat retaliation deters a lot of bad behavior, but clearly the current Democratic Party has no fear of this, or else they fear a Trump 2nd term so much that abstract fears of Republican retaliation are dismissed.
Nixon would have been prosecuted had he not been pardoned.
Most former Presidents aren’t indicted because they don’t commit crimes while in office.
“Most former Presidents aren’t indicted because they don’t commit crimes while in office.”
Something the trump supporters can’t quite say out loud. There guy is now a convicted criminal, so must support him and deflect at all cost.
Repeat after me, “grab em by the pussy because you can.”
Historically any candidate facing prosecution was considered ‘unavailable’ for the presidency. It’s astonishing that Republicans created a carve-out for Trump. Like they honestly think he’s indispensable.
If you are so sure in your position, why do you lie?
Another feckless Anonymous Soviet Democrat police state fascist tried this line
Historically any candidate facing prosecution was considered ‘unavailable’ for the presidency. It’s astonishing that Republicans created a carve-out for Trump.
Meanwhile Soviet Democrats consider Biden completely available for the presidency under even worse terms: a Special Counsel said he found that he committed multiple crimes – but was too mentally competent to stand trial.
Astonishing that Soviet Democrats would create a carve out for this vile, dementia ridden corrupt racist that’s currently in the White House. Especially with all that ChiCom and Putin cash falling out of his pockets and tax returns that don’t add up.
While on the topic of availability, Anonymous coward: it’s astonishing that the Soviet Democrats would consider for a candidate an addled, demented thing who talks about recent conversations with dead people, needs to be led offstage by foreign leaders, and doesn’t know where he is half the time.
Especially astonishing after that dementia addled thing escaped prosecution only because the Special Counsel substituted himself for the jury and said the candidate was too mentally deficient to be prosecuted.
Quite the carve out you got going there, police state fascist!
“Tara, I thought you liked me.”
Sure seemed to work for Climate now didn’t it?
Clinton
Another feckless Anonymous Soviet Democrat coward tried a Biden quality lie:
Something the trump supporters can’t quite say out loud. There guy is now a convicted criminal, so must support him and deflect at all cost.
One thing Bribery Biden supporters are never shy about is proudly saying out loud blatant lies that are obviously a lie i.e. “Something the trump supporters can’t quite say out loud. There guy is now a convicted criminal, so must support him and deflect at all cost.”
Finding out he’s suddenly a convicted criminal must really shake Trump up when he wasn’t at the trial.
It must be a huge shock to every one of Trump’s lawyers that he was convicted of a criminal offense and they weren’t at the trial either.
Even CNN, MSNBS and the rest of the propaganda media missed that criminal trial and conviction. Imagine the viewer numbers they would have had!
Repeat after me, “grab em by the pussy because you can.”
Repeat after me: “My name is Tara Reade and Joe Biden raped me when I was one of his Senate interns. And here are all the contemporaneous witnesses I talked to that day – they’re all registered Democrats. If only Senator Biden had stuck with having inappropriate showers with his teenage daughter, maybe he wouldn’t have raped me”.
All that before Bribery Biden became the White House Kiddy Fondler In Chief.
And you thought that was over when the Clintons and the Obama’s left after having Harvey Weinstein on the White House open door policy list. Despite their Secret Service close protection details warning them their bestie Harvey was a serial rapist and pedophile… they still gave ol’ Harv access to their daughters.
Andrew: No. the only reason previous presidents have not been brought up on criminal charges is because there has never before been a president who lied about losing an election, went on “stop the steal“ tours to rile up his supporters, who tried to bully secretaries of state to “find” votes he didn’t receive, who got fake “electors” to falsify Electoral College ballots, and then exhorted his followers to “fight like hell “ or they weren’t going to have a country any more , which resulted in the first attack on our Capitol by US citizens. And, we’ve never had a president who stole classified documents, returned some, lied about returning all of them, moved them around to keep the FBI from finding them and lied about “declassifying “ them with mental telepathy. Trump is uniquely criminal and awful in addition to being a lousy president. Then , there’s the lying on federal election forms, claiming hush money paid to a porn actress was a legitimate campaign expense. These are the reasons why previous presidents haven’t been prosecuted—none of them were anywhere near as corrupt as Trump.
I don’t think you get it. Read the Gunn case from alabama couple years ago – there are 2 sovereigns- the states and the feds – hence double jeopardy us against either not both combined. The whole reason there is soveign immunity in the first instance is because ” the king can do no wrong”- it would be odd if their takes the congress to create causes of action – to over cone that over arching court rule. Yet they can as to the president? Like his office is chop liver? But that’s where we are despite and actual case and controversy demanded by article 3 – the court is taking up a hypothetical again. And again off the backs of veteran – seal team six died in a real crash – not a hypothetical – nor would any member of it obey an order to assinate a political rival. The hypothetical makes a mockery of the oath these swell men take – and to see a case dispense with article 3 on the premise our best men can’t see a blatantly illegal order that would go against their oath posses me the fuk off!
Shane Velazquez – you write “Trump is subject to the same laws and process as everyone else.” How can you force your fingers write that phrase? Tell me which of the following people were charged for leaking, taking, retaining or destroying classified information: Hillary Clinton; Adam Schiff; James Comey; Joe Biden; Mike Pence; hundreds of Congressman and Senators and bureaucrats in the FBI and intelligence agencies who have leaked classified information to Bob Woodward, the WP, the NYT, etc. over the past 50 years; or Donald Trump?
Distrust Of Court Well-Deserved
Six Are Linked To Leonard Leo
If Americans had heard of Leo at all, it was for his role in building the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. He drew up the lists of potential justices that Donald Trump released during the 2016 campaign. He advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Before that, he’d helped pick or confirm the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Decades ago, Leo realized it was not enough to have a majority of Supreme Court justices. To undo landmark rulings like Roe, his movement would need to make sure the court heard the right cases brought by the right people and heard by the right lower court judges.
To pay for all this, Leo became one of the most prolific fundraisers in American politics. Between 2014 and 2020, tax records show, groups in his orbit raised more than $600 million. His donors include hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow and the Koch family.
https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority
………………………………………..
It is shocking to think that 6 of the 9 justices were essentially picked by one man, super fund-raiser Leonard Leo. As co-chair of the Federalist Society and power behind the Judicial Crisis Network, Leo’s influence over the Federal courts is unparalleled.
No wonder skeptics fear this court wants to push Trump’s trial past November. A second Trump presidency could mean a dramatic expansion of Federalist judges on the Federal courts where they already hold too many seats. Distrust of this court is well-deserved indeed.
It is shocking to think that 6 of the 9 justices were essentially picked by one man,
Super pedantry. Factual minutia, that has zero bearing on anything
ALL Justices are Chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Leonard Leo is never mentioned in the Constitution
Yeah, Leonard Leo is never mentioned in the Constitution. But those handpicked by Leo are telling us what’s in the Constitution.
Again. Leo never picked a single Justice
iowan2: you don’t really think your hero knew anything about any of these losers before he nominated them? Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were chosen specifically BECAUSE they intended to reverse Roe v. Wade, and Trump’s handlers told him it would put him in good with the radical Evangelicals who run to the polls to save those unborn babies. So, he was given those names, after they were first vetted by Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society, but HE takes credit for reversal of Roe v. Wade–a move opposed by the vast majority of Americans. AND, each of them LIED in their interviews with Senators and in their testimony at their confirmation hearings. They reversed a 50-year precedent, something that has never before happened in our country, and now, they’re deliberately slow-walking the inevitable decision that Trump is not immune from prosecution, to help him avoid getting convicted before November, so he can pardon himself. The SCOTUS is deliberately taking steps to help a crook circumvent the law! Imagine that–a SCOTUS trying to help someone who committed serious crimes, like stealing classified documents and fomenting an insurrection, avoid accountability on the chance that he can somehow cheat his way back into power and pardon himself. Is it any wonder that they have NO credibility or respect?
Real President Donald J. Trump deserves a Medal of Freedom, Presidential Citizen’s Medal, President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service Award, Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom, Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award, etc., for his courageous, outstanding, and steadfast service to America and for standing his ground while suffering and rejecting the relentless attacks of the feckless, “banana republic,” ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America, the Deep Deep State, the “Swamp,” the Regime et al. No president since George Washington has suffered so much and given so much in service to his Constitution and his country as Real President Donald J. Trump.
LOL.
I would be happy if he got the “Model Inmate” award.
I have never responded to one of JT Columns but felt compelled to do so today after reading many of the comments.
When I was in law school, a very wise professor told his students that “lawyers will argue about the meaning of the word is.” The Justices that make up the high Court are all lawyers–all taught in that same Socratic method that I was taught. Every American should go to the American cemetery in France to appreciate that democracy is not free–far too many raised their right hand took an oath to defend the Constitution then paid the ultimate price, with their very life. What faith can be put in a government institution to make the right call about presidential immunity when that same institution rendered a 7-2 Opinion that Blacks are non-right bearing citizens? Of note, the Court has never withdrawn the decision, but it was overruled on the battlefield of Appomattox–the end of bloodiest conflict in American history. Those who so cavalierly dispense advise that holding public office entitles one to overturn the very democratic principles on which the Oath of Office compels obedience to the Constitution, cannot appreciate the fragility of this great experiment called democracy. Like millions of others, I raised my right hand and swore an Oath to defend the Constitution up to and including my very life. The first problem, is the question presented, as stated in JT Column is facetious and riffed with conflict because it assumes instigating an insurrection is “an official act during his tenure in office.” As long as lawyers are running every aspect of American government, we will continue to fail in the very promises of democracy because lawyers do not even agree on the meaning of the word “is”.
“the question presented … assumes instigating an insurrection is “an official act during his tenure in office.””
It doesn’t. It only says “for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” Trump is alleging that all of his acts are immune. Smith is arguing that he can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. Time will tell what SCOTUS rules, including whether they send it back to Chutkan to determine which of the indicted acts were / were not official. But if they’re doing their jobs, they’ll provide guidance on how that’s determined.
“Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?”
“Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.”
“The amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues of whether Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel in the first place. Jack Smith, a private citizen, was appointed as a special counsel by Garland to investigate whether anyone violated the law in “efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held” on Jan. 6, 2021.
“But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a “private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
“First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an “Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.” Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the “Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.”
“The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.
“Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.
“The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge “there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.” But federal “statutes and the Constitution” only allow such appointments through “the use of existing United States Attorneys.” They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.”
– https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/was-it-legal-appoint-jack-smith-the-first-place
What is the response to the assertion that only confirmed U S attorneys can be appointed as special counsel? It is hard to believe that the AG missed this issue. If he did, he should resign.
edwardmahl posted about Jack Smith’s appointment:
It is hard to believe that the AG missed this issue. If he did, he should resign.
I would like to see any followup to that amicus brief as well. And Merrick Garland knew Jack Smith’s history very well – that’s why he chose him after how he prosecuted the last Republican challenger to a Democrat president’s reelection back in 2012.
What I don’t understand is why ANY Republican in Washington will stand for Jack Smith in particular to be appointed by the AG as the Special Counsel to investigate Trump.
Jack Smith is a police state fascist who a unanimous SCOTUS decision in rebuking him called “a threat to the separation of powers”. That along with throwing out, not remanding, Jack Smith’s prosecution and conviction of Obama’s most dangerous potential reelection opponent, Governor McDonnell.
Smith is the exact opposite of what is required to be eligible to be a Special Counsel. He has a record of being biased rather than impartial. He has a record of re-writing and finding new meanings in statutes in order to have grounds to prosecute. He has a tarnished history of political prosecutions of Republicans while working for Obama and Biden during that administration. He has links to Biden while working for him and Obama during the previous administration. He has links to the deputy AG, Lisa Monaco (who probably suggested him) when they worked together in that administration.
And his wife is a Democrat heavy doing documentary work for Michelle Obama. His mother in law was a George Soros senior justice fellow… the long justice tentacles of George Soros where Soviet Democrats’ carefully selected prosecutors are concerned.
Bottom line, aside from the legal argument in the amicus brief, every thing in Jack Smith’s life since he started working for Obama and Biden in their DoJ says he is the last person in the USA who should be a Special Counsel. Jack Smith should be disbarred right now, if not just getting out of jail for the witness and evidence tampering that he engaged in during the McDonnell prosecution.
Anonymous you missed my point. The Court inserted the language “conduct alleged to involve official acts” into its Order agreeing to decide the immunity issue, and in doing so the Court qualified the question that the Court will answer–that the criminal acts the Special Counsel charged the former President with are “alleged official acts.” No where in the special counsel filings does he ask the Court to answer the question as the Court frames it in the Order to take up the case. Rather, the Special Counsel, asked the Court “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.“ Two questions that are polar opposite. Surely the forefathers are rolling over in their graves wondering how they made a decision to grant the last branch of government (the judiciary), more power than the other two branches combined with life tenure, without accountability, to declare emphatically what the law is–just like they did with Dred Scott–Blacks are non-right bearing citizens within the meaning of the Constitution, and overturning Roe v. Wade on whim and caprice. Yikes!!
Roe v. Wade made them roll in their graves. Its overturning was long overdue, and it was not on a whim and caprice, but sound constitutional reasoning – notably unlike Roe which had virtually no constitutional reasoning at all, and what little there was, was unsound and corrupted by political considerations. Even pro-choice legal scholars agree on that; even though they like the result, they agree the opinion itself was a legal abomination.
Well said. It is mind boggling that the person tasked with faithfully executing the laws would get immunity from criminal laws.
Sammy tried the ol’ Equal Two Standards Of Justice For All ploy:
It is mind boggling that the person tasked with faithfully executing the laws would get immunity from criminal laws.
You aren’t talking about being mind boggled that Biden isn’t faithfully executing our immigration laws, are you? Yeah, didn’t think so… no shock there.
Okay, let’s pick just one of those persons you want to talk immunity about:
Obama wasn’t criminally prosecuted for election funding violations. Others go to jail; Obama didn’t. Immunity.
Obama paid for a Russian operative under investigation for committing espionage for Putin to be hired to write his “Russia Dossier” for the 2016 presidential campaign. It is a crime to hire and pay foreign nationals to work on your party’s election campaigns. The Russian operative was later charged by Durham – Obama wasn’t. Immunity from criminal laws ondisplay.
Obama knew Hillary Clinton never once had or used a secured government device or email in all their voice and text exchanges that included classified information. He knew that adversarial nations had access to her comms the four years she was SecState. Obama didn’t declassify all that classified information, making him a party to each felony she committed while doing that. Obama lied he never knew she wasn’t on a government device or email server while doing that – but that lie isn’t the crime, it’s enabling the ongoing serial felonies. Obama has never been charged and never will for his part in that. Immunity.
After the FBI told Obama and Biden his “Russia Dossier” was just BullSchiff, Obama directed Comey and his Attorney Generals to perjure themselves to FISA courts that his “Russia Dossier” was true and validated as per the Woods procedures. Or if he didn’t direct them, after the FBI told him and Biden his “Russia Dossier” was just BullSchiff, he knew each application had involved perjury and uttering false documents to the court. Obama had knowledge of it, command authority over those committing the serial felonies of perjury, and did nothing. None of them, whether FBI Directors, Obama Attorney Generals, or Obama himself have been charged.
Immunity.
Need more Obama examples? Biden examples instead? Or does that give you enough to work with?
and?