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.
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?
“It is not clear if a trial will occur before the election.”
But, wails the Left, the public has a “right to know” the outcome before the election.
If only the Left were so concerned about the public’s “right to know” the outcome of the Biden family’s various bribery schemes. And the public’s “right to know” the outcome of Joe Biden’s mental status tests. (Which of course presupposes that he actually take them.)
That Leftist flogging of the “right to know” is not a principle. It is yet another dishonest collection of words used to deceive people.
Chenney argues that americans need to see the evidence. That has already occured and polls show that the jury of the electorate is unconvinced.
The left has had its kangaroo court impeachment hearings, its star chamber trial in the senate, 3 years of berria style J6 prosecutions in DC,
as well as a press fawning over every indictment and every hint of an allegation against Trump.
And with all that Trump is up 2pts nationwide, and as much as 10pts in several swing states.
The people have seen they have weighed the evidence and they have found it wanting.
For Chenney’s argument to have merrit – there would have to be some secret evidence we have not all heard. If so – make it public.
You do not need a trial to do that.
John
Yes Liz, let’s see it ALL. Starting with 9/11 then moving to weapons of mass destruction !
“A SITTING PRESIDENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The American Founders and Framers provided immunity from indictment and prosecution by providing impeachment and conviction.
The Founders and Framers apparently subscribed to the adage that rank has its privileges.
The president, in a position of high office, is subject to prosecution related to all crimes by constitutional impeachment and conviction.
The fact that state and local prosecutions are unnecessary constitutes effective immunity.
The president would be precluded from official duties by overwhelming numbers of state and local prosecutions.
State and local prosecution would nullify and void the office of president and constitute political, not jurisprudential, acts.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
October 16, 2000
“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the
continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office o f Legal Counsel
Trump is not the sitting President. The OLC memo does not apply to former Presidents.
And the acts conducted by Real President Donald J. Trump, from his glorious Inauguration Day, 2017, until noon on Inauguration Day, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, enjoy full immunity.
No, he can be sued civilly and held criminally liable for actions that fall outside the outer perimeter of his official duties (see the Blassingame ruling and related suits against Trump, which are slowly progressing), and SCOTUS is right now determining “Whether and if so to what extent … a former President enjoy[s] presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” Neither of our personal beliefs about it will have any legal impact on SCOTUS.
Ah, yes, precedent and case law.
The Supreme Court of 1973 was completely and corruptly wrong on abortion, being totally embarrassed, struck down, and overturned by the Supreme Court of 2022, just as the Supreme Court of 1869 was completely wrong and embarrassed on secession, which is not delegated to the U.S., and not prohibited to the States, being, therefore, reserved to the States.
Please cite the Constitution for presidential legal susceptibility.
I have cited the Constitution for impeachment and conviction.
I have cited the Department of Justice for “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution,” the DOJ’s version having stood for half a century.
To wit,
“Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”
– DOJ
You may want to write to the Department of Justice, comradette.
“INSURRECTION”
The remarkable, historic “insurrection,” the salient inflection point of American history, was perpetrated by the unconstitutional tyrant and fellow traveler of Karl Marx, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.
Lincoln illicitly and unconstitutionally denied secession to States and unconstitutionally prosecuted war against a sovereign foreign nation.
Lincoln and his successors commenced the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in America.
Today, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are vacuous and void of legal weight and bearing, while America is subjugated by central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering, per the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” under Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Secession was and is not prohibited, and it is fully constitutional.
Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his denial of constitutional secession was and is invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional and must be rescinded and extirpated with extreme immediacy and prejudice.
Reprehensible slavery was implemented through legislation, and reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated through legislation.
In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.
______________________________________________________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Jonathan: Blaming Jack Smith for delays in the DC election interference and Mar-a-Lago cases is a convenient distraction. You claim [b]oth state and federal prosecutors have waited until shortly before the election to bring charges for actions taken four years ago”. FACT CHECK: AG Garland opened the two investigations on 11/18/22–less than a year after J.6. He appointed Jack Smith as SC shortly thereafter. On 6/8/23 Smith got a grand jury to indict DJT over the Mar-a-Lago docs. Then on 8/1/23 a grand jury indicted DJT re the J.6 insurrection and all the illegal acts he committed thereafter. You don’t get those two indictments in rapid succession by dragging your feet! So your claim is FALSE!
Dennis, the investigation started long before Nov. of 2022
“literally on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job, DOJ obtained warrants to seize 16 devices from Rudy. During all the months that people have been wailing for Garland to act, Barbara Jones has been wading through Rudy’s phones to separate out anything privileged (and, importantly, to push back on efforts to protect crime-fraud excepted communications). Almost the first thing Lisa Monaco did was approve an effort to go after the key witness to the worst of Trump’s corruption. …”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/10/on-unrealistic-expectations-for-mueller-report-obstruction-charges/
There are also filings from early in 2022 that the DoJ was looking into the connection between Trump’s tweet announcing the “wild” protest to Proud Boys’ leader Enrique Tarrio’s actions. And there are other components of the large-scale investigation that started much earlier than most people realize.
But yes, JT’s claim is false. He either doesn’t know enough about it, or he’s choosing to mislead people who want to be mislead.
Dennis McIntyre showed up to suddenly bag on his close personal friend Jonathan with this:
Jonathan: Blaming Jack Smith for delays in the DC election interference and Mar-a-Lago cases is a convenient distraction… So your claim is FALSE!
What a way to post about a friend that you clearly are on a first name basis with!
Dennis, you ol’ Soviet Democrat police state fascist… can you give one good reason why your fellow police state fascist Jack Smith is a legitimate Special Counsel that meets the criteria for serving as a Special Counsel? Something that can give Americans assurance that Jack Smith isn’t rewriting laws and inventing new others as he did to take out the previous challenger to Biden’s VP reelection campaign?
Especially after SCOTUS, while unanimously throwing out his prosecution and conviction of Obama’s most dangerous reelection opponent Governor Bob McDonnell personally excoriated Jack Smith and wrote that he is “a threat to our separation of powers”?
Sounds kind of disqualifying to me when SCOTUS says that about Jack Smith. In fact, sounds like it should be the start of disbarment – not being brought back to take out the next challenger to a Soviet Democrat’s reelection.
Americans who aren’t Soviet style police state fascists would see Jack Smith as ‘a danger to our democracy’ (isn’t that how you Soviet Democrats word that?).
Kind of looks like your Lavarentiy Beria type prosecutor Jack Smith is a FALSE! Special Counsel!
Putin might have a few openings… Jack Smith probably makes him think of the good ol’ days of Lenin and his special prosecutor/executioner Lavarentiy Beria.
Jonathan: By “historical” standards the SC is acting quickly. But the Court knows how to go a lightening speed when the stakes are high. It did that in the 2000 election when it took about 48 hours to give the election to George W.
And the stakes in this case couldn’t be higher–whether a president is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office. The Court could have taken up the case earlier–when back in Dec. Jack Smith asked the Court to take up the issue, bypassing the DC Court of Appeals. CJ Roberts and the rest of the Court probably knew DJT would lose before the DC court based on the findings of fact and law by Judge Chutkan: A president who engages in insurrection to overturn the results of a legitimate election cannot claim that is part of his “official” duties and he can be criminally prosecuted. So why delay the inevitable?
So in a real sense the SC has delayed. If the majority of the SC believed DJT has no claim of presidential immunity it simply could have denied cert. That would have sent the case back to Judge Chutkan to set a new trial date and a verdict before the election. Then, if he lost, which seems inevitable, DJT could have appealed back up to the SC.
But it appears the right-wing majority on the Court wanted to essentially slow-walk the case. An unnecessary delay to allow the DC Court of Appeals to rule and now take up the case. Now with oral arguments not scheduled until the middle of April we might see a decision before the end of the June term. But not necessarily. The Court could hold off a final decision until the Fall term. Not likely because the Court also knows the stakes are high and delaying a decision would cause further public criticism of a Court that has the lowest approval in recent memory.
On the merits we agree. It is unlikely the SC would find DJT immune from criminal prosecution. That means the case goes back to Judge Chutkan to set a new trial date. Most legal observers believe DJT will lose but it is unlikely a jury verdict could come before the November elections. Can’t blame any of that on Jack Smith. He wanted to go to trial in May!
DM apparently you can not read. Bush V Gore is the poster child for why the supreme court should not act with haste.
While Bush V. Gore REQUIRED the court to act with dispatch – The FL courts were playing a disasterous game that showed no signs of ending.
Gore and the FL courts opposed state wide recounts which with certainty would have expanded Bush’s lead, while incrementally trying to expand recounts in democrat controlled counties where Gore might pick up a few votes. This selective recount process which the FL courts were engaged had no time limit and would stop only when Gore “overturned” the election.
I would note that it is the Bush V Gore decision that courts relied on to Thwart Trump’s efforts in 2020.
The core of Bush V Gore is that the election process MUST have an end. Neither party democrats nor republicans can continue to challenge an election endlessly until they get the outcome they want.
Personally I think that Bush V. Gore was a bad decision – that the outcome was correct, but the reasoning was muddled while solving an immediate problem did nothing to address the more fundamental problem that our elections – then as now are a mess and can not deal with close votes in a matter that voters will trust.
Regardless how was Bush V. Gore different ? The FL courts were holding the entire nation hostage, and were operating outside the scope of election law and the constitution and hard deadlines were rapidly approaching.
If states do not certify and election that creates the problem for congress that left wing nuts like you claim congress has no power over – that would require congress to decide who won the delegates from FL and therefore the election.
There is no deadline here – but there is a criminal prosecution – and those of you on the left assured that Trump’s civil rights Took precedence over your election concerns.
As Turley pointed out SCOTUS is already moving extraordinarily fast on these Trump cases.
Personally they should have told the DC appeals court to pound sand and wiped out the DC courts arbitraily fact and procedurally incorrect deadlines and just restored the normal time from from Trump to ask for an En Banc appeal. That alone would have delayed this past the election.
May I add the corrupt Coleman vs Franken recount for the deciding vote on Obamacare. The mail in ballots found in the trunk of a car for the win Barry!
Jack Smith can want whatever he wants – the right to due process belongs to the defendant in a criminal case.
Further – while Jack Smith has repeated argued for expedited review he has never once used the election as a reason for expedited review.
That is becasue he CANT – the DOJ rules driven by the constitution prohibit making prosecutorial decisions with the intention of effecting the outcome of an election. If Smith makes an election argument the court can easily determine that the case must be stopped entirely until after the election. Because DOJ is trying to influence an election.
John Say: Why do you get so many things wrong? A defendant’s right to “due process” includes the 6th Amendment right to a “speedy trial”. That is exactly what Jack Smith is tried to give DJT by agreeing to the original trial date of March 4th set by Judge Chutkan. But DJT didn’t like that date, for obvious reasons. He wants to put off that case, and all the others until after the election. So it’s all about delay, delay, appeal and appeal. If Trump thought he could beat the charges before Judge Chutkan he would have agreed to a “speedy trial” to vindictive himself and declare to his MAGA supporters: “See, I beat the legal system. I’m innocent!” But DJT knows that will not happen because the facts and other evidence –especially in the Mar-a-Lago docs case, are all against him. That is why he is desperately trying to put off all the cases against him until after the election, and if he wins, he can try to shut them all down. But that’s not justice and accountability. As William Gladsone put it: “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
And because of all your voluminous and non-sensical claims on this blog you missed the Friday hearing before Judge Aileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago case in Fl. Jack Smith told Cannon the DOJ manual does no prohibit a summer trial date. Why? Because DOJ policy does not preclude cases already filed and being prosecuted from going forward. The DOJ rules only apply to cases still in the investigatory stage and precludes indictments so near an election. That is why Jack Smith is asking for a new trial date of July 8. That was a shot across the bow to Cannon who might try to use DOJ policy to delay the trail until after the election.
Anything else you would like to add to your pseudo-legal analysis?
That is exactly what Jack Smith is tried to give DJT by agreeing to the original trial date of March 4th set by Judge Chutkan. But DJT didn’t like that date, for obvious reasons. He wants to put off that case, and all the others until after the election.
You are arguing that DJT should be denied his pre-court filings. DJT is afforded his full set of rights in defending his innocence. Jack Smiths desires are meaningless.
Understand. Jack Smith has offered zero circumstances that warrant expedited hearings.
iowan2: I never said “DJT should be denied his pre-court filings”. Not to be too technical but they are called “pre-trial motions”. DJT has ever right to make any pre-trial motions he wants. In one of his filings DJT claimed presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. In a long opinion Judge Chutkan denied the motion. DJT appealed to the DC Court of Appeals which affirmed Chutkan’s decision. DJT has appealed to the SC that has agreed to hear the appeal.
If the SC finds DJT cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution the case goes back to Judge Chutkan to set a new trial date and rule on DJT’s other motions–that were stayed pending the appeals. That’s how the process works. At no stage has DJT been denied “his full set of rights in defending his innocence”.
Dennis McIntyre keeps defending Jack Smith’s latest police state fascist prosecution to take out Republican opponents with this:
John Say: Why do you get so many things wrong?
Why do you keep wrongly pimping Jack Smith as a legitimate Special Counsel when he’s a police state fascist who invents law and reinterprets law in order to prosecute?
That’s what SCOTUS decided about Jack Smith while he was working for Biden previously in the DoJ, not just me.
SCOTUS, in their unanimous decision completely throwing out Jack Smith’s prosecution and conviction of the previous most dangerous opponent to Biden remaining in the White House, specifically called Jack Smith “a threat to our separation of powers”.
Rather than making excuses for Smith attempting to do to Trump what he did to McDonnell in the same manner, can you give a lucid, honest explanation of why Jack Smith should even be allowed to still practice law after that SCOTUS decision, never mind meet the requirements to be a Special Counsel?
Jack Smith is a police state fascist who emulates Stalin’s Lavarentiy Beria: “Show you the man and I’ll find you his crimes or make them up”.
Of Course Trump will lose – he has a biased prosecutor, with an unhinged judge and a Trump hating jury. If you want an actual fair Trial do as the Shepard case requires and change the venue to somewhere that has not already decided the outcome of the case.
I would note that already in the dockets are two supreme court cases that were horribly decided by lower courts violating over a century of supreme court precident. The first is the abuse of the Sarbox law in a domain they do not apply to and in violation of the first amendment – that is 18 US 1512 – anything is possible in front of the Supreme court, but SCOTUS would have to overturn over a century of precident to uphold the 18 US 1512 claims. And those make HALF of Smith’s charges against Trump. One of the others is based on a post Civil war law meant to stop intimidation of people at the ballot box – which like 1512 does not apply, and which like 1512 does not overcome first amendment issues in this case. There is already a case on that law and issue headed to SCOTUS that with near certainty will get reversed.
Which means nearly all of Smith’s case is unconstitutional.
Someone here posted that a DC appellate pannel had just found the 1512 cases unconstitutional on Friday. I have not been able to confirm that – and it would surprise me if true, though it is generally understood that these cases will be reversed as unconstitution – the DOJ is no longer charging 1512 because they do not expect it will be upheld. Lower courts split 2:1:1 on the issue – with one Trial court judge and one appelate court judge finding the use of 1512 unconstitutional and one appelate court judge finding it constitutional and one muddled oppinion that appowed DC to continue to prosecute 1512 cases until Scotus agreed to take the case.
Regardless it is expected that hundreds of 1512 convictions will be overturned, and that most of the long J6 sentences will be vacated as a result.
None of this should surprise people. Contra left wing nuts like you –
Most first amendment law was created by far left defendants, in decisions by left leaning supreme court majorities.
The Chicago 5 case is directly analoguous to the J6 cases, and The chicago democratic convention riots prosecutions were all thrown out on first amendment grounds. The 1968 DNC convention riots were far more violent than J6
Your rants that the Supreme Court are somehow tilted right and in Trump’s pocket run afoul of the FACT that Trump’s arguments and the likely SCOTUS decisions are based on over a century of LEFT lead Free Speech decisions by LEFT leaning courts.
Trump will lose because there is simply no such thing as presidential immunity.
Then we should file murder charges against Obama for ordering the assassination of a US Citizen.
It seems odd to me that the Framers gave POTUS the unreviewable power to grant pardons for any federal crime, possibly even the power to pardon himself, but then left him completely at the mercy of his successors to be prosecuted for alleged “crimes” committed while in office. It would seem pretty obvious how that could be uses. The hypothetical of what about a president ordering the SEALs to murder someone in DC…misses the point. Presidents often have to make life and death decisions, and sometimes the SEALs are used in this manner. Any drone strikes ordered against suspected “terrorists” could be fair game for a future prosecution. Murdering a non-US citizen in a foreign country is still a crime in this country. Even an accidental drone strike could be prosecuted as manslaughter. What about financial crimes? Was it legal for Obama to bail out banks and car companies? Would Bush/Cheney still have to answer for WMD and the deaths in Iraq, what about rendition and torture? Without immunity these would all still be on the table.
“…no such thing as presidential immunity.”
– NUTCHACHACHA
______________________
Except for every president before Real President Donald J. Trump.
The 1512 case could wipe out one on Trump’s charges. The other one is about evidence – the “fake electors”.
Did ya hear Trump’s new name for Governor NewSCUM of Commiefornia?
God Bless President Trump, eh Denny?
“Goofy Gavin” Newscum of Commufornia, Illegal Alien Invader Sanctuary Capital of the World
DM there is no question that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution while in office.
That ship has sailed.
It is trivial to find a violation of criminal law committed by every single president since Washington.
Pres. Obama ordered the assassination of US Citizen Anwar Al-Awkli – has he been investigated, indicted, prosecuted ?
This case is not about the existance of presidential immunity despite childishly stupid rants by the left – like yours.
It is certain that SCOTUS is not going to decide that presidents do not have immunity.
The DC appeals court did NOT decide that presidents do not have immunity.
No court has decided that presidents do not have immunity.
The unfavorable decisions for Trump are decisions that TRUMP does not have immunity.
There is a legitimate debage going on in the courts regarding presidential immunity and how it works and when it applies and when it does not.
But there is no question that it exists.
This case is a case of first impression – and an extremely complicated one – not because no president ever has violated a criminal law – examples of that are trivial to find. FDR ordered the kidnaping of 50,000 US citizens, in an absolutely shameful act. Worse still, even the National securtity argument rings false. The incarceration of 50,000 japanese americans without due process did NOT take place througout the US – it did not as an example occur in Hawaii where the largest concentration of japanese americans wwere present in very close proximity to US naval bases. But primarily in California, Where White Democrats were able to come in scoop up the homes and stores of japanses americans at fire sale prices. There is substantial evidence that FDR’s incarceration of japanese americans – without due process was a political move to get votes in California.
I mentioned Obama assassintation US citizens, there are many many other cases of clear criminal acts by US presidents that were never investigated, charged or prosecuted.
That Trump has been is what is unusual and that is what makes this a case of first impression and also an uphill haul for those of you on the left.
The fact that Trump’s actions infuriate you more than Obama’s or FDR’s does nto change the law or the constitution – though it speaks volumes about you.
The Killing and kidnapping of US citizens is less important to those on the left than a president challenging a dubious election.
I would prefer that these cases got tossed on purely first amendment grounds – because they are all garbage attempts to criminalize speech.
A universal rights violation by the left that goes far beyond Trump and that needs to be stopped brutally and rapidly.
And is by far the greatest threat to this country.
It is especially disturbing that establishing the critical importance of free speech has historically been the work of Liberals and liberal courts,
yet today it is the Alito’s and Thomas’s who are the champions of free speech and idiots like you are excoriating them when they have FINALLY gotten it right.
Dennis: thank you again for your thorough analysis. Turley tries to make the case that it is somehow unfair that Trump was denied an “en banc” hearing, as if this is a common occurrence in appellate practice. He knows better— en banc hearings are very rare, and in this case, would be just another delay tactic. As you pointed out, Smith tried to fast track this process, and Trump has done everything possible to slow it down.
Another point: there’s absolutely no reason to drag out this case for weeks, other than to delay the inevitable finding of no presidential immunity—so setting briefing deadlines out for several weeks is clearly calculated to help Trump avoid trials on federal charges before November. The issues have been briefed already and they are purely legal. It’s not possible that the founders of our country intended for the Chief Executive to be free to commit crimes with impunity, especially crimes involving a refusal to accept that they had been voted out of office. They expressly rejected the concept of a monarch with unlimited powers.
I say again: the American people deserve to know whether Trump is a criminal before the election. Polls show that a conviction would impact some voters’ decision as to whom to vote for. Trump claims he is innocent—so why hasn’t he taken steps to hurry and get these cases behind him—isn’t it obvious, even to Trumpsters? The SCOTUS knows how to expedite matters, and has done so in the past, but mainly to benefit Republican candidates. It also knows how to drag out cases when it wants to benefit Republican candidates, which is what it is doing now. This is a serious matter of great public importance and the issue is simple. It doesn’t take weeks to brief or argue the issues, and the politicians in black robes know that the longer they drag out the process, the less likely that Trump will get convicted before November. They deserve the scorn of the public and non-Trump media.
Another reason for public scorn and disrespect: if Trump somehow cheats his way back into power, he will try to pardon himself, and thus thwart the criminal justice system all of us rely upon for law and order. That the SCOTUS would do anything to help someone circumvent the law in this manner is shocking and shameful.
If President’s don’t have immunity, what charges will then be appropriate against former Presidents Biden (innumerable crimes), Obama (murder of US Citizen, initiating war without authorization, etc.), Bush (lying to Congress, initiating war with authorization, etc.), and Clinton (sexual harassment, initiating war without authorizations, etc.).
IMMUNITY
Now you know why the Founders and Framers subscribed to the adage that “Rank Has Its Privileges” (RHIP), subjecting presidents to mere impeachment and conviction while omitting and, thereby, excluding indictment and prosecution.
Impeachment and conviction are the “there” there.
By design, there is no indictment or prosecution “there” there.
Biden knows he is unlikely to survive long past the election, if he even makes it that far, so he has no fear of retaliation.
As many of us here already know, quite often what’s being squawked about the loudest is actually quite different than how it’s being squawked about. Instead of people like Maddow reporting on things that have actually happened— Obama/Dems using other countries to help spy on their political opponents, for example— what’s talked about is the ‘possibility’ of the opposition bending the rules, breaking the laws, etc. in the future. Continually kicking the can down the road. And this will also be another time when, if the outcome goes the way Maddow etc. want it to go, it’ll be ‘Justice Was Served’, and if not, ‘It’s an extremist court’.
I never ever second guess how any court will decide.
I would think this case is causing some heartburn among some of the justices.
Speakup posted:
I would think this case is causing some heartburn among some of the justices.
I would agree with you on that nor wouldI try to guess what convoluted decision might come out. I will probably look closest at whatever reasoning Thomas provides or signs off on.
I am mindful that this court essentially turned a blind eye to all appeals brought to them concerning Clinton/Biden lawyer Marc Elias going from battleground state to battleground state before the election, getting the election requirements of those states changed not through the elected representatives as constitutionally required, but through judges and state officers instead.
That was troubling then and I wonder if they are still of that mindset, which looks like one of being willing to see injustice prevail if that allows SCOTUS to stay out of election issues rather than decide them. If that isn’t at the top of SCOTUS’ duties of matters to settle, what is?
Further, these charges are interpretations of legislation by Jack Smith, an illegitimate Special Counsel who fails every single requirement for what a Special Counsel must be. This is the Jack Smith that a few years ago many still on SCOTUS thew out his rewriting and reinterpretation of federal bribery statutes to prosecute and convict Obama’s most dangerous reelection opponent, Governor Bob McDonnell. In that decision SCOTUS excoriated Smith for what he did and called him a threat to the separation of powers.
I recall with his first indictments mainstream media law analysts were delighted to read the indictments and call it clever and inventive lawyering. So with these charges that the immunity question refers to, are those SCOTUS justices seeing Jack Smith’s second prosecution of a Democrat president challenger going to see another boundless re-interpretation of existing law? Or is Smith being legitimate this time in his legal interpretations? Or, perhaps, the question of immunity will not concern Smith’s interpretation of these charges?
Turley’s characterization about some people “calling the justices insurrectionists” is simply his “readers added context” to Mary Trump’s comment ““the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”
In his previous version of this Fox.com op-ed, Turley went overboard with his readers added context, insisting Mary Trump & other call SCOTUS “a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.” Lickspittles? This is the type of rhetoric specifically designed to enrage.
As Turley knows, 10 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection & 7 GOP Senators voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection. Trump contends he should be immune from prosecution for his efforts to stop Pence & Congress from certifying Biden’s Electoral College victory on J6. Trump has spent the last 3 1/2 years relentlessly claiming he won the 2020 election “by a lot.”
We’ll soon find out whether SCOTUS rules that a President has complete immunity from prosecution for any criminal acts committed while in office.
Lickspittle invites violence? Are you joking? What do Nazi and fascist invite?
Arthurize, your own “reader added context” to “the type of rhetoric specifically designed to enrage” actually means “incite violence” & then throw in Nazis & fascists is quite remarkable. Turley used the exact same phrase “the type of rhetoric that enrages” earlier this week. Do you think Turley actually meant incite violence?
They won’t. But it will be incredibly hard for them to come up with a workable standard of what presidential acts are immune and which aren’t. It wouldn’t surprise me if they punt the case to next term in hopes it simply goes away on its own.
Another reason they could be slow walking this is that they will rule that Trump is disqualified to be president, then it won’t matter how close his trials are to an election. Everyone is assuming that the court will ignore the words of 14/3.
Also the idea that anyone is immune to criminal prosecution is insane.
This case is about presidential immunity. It is not the same case as the one about 14/3.
Sammy wrote:
Also the idea that anyone is immune to criminal prosecution is insane.
Hillary Clinton seems to be immune to criminal prosecution for lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, espionage violations, destroying subpoenaed property…
Biden can be found to have criminal acts – but coherent enough to be president but so incoherent he can’t be prosecuted.
Oh… and FBI Directors, Obama Attorney Generals, and the FBI agents who perjured themselves to FISA courts regarding the Soviet Democrats’ Russia Dossier and uttering false documents to those judges appear to be immune to criminal prosecution as well.
Lets add the Biden’s to being immune to prosecution… or for at least as long as the FBI and prosecutors could hide evidence of felonies from Congressional and public knowledge.
Ah yes…… Liz Cheney stating that the court “suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear.” Such a quintessence of legal brilliance eh Jonathan ? They will grind this narrative into fine powder as the months go on.
“[F]or many of us in academia” scares me, Jonathon. I can only speak for myself, but I strongly believe that “in academia” people live sheltered, over-protected lives, protected by “tenure” from the often frightening realities of the off-campus world. Professor McQuade is saying (to me, at least): “Your ‘cherished right’ to free speech is valid only so far as you do not challenge what I have to say. If you benightedly oppose me, I must then step in to stifle your voice, for your own protection and for the protection of ‘our Democracy.'” As a self-identified academic, Jonathon, you may be eager to debate whether McQuade’s assertion that free speech is “an existential threat to the country” that requires suppression is true or not, but to a person who is not an academic, like me, it is as obvious (and painful) as a head-butt to the bridge of the nose that McQuade is all-in for censorship and using government authority to shout down dissenters. I do not need a debate to figure that out.
Without a District Court trial record and fact-base decided by a Jury, the 4/22 Oral Argument will be a spectacle of hypotheticals. The case of a 1st term President seeking re-election poses inherent conflict-of-interest were that incumbent to use Official Powers to steer the outcome. A truly vexing situation would be one where during such an election process, foreign actors are interfering to throw the election to said President. In that case, how could the 50 States defend their election processes from the foreign attack?….they would need help from Federal Government (Homeland Security, CIA, Dept. of State) and these report to the President. The President would have a conflict-of-interest in getting involved. I’m pretty sure this vulnerability would be discussed. In addition, State X could be attacked by hackers in State Y to disrupt or mickey their election result, and FBI would need to assist in thwarting the attack.
But none of these were factors in the 2020 election, which is the backdrop for this case. Trump’s assertions were that Democratic actors in each state cheated, which would be the jurisdiction of that state to investigate and remedy.
There was no remotely relevant role for POTUS in the 2020 post-election, other than mounting court challenges as a CANDIDATE. There were no grounds for use of Presidential authority.
To say otherwise would be to set a precedent in the future where a Democrat President who lost the EC count could take steps to negate that count and block a Repub (or Independent) President-elect from taking office. There is no chance as I see it of SCOTUS finding such corrupt machinations should go consequence-free under some extreme interpretation of Presidential immunity. None. That would be an invitation to a Constitutional crisis inviting Civil War.
Nonsense
phinCA – do you not think that there may be legitimate national issues with voting by mail and esp. vote gathering? These may be state issues, but they may decide who the President is.
Have you ever worked as an election canvasser evaluating mail-in ballots? (Canvasser is the word for it in my county. Maybe your county has a different term for the people who assess mail-in ballots.) I don’t think you know what the process is when they arrive at the Board of Elections. Tell us what you think the “legitimate national issues are” with mail-in ballots, and let’s test whether they actually get addressed by the canvassing process.
“Tell us what you think the “legitimate national issues are” with mail-in ballots, and let’s test whether they actually get addressed by the canvassing process.”
That is the problem. No one really knows what is happening, or which box is getting switched out on the way from the post office. Remember this:
“Immediately after the 2000 election in which Slosberg was elected to the Florida State House by 88 votes, and at the peak of the vote recount during the Bush-Gore United States presidential election in Florida, 2000, Palm Beach Sheriff’s Deputies confiscated a Votamatic voting machine from Slosberg.[11] When initially approached by the Supervisor of Elections Office and asked about the voting machine, Slosberg denied having it. On November 11, 2000, police confronted Slosberg about the voting machine which Slosberg then retrieved from his car and delivered to the police.[12] No reason was ever provided for Slosberg having possession of the voting machine, and despite additional allegations of misconduct, Democrat Supervisor of Elections Theresa Lepore neither investigated nor pressed charges against Slosberg.[13]”
I remember a story, years ago, about a Democratic State Senator, from New York or maybe New Jersey, coming right out and talking about how illegal votes were ginned up in Pennsylvania. After he was confronted, he withdrew the story. I have not been able to find that story.
“No one really knows what is happening”
That’s false. Pitch in and work for your Board of Elections and you’ll learn what’s happening. Or talk with election workers. Or volunteer as an observer. Nothing is stopping you from learning what’s happening.
Yes, illegal things sometimes happen, including voter fraud. That does not imply that our elections as a whole cannot be trusted.
And that Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License that allows you to copy from Wikipedia also says “Attribution—You must give appropriate credit.”
Election workers do not see the places where fraud is most likely to occur. Most cheat by mail schemes start with dirty voter rolls, and ballots for fake voters who were registered in the system must then be harvested, filled out, and deposited. A lot of shady stuff takes place out of public view.
“That would be an invitation to a Constitutional crisis inviting Civil War.”
Yes, but the problem is that Democrats created a Constitutional crisis when they weaponized the IRS, FBI, CIA, and DOJ so they could cheat during elections and censor anyone who disagreed with what they were doing.
The Democrats are close to causing a significant split, inviting a Civil war or an occupation of America by America’s enemies. We must work together to prevent that from happening.
foreign actors are interfering to throw the election to said President
You need to draw a better picture. How exactly does than work?
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”
“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
– President Donald J. Trump, January 6, 2021
“MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin added that, due to the delay for a review of the matter, she was “beyond terrified for our country”
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.”
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.
—————
Add Joy Reid to the mix, and why does anybody watch MSNBC? Didn’t Frau Madcow lie for years about RussiaGate? Why would anybody expect to get anything intelligent from that group of babbleoons? (a new word I made up- baboons and babblers = babbleoons)
If you read The Territorial Imperative (a book from the sixties), you will develop respect for baboons. Exposure to MSNBC has just the opposite effect.
(The claims of “slow walking” the appeal ignore the history and culture of the Court.) The entire goal of the prog/left is to ignore all of our history and culture – they do not limit their desire to just the SCOTUS. If anything, the go out of their way to ignore and defame most of what had constituted the American ethos in their desperate grasping at “fundamentally transforming” this nation into the perfect vision of utopia as dreamed by the likes of Frank Davis, Saul Alinsky, and Lewis Farrakhan – and all his ilk in congress. Our biggest worry, and I think it is a bigger worry than our debt and our open borders, is how to eliminate and fumigate this pernicious bunch and end their striving to destroy this nation.
“Both state and federal prosecutors have waited until shortly before the election . . .” (JT)
And *that* fact, which the Left evades, is how you can tell that this is yet another slimy smear campaign — designed to manipulate voters, kneecap Trump, and to sate their lust for power.