When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements. This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
At the time of his appointment, many Republicans objected to Weissmann’s status as a democratic donor, including his reported attendance of the election night party for Hillary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his political affiliations but to his professional history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.
Weissmann then became a MSNBC analyst and a “professor of practice” at New York University. In his book, he attacked prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation.
Now he is predicting the end of democracy if the Court remand the immunity case for further proceedings.
Weissmann told MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki on Sunday:
I think that it’s important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given Donald Trump the win that he was seeking, which is the delay of the DC trial.
So going into this, this was all upside for him. I mean, I think he had to be thinking, I’m making this really outlandish argument, with ramifications that couldn’t possibly be squared with the text and history. The text of the Constitution or the history of the presidency? So it’s all upside if the court would actually bite on this. And so what was surprising is that there were justices who actually were taking this seriously. And it just was, frankly, shocking.
Remember, going into this, the given was that private conduct was certainly not, immunized from criminal liability. What everyone’s talking about now is, hey, maybe they think that some of this is private and they can go forward, but that was what was given going into this. And the reason people are thinking that is because there seem to be four justices who were really taking Donald Trump’s claim of criminal immunity seriously. And we are.
I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I think your opening is so correct that we are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. And to say it’s an imperial presidency that would be created is, it’s frankly saying it would be a king, he would be criminally immune. And that that is what is so shocking is how close we are.
And we are really on the razor’s edge of that kind of result. But for the chief justice.
Just for the record, it sounds less “like hyperbole” than hysteria. The justices were exploring the implications of the sweeping arguments on both sides of the immunity question. What they were not willing to do (as does Weissmann) is simply dismiss any arguments of official status on the part of the accused. That would establish a dangerous ambiguity for the future as prosecutors claim that political statements are private matters for the purpose of prosecution.
Ironically, Weissmann’s lack of concern for the implications of such an interpretation is reminiscent of his prior sweeping arguments as a prosecutor that led to the stinging defeat in the Anderson case.
Of course, there is another possibility is that the justices were not seeking the end of democracy. The Court was honestly trying to get this standard correct not just for this case but future cases. To do so, it will require a record on the underlying actions rather than the categorical threshold judgment made by the district court. The argument showed justices exploring how to avoid a parade of horribles on either extreme with a more moderate approach.
As I previously noted, it has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That protection applied to acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
Apparently, that immunity did not endanger democracy.
In United States v. Nixon, the court also ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.
Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.
There are cliffs on both sides of this case. If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency.
It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.
If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.
The first cliff is made obvious by the lower-court opinion. While the media have largely focused on extreme examples of president-ordered assassinations and coups, the justices are clearly as concerned with the sweeping implications of the DC Circuit opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted the DC Circuit failed to make any “focused” analysis of the underlying acts, instead offering little more than a judicial shrug.
Roberts read its statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws” and noted it sounds like “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”
The other cliff is more than obvious from the other proceedings occurring as these arguments were made. Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid..
Weissmann is not concerned with the clear politicization of the criminal justice system by Bragg just before one of the most consequential elections in our history.
No, the threat is that justices may want to balance the interests over immunity by rejecting the extreme arguments on both sides. They may try to pursue a course that allows for immunity for official acts or functions while rejecting immunity for non-official acts. Some or all of Trump’s actions or statements could well fall into the unprotected category.
The sense of alarm expressed by legal experts is that the Court would not simply sign off on the absolutist arguments of Smith and, most importantly, allow for a trial before the election.
So how will democracy end if the Court adopts a middle road on immunity? It appears to come down to the loss of a possible conviction to influence the outcome of the election.
At the same time, MSNBC guests are also calling, again, for the packing of the Supreme Court. While conservative justices have repeatedly voted with the Biden Administration, it does not matter. They want the Court packed to guarantee outcomes with the appointment of reliable liberal justices. All of this is being defended in the name of democracy, as was ballot cleansing.
The problem with the escalating rhetoric is that there is not much room for further hysterics. Where does Weissmann and others go from here after predicting the imminent death of democracy?
Pundits have now predicted the creation of camps for democrats, killing journalists and homosexuals, the death of the free press, and tyranny. That leaves only systemic mutilations and Roman decimation.
For lawyers to fuel this hysteria is a sad commentary on the state of our country. Whether a true crisis of faith or simple opportunism, it disregards centuries of constitutional history in overcoming every threat and obstacle. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world. To suddenly embrace tyranny would require all three branches, and the citizens as a whole, to shred an elaborate system of checks and balances.
We are better than that . . . and these inflammatory predictions.
Weissmann also is someone who gets a HUGE paycheck from MSNBC (really NBC), gets a huge paycheck from the university where he “teaches”, gets a huge paycheck from the DNC or other groups that support the DNC via speaking engagements and other appearances, including book deals.
Life in American politics is largely a grift. The Green New Steal is a grift. BLM is a grift. DEI is a grift. Being a rabid radical on cable is a grift. NGOs making millions with illegals is a grift. Follow the money and you will get many answers to what our problems are.
I just want to add to my grift rant that if the Green New Steal isn’t a grift and it is really fear of the end of the world than why no protests outside Chinese embassies, why no protests outside Indian embassies, why no boycott divest from China, why no boycott Amazon or even the delivery of daily newspapers by smoke belching trucks?
Hullbobby
The climate grift has been going on about 30 years. Not a single prediction has materialized.
Ignore that. 30 years is long enough to have brought on line, enough nuclear power plants to generate 80% of all the fossil fuel plants.
Thats the proof, what the climate crazies insist must happen, they really dontt want a solution for. This has nothing to do with replacing fossil fuels. It is about eliminating fossil fuels and reducing the amount of electricity used to 1940 levels.
They have been telling us these truths for over 30 years. Obama stated clearly, “it necessarily means the US will be paying $8-$10 per gallon for gasoline”
The goal is to reduce energy consumption by pushing it so high, only the elite rulers, like college Presidents will be able to afford private transportation, and Air Conditioning.
iowan2 said: “The climate grift has been going on about 30 years. Not a single prediction has materialized.”
Remember the “Ozone Hole” and the “New Ice Age” that was predicted to result? The prevalence of that doom and gloom prediction at the time has been pretty effectively memory-holed by the MSM, but I clearly recall it. I’m pretty sure that Paul Erlich was knee-deep in that pile of mare manure, in addition to his Population Bomb fiction.
In the 90-00’s hair spray was killing the ozone, good times. I blame the hair bands from that era for the anger.
I’m pretty sure that Paul Erlich was knee-deep in that pile of mare manure, in addition to his Population Bomb fiction
Paul Erlich served a grand purpose. “scientists” are driven by their personal ideologies like all Humans. His Population Bomb, bombed because, while he could count bodies and build formulas to predict population growth is specific geographies, he ignored half the equation. Food production
Erlich missed so far you have to use astronomy measurements. He just used trend line production. Missing known advances in agriculture. 1970 corn yields about 70bu/acre. Today 185bu/acre. Erlich ignored the new trend line already established in the mid 50’s. Why? because it would not fit his preferred narrative.
So you will have to excuse my suspicion of “science”. I have been watching for over 50 years the way ‘scientist’ operate. All of my suspicions validated during the covid sham
Iowan, the grift goes hand in hand with the left wanting to weaken America vis a vis our enemies, i.e. China. That is why the leftist goons never protest China, that is why the leftist goons never support nuclear energy, that is why the left hates Saudi Arabia while they love Iran, that is why they loved the USSR when they were a real threat and now they hate Russia, a third world nation with nukes all while they now love China.
The left does everything to weaken the US. In the 80s they DEMANDED that we unilaterally disarm as they never said a word about the Soviet nukes but thankfully back then we had a president that actually likes and supported the US, Ronald Reagan, while Biden does everything to weaken us and strengthen CHina.
iowan2 said: “you will have to excuse my suspicion of ‘science’ ”
“Science” in quotes, aka “The Science”, I agree. I do quite intransigently believe in the validity and value of the scientific method. The problem is that the scientific method has no place in “The Science”. Practitioners of the latter are nothing more than witch doctors who revile the very concept of testing hypotheses.
@hullbobby – your right, sadly it’s our tax dollar they use. Then when election time rolls around they tell us how SS is in trouble. They never tell us how they’ve raided SS for years.
Camps for Democrats. I like that thought. Sort of like summer camp but they can never leave. You would not want to hurt them, just parade your children by every 2 years and tell them that this is where they could end up, if you don’t eat their meals and behave appropriately.
In the past I would have also included minding your teachers but I think that would be bad advice now.
‘Tis folks like Weissmann who are the threats to democracy. Especially when they are law school graduates.
This guys butt must get jealous of how much crap comes out of his mouth.
Seems to me that the problem is already solved by the constitution. The President can be removed from office by the House by instigating impeachment and the Senate then voting for conviction. That would remove any immunity of the president for the charges brought during the impeachment and he can then be tried in court. Just about everything that has been charged against Trump has already been tried by Presidents, some impeached but not convicted or no attempts at charges at all. That would also eliminate retrospective charges after he left office.
As far as the documents case there are multiple events in the past where documents were taken from the White House including the present president starting when he was a senator. Look at the election of 1876 and wonder if that “deal” and legislation would have passed legal muster now even though that election was clearly stolen from Tilden, the democrat.
Weissman is making a case for himself being a defendant in a trial like the Judges trial at Nuremberg. He is the epitome of Lawfare.
Trump contested the election, not a new thing in this country. All I can say is that if we had voter ID and in person voting like every other democracy in the world then I strongly suspect the result could have been very different.
That purple thumb thing worked pretty well in Afghanistan…
I fully support the purple thumb. Democrats? not so much.
How about facial recognition? It’s standard in immigration systems now. Having recently traveled abroad I was surprised to find out you don’t have to present a passport when going thru customs. They just make you stand before a camera and verify your identity as a citizen by facial recognition. You still have to have a passport to travel, but you don’t have to present it when you get to customs. Maybe it should be used for voter id.
Facial recognition is better that what we have
But I have been told by the intellictual giants in the Democrat Party, that Voter ID is racist. Dont know how you can get millions of black 70 year olds in Mississippi that cant even get birth certificate will be able to use facial recognition.
GEB
lately we have been like twins, of one mind.
To me this is to simple, the highly educated, trained legal minds are stupified by the simplicity.
Constitutional Checks and Balances are ALL that is needed
If the President abuses power, Congress can impeach, Senate can convict, and remove.
We differ, in that the consequences should end with removal from office. Understand that Congress will present all the evidence of wrong doing. The voters will assess all the evidence. The voters will decide if their elected representative got it right. If the Voters want to elect the impeached and removed President for another term, the voters always have the final say at the ballot box.
I see zero down side in just letting the checks and balances play out to the end. The judiciary has so abused their power, I don’t trust them to judge a Middle School Spelling Bee
we are ~240 years into this new experiment called the USA, and still have not had 50 presidents. If a few stinkers slip through, that is kinda the basis of our Justice system.
100 guilty go free, before an innocent man is convicted.
Iowan2 -I agree we are similar. Only Illinois seems to separate us. I still like the independent judiciary but I am frequently perplexed and disappointed by their decisions. The law has to have some semblance of common sense. The 2 recent decisions of the 4th Circuit make me wonder since all the democrat appointees ascribed to the trans insanity even when left wing UK is abandoning that madness and more data builds against gender reassignment. If that decision leads to injuries of young girls then I think the Judges should suffer a loss of immunity, possibly open to civil penalties also.
Like the President I would think a Supreme Court decision could be overridden by a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate and signed by the President.
I trust the people for the most part to make a good decision (California and New York Excepted)
One thought, although Federal Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate maybe they could be recalled by vote after 5 years by citizens in their district. Those most affected by their decisions. Could apply to Circuit Court of Appeals also.
No other president spearheaded a attempted coup when they lost.
Sammy. Pay attention. Congress has the power. If you don’t like that, you have six months to replace your Representation in DC
The problem as I see it is that the DEMs like Biden, Obama, Weissman, Schumer, Pelosi and the list goes on are the PROBLEM. They have essentially already DESTORYED democracy and made voting a thing of the past. They do like they do in Russia. The DNC did not give the real DEMOCRATS in this nation an opportunity to vote in primaries. THEY declared before the usual beginning of the “Primary season” BIDEN IS THE DEM candidate and no one else should even consider it. And as for checks and balances that was thrown out by them at the outset of the Biden administration. He broke so many laws on his “Day One” it was ludicrous. BUT did the Congress, Democrat controlled, BTW, hold him accountable –NO! OUT OF HATE AND ENVY they went after a man who as President gave America back to the real citizens, the voting citizens of this great Republic and in so doing “destroyed the Democracy” element that our Founders added to it. And when the GOP tried to at least hold his Secretary of Home Security accountable and responsible for doing what Biden ordered on day one, they the Democrat Senate shut it down. Biden has broken so many laws with regard to our Southern Border and gone “unchecked” for 3 + years and now thinks he is the All Power ONE over America and that he do anything he wants and GET Away WITH IT because the DEM congress and the DEM prosecutors, etc. like being the all power King that our Founders rejected AND defeated 240 + years ago, but they have resurrected that form of government and are loving it. We don’t need to hear the Brits and their “God save the Queen” rhetoric. It is time “we the people”, as stated in Our Declaration and Constitution, need to standup and be counted fairly and with the best accuracy any real honest human being can produce and give us our Republic back. WE need to shout to our supposed President and Congress “GOD SAVE AMERICA”! In my younger days I remember a TV show that ended with what something that the people need to hear today “Will the ‘REAL PRESIDENT’, please stand up!” In other words, who are those who are really pulling the strings and running the Democrat Party into the ditch and America long with them! Folks they rejected Biden a couple of times in his younger years as a candidate for President but declared him as their King in his older years and attached some strings to him and made him the dishonest and ineffective Leader that they always knew he was so they would be shielded from the blame that is their due to their own hook, line and sinker. And so many Americas bought. So the old saying might just be TRUE- “You can’t fix Stupid!”
The Supreme Court should include criminal cases against presidents and former presidents within its constitutional authority for original jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution states: “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” Under the Supreme Court’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, the U.S. Congress may not alter the scope of the court’s original jurisdiction. It would not be a perfect match but one that would ensure a more even-handed application of law by persons whose future careers are not dependent upon their politics. It also would shortstop frivolous cases and cases that use fly-specking interpretations of laws to render cognizable charges against political opponents. To preserve beneficial aspects of the role of the other two branches of government, the prosecutor of such cases before the Supreme Court could be the Solicitor General who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Courts don’t prosecute, charge, or enforce the law. What article III is about is jurisdiction to review cases instead of lower courts. It means they can rule directly skipping the regular process of going through lower courts first.
The court’s only job is to interpret law. Not enforcement or prosecution.
Presidents? Sure. Former presidents? No. Because they are by definition private citizens, not federal officials.
Weissman and Bragg — not to mention a plethora of other Soros-sympathetic prosecutors — are doing nothing to douse the inflammatory predictions. Indeed, they are the arsonists intent on continuing the “fundamental transformation ‘ of the Republic promised by the “Guy from Hawai’i” back in 2008. After all there is a lot more remaining to be incinerated.
Turley for Trump’s AG?
That suggestion has a lot of merit.
Turley is just glossing over the fact that the Supreme Court is making a mess over this issue. Primarily because conservative justices like Alito and Thomas proposed the stupidest rationales justifying their views on the immunity question. It’s really not a difficult issue. A president is not in charge of election integrity. States are. It’s not part of his official duties. What he did was not part of his official acts.
Presidents who commit “crimes” as part of their official duties such as military decisions and rules changes in the executive branch have clear immunity. Trump is not a rational person or president. He believes he should be able to do whatever he wants because he’s president. Smarter people understand that there are boundaries that don’t require written rules that spell them out. Trump is not a smart man. His own staff have described him as a moron and a child and that is the source of the problem.
The only reason this issue is even before the Supreme Court is because Trump is the first to fail to acknowledge those boundaries and refuse because he believes he’s better than anyone before him. It’s an extreme form of narcissism that is common with dictators than principled leaders.
I sure hope your last name is not BUSH? But at this stage in history it very well could be, sadly!
George, explain Bragg, Fani and Weismann if you want to deny immunity for acts done under Article II. Now explain Obama droning Americans, Biden opening up our border and Biden killing Afghan civilians in order to mitigate his disastrous withdrawal.
@hullbobby,
Bragg, Fani, and Weissmann are doing what their jobs require them to do. Enforce the law. Conservatives are the first to claim that laws must be enforced against those who violate them.
There is evidence that Trump violated state laws with respect to Bragg and Fani. So it’s their duty to prosecute and hold those who violate the law. Trump is being given every chance to defend himself against the charges as is his right. He’s being given his full due process rights and he’s still complaining how unfair it is that he is subjected to being held accountable for violations of the law.
Trump sought to change the outcome of the election through alleged illegal means and claims of fraud. Thats not part of his official acts as a president. He wasn’t operating in his capacity as president, but as a candidate. Seeking the office of President is not part of his official duties. Anyone can seek the office of president and anyone can be candidate. You don’t have to be president to seek office.
Obama who was already president and as commander in chief ordering drone strikes is 100% part of his official duties and powers. Biden opening up borders or closing them ARE part of his official duties. That this has to be explained is crazy enough as it is. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was a military decision that Trump failed to complete. Both were part of their official duties as commander in chief. Not as candidates for office. Those distinctions are crystal clear.
Running for office and being a candidate are not official presidential duties. A president is not required by law or the constitution to run for office or be a candidate. That’s a PRIVATE decision that is not required by law or constitutional mandate.
“Trump is not a smart man.”
And yet you support Biden
“The only reason this issue is even before the Supreme Court is….”
Because American hating Dems are trying to “save” democracy by killing it.
I don’t fully support Biden. But given the choice I would still pick Biden over Trump. Not voting at all because I don’t like either candidate is worse.
What is Biden doing that you like? Is it the border? Is it a war in Europe? A war in the ME? Inflation? Gas prices? The fact that he drained the reserves? Student loan payoffs? Is it Afghanistan? Is it boys playing against girls? Is it not saying a word about Jews being attacked on campus? Is it selling out Israel? What is it that Biden has done well?
Biden is not Trump. I would rather not vote at all given the choices. But it’s because Biden is not Trump. Choosing not to vote gives Trump an advantage. I would prefer he not have that.
. A president is not in charge of election integrity. States are. It’s not part of his official duties.
We have an entire eco system of Federal election laws, and regulation. The Feds and Neck Deep in elections. The reconstruction amendments stripped States of their original Power
@Iowan2,
Federal election laws don’t dictate how states conduct their elections. All they do is ensure state election laws don’t violate the constitutional rights of all citizens. Such as the right to vote and setting minimum age for voting, and guarding against discrimination.
Trump wasn’t denied the right to vote or was discriminated against when he chose to vote. He sought to allegedly change the outcome of several states voting results by coercing state officials to change the votes or look for more. Those are actions or demands are not under the scope of official presidential duties. He was making those demands as a candidate, not as a president.
Federal election laws don’t dictate how states conduct their elections.
The supremacy clause contradicts your baseless claim.
What is Jack Smith up to with the DC case?
He sought to allegedly change the outcome of several states voting results by coercing state officials to change the votes or look for more.
What was Gore doing with asking for recounts? Looking for more votes.
Bill Barr investigated and said no abnormalities existed. You are saying The Attorney General of the United States has no power to investigate the State Run elections?
@Iowan2,
Gore was not crying fowl and claiming massive fraud occurred. He wasn’t browbeating election officials and demanding they change the vote AFTER exhausting all of his legal options. Trump did.
Gore stopped when his LEGAL avenues for recourse were exhausted and the Supreme Court intervened. Gore CONCEDED and accepted the results without violence.
The supremacy clause applies when states don’t comply with the constitution and the voting rights act. Thats when the federal government intervenes according to the law. Not because they just want to. Jack smith has a case because the fake electors charges involve several states and conspiracy to fraudulently certify alternate electors.
Attorney General Barr investigated the 2020 election.
Does he have the power to implement that investigation?
Yes, when it’s at the request of the president or Congress.
“A president is not in charge of election integrity.”
Just making up stuff. Yet again.
There’s a long list *federal* election crimes. Executing the laws against those crimes is the responsibility of the Executive Branch.
And guess who’s Chief Executive of the Executive Branch.
No, election INTEGRITY is the responsibility of each state. Because each state has its own presidential election and local elections at the same time.
The federal FEC gets involved when violations of the voting rights act or the constitution’s voting clauses.
They investigate crimes. Not integrity.
Turley is just glossing over the fact that the Supreme Court is making a mess over this issue
Only if they take the bait and involve themselves
Congress is making a mess over this issue. Congress is hiding from exercising their constitutional power.
Voters can hold congress accountable at the ballot box. Do your part and vote.
https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/
If “democracy” as imagined by Democrats were to disappear, we would lose: mass censorship; urban riots protesting the death of drug addicts on police custody; shouting down speakers on college campuses; use of the justice system to jail opponents; manipulation of election laws to stay in power; creation of media hoaxes to undermine political opponent; stealing from future generations to pay for government spending; endless foreign wars to effect regime change; (and too much other nonsense and madness to mention). Good riddance to “democracy”.
You are talking like a moron. We have a 1st Amendment freedom of religion (so long as laws are not broken). I doubt you would be able to distinguish American Jew from non-Jew individuals, which destroys your “they’re not like us” claim. Keep talking this way….then, people will say you don’t belong here, and have a solid case since you don’t respect other’s rights as defined in the Constitution. The price of your freedoms is your willingness to cede the same freedoms to others not like yourself.
The Jews hate the innocent, and that is the differentiating trait between Jews and non-Jews, and it is visible every where, in Gaza, here in America, with Trump and any and every where there are Jews. Christ, the Palestinians the unborn, can you see? The message in the death of Christ IS the Jews hate the innocent. It is as plain as the nose on your face Jew and this Jew hatred of the innocent is a condition of Jew blood it is something you do not have the power to change, you are born this way and there is only one way to overcome this condition of Jew blood……..and it ain’t by killing a goat.
Dear Professor Turley.
In 2028, please run to replace Mr. Trump. Please, please, please.
“As I previously noted, it has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.”
How does Clinton V. Jones square against this assertion?
I don’t believe forcing yourself on a state employee while you are governor constitutes an act under presidential powers.
Neither is forcing yourself on a state employee while you are president is an act under presidential powers.
Moron, what state employee did Trump attack? Was it Paula Jones? Juanita Broderick? Tara Reed? Kathleen Willy? What a damn fool.
Clinton v. Jones was a suit about conduct before Mr. Clinton became President. Nixon grants immunity for acts during the Presidency.
Thank you!
If official actions are limited to 1) nothing attempted primarily toward campaigning for elective office (the President’s re-election or that of other candidates, and 2) actions that the President, and only the President, can authorize by virtue of the powers of Office, then I think we’ll have codified a common sense approach. And, the question of whether an official act or not, and the facts leading to that judgment, must be decided by JURY after adversarial presentation of evidence — NOT by a Judge or panel of Judges.
What came out at Oral Arguments was that Grand Juries have been largely stripped of their independent role in weighing the soundness of prosecutorial decisionmaking. There was also a strong current of taking away from Trial Juries their role as finders-of-fact, and fitters-of-law, and shifting that power to Judges. This is an attempt by judicial elites to disempower Trial Juries of their role and decision power, the speediness to getting a case before a Trial Jury, and the finality of the Trial Jury’s verdict.
Don’t think this won’t follow the same pattern as disempowering Grand Juries….slowly, by a thousand cuts.
Next up: Obama prosecuted for ordering the secret assassination by drone of 2 American citizens without any due process
Weissman isn’t just a super-partisan Democrat or a mindless member of the revolutionary masses, he is truly one of the evil ones who lead the masses. Let’s hope he ends up like Robespierre.
Weissman is a disciple of Joseph Goebbels. “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise” J. Goebbels
The only thing certain is that when a political organization or a candidate has nothing to stand on nor any proven track record of solving problems, they will resort desperate actions, making a lot of noise and viciously attacking opposing views.
Weissmann is simply another one of those super-partisan Democrats, who is more interested in power as opposed to principle. There is no fixing him, or the others like him in the Party. They would all have felt right at home in the excesses of the French Revolution. I bet he is a real pip to live with.