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.
I don’t believe presidential immunity is the root problem here. It is virtually impossible for a president to commit a crime on his/her own. We have sufficient checks and balances. The problem is with the checkers and balancers. Most importantly, their is near total immunity for the legal professionals on the front lines in the weaponization of our government. Prosecutors like Weissmann abuse their power, lose on appeal and they climb the ladder, rather than fall. When we have a legal system that only punishes defendants and effectively immunizes prosecutors, that is a recipe for abuse. That’s where we are today.
Wiesmann has a history and it’s the opposite of democracy.
One of the reasons for the anxious handwringing on the left is their fear that if DJT is re-elected, it will give him four years to further shape the SCOTUS. The prospect of a 7-2 conservative majority doubtless keeps many of them up at night. It’s also the reason why some on the left have recently urged Sotomayor to step down in order to allow Joe to appoint a younger progressive justice. Elections continue to have consequences. I think that was the point of holding regular elections.
A self-aggrandizing, narcissist, besotted by moral and ethical turpitude, deemed worthy of a media consultant and law school faculty posting. Easy to understand why this nation’s government and citizenry are In the process of sliding down a banister ending in a razor blade.
The reason all of these Democrats have taken to making such drastic statements about democracy is because Trump will be criminally investigating each and every one of them if he wins.
Jonathan: Andrew Weissmann is not the only one concerned about the direction of the right-wing of the Supreme Court in considering DJT’s claim of “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution. Courts and a host of legal scholars have supported Weissmann’s position.
First, District Judge Chutkan ruled and the DC Court of Appeals endorsed the view that a former president is not immune from criminal prosecution for trying to overthrow a legitimate election–that he does not enjoy “absolute immunity”. The Court of Appeals said: “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental checks on executive power…”
Second, conservative former federal judge and constitutional scholar J. Michael Luttig also found the approach by the right-wing members of the SC to DJT’s claims alarming: “The conservative justices’ argument for immunity assumes that Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump is politically corrupt and seeks a rule that would prevent future presidents from corruptly prosecuting their predecessors. But such a rule would license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity. Which is exactly what Trump is arguing he’s entitled to do”.
Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe expressed similar concerns. He said he viewed the oral arguments by DJT’s attorney and the willingness of the right-wing Justices to entertain such views “embarrassing”. Tribe expressed the view that the Court’s willingness to hear DJT’s unfounded claims will ensure he will not be held accountable before the Nov. election: ”
It was a shameful performance by the court buying the very time that Donald Trump wanted”.
It was truly an “embarrassing” moment for SCOTUS–to hear arguments from John Sauer, DJT’s attorney, that a former president is “absolutely immune” from criminal prosecution–that he can authorize the killing of a political opponent, selling an ambassadorship or nuclear secrets to a foreign power and these would be “official acts”–not subject to the criminal laws.
But this appears to be the view of the four right-wing members of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote. That’s why Andrew Weissmann is alarmed that the country is “one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it, with checks and balances”. Weissmann thinks the right-wing majority of the Court might want to endorse an “imperial presidency” and that is “What is so shocking in how close we are”.
But you seem to think Weissmann’s views, and by implication those of Judge Chutkan, the DC court of Appeals and legal scholars Luttig and Tribe, as just “hysteria”. You even bizarrely claim: “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”.
By adopting the view of the four right-wing members of the Court you are claiming a president can engage in an insurrection to overturn a legitimate election and the DOJ cannot prosecute a former president for such crimes–that such an illegal action constitutes an “official act”. I think the Founding Fathers–who rejected the idea of an “imperial presidency”– would recoil from such a proposition!
But such a rule would license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity. Which is exactly what Trump is arguing he’s entitled to do”.
No. Stupid.
Right there in the Constitution is the power for congress to impeach and remove a President abusing power.
Congress carried out their power. You dont like the man, so you insist on the elimination of double jeopardy.
BTW, I followed your claim about answering the question of how Bragg is using a State election law that only covers those running for State and local offices. You lied and said you answered how Bragg is doing that. But you never touch on the topic
So now you can quit lying, and explain how this works.
Thanks Iowan!
The Court will likely define the standards for some combination of immunity, application of the “clear statement” rule and the protection of Article II powers from encroachment. These are not easy questions, and there have been many careful analyses done by scholars on all sides. The oral argument itself was very sophisticated.
At least six Justices are of the view that the D.C. Circuit failed completely to deal with the nuances, and so they are certain to reject the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. Roberts was perfectly clear on this.
I also think they will vacate the judgment and remand to the District Court for further pre-trial proceedings based on the standards for resolving these matters that the Supreme Court will define in its opinion. The result of the further pre-trial proceedings will themselves be appealable before trial. I do not think the Supreme Court will elect to apply the standards itself to this case without further proceedings below. Nor do I think the Supreme Court will say that the District Court can resolve them as part of the trial.
These are important matters, and the Supreme Court will not be rushed by the concern of some to have a trial before the election.
Dennizzzzzzzzzzzz
You are correct. There are a smattering of legal scholars on the left – Weissman is not a constitutional scholar, nor is Chutkan,
Luttig and Tribe are. In the past Tribe was arguably more consequential than Turley. but he has become increasingly unmoored though the obama administration and into the Trump and Biden administration.
More importantly – he and the others that you cite are the proof of the total stupidity and disasterous effect of the “living constitutional” model of constitutional interpretation.
The ONLY means to change the meaning of the constitution is to actually CHANGE the constitution.
It is NOT the role of the courts to find things in the constitution that are not there or to find that the values of people have changed and therefore the meaning of the constitution must change to reflect our changing values. Our values do change over time, and we have the power to amend the constitution to reflect changes in those values. Judges do NOT have the power to unilaterally amend the constitution by judicial opinion.
That should not be a right left thing.
But it absolutely is a rule of law, not man thing.
With respect to immunity – The lawyer representing Trump did an excellent job of demonstrating that it is the prosecution of Trump that is ahistorical NOT the argument that presidents have immunity.
While this is an issue of first impression, that is true ONLY because this is the first time that presidential successors or state prosecutors have sought to go after ex presidents.
As Trump’s attorney correctly pointed out history is repleat – all the way back to Washington with Presidents taking actions indistinguishable from Trump’s – including actions specific to federal elections. None of these EVER generate criminal or civil prosecutions after leaving office.
The Point is that the reason that the court has never had to take up the issue of immunity for ex-presidents before is because no prosecutors has ever presumed they could prosecute an ex-president for actions as president absent impeachment and conviction.
Does that prove presidential immunity ? No, but it proves that for hundreds of years prosecutors beleived that either presidents were immune or that is was stupid to prosecute presidents after leaving office.
In the Sotus immunity oral arguments the govenrment lost the case that It is Trump that is unusal.
Dennis – Robertson is not the swing vote on this issue. Rebertson is very nearly in the same place as Aliton and Thomas.
Robertson was the one who sarcastically told the SC that of Course DOJ would never engage in political prosecutions.
Robertson was the justice who made it clear that this decision was not about Trump, it was about what the norms would be in the future,
and that if Scotus decided as the SC wanted that political prosecutions of expresidents would become the norm.
Even Judge Jackson understood that some presidential immunity was necescary.
Frankly even the SC ceded the argument that presidents have immunity.
There are two questions that SOTUS is addressing – the first is what is the boundary of that immunity.
The second is Who decides.
Trump’s counsel ceded that impeachment and conviction by the senate is not necescary.
That was a mistake, and I am not sure that there are not 5 justices willing to set that is the constitutional line.
That is the clearest bright line. It makes political prosecutions nearly impossibly difficult while not truly burdening real criminal prosecutions.
It precludes the court shopping we have seen with Trump.
But Roberts like supremajority decisions – especially on politically charge matters.
Sotomayor appears to be the only vote endorsing the SC’s position and the DC court decision.
My prediction is that Robertson will seek something similar to the 14th amendment case – an 8-1 or even 9-0 decision that narrowly rejects the SC position, with a 5-4 majority for something broader
The right decision for the country is impeach, remove and then prosecute.
The other major flaw that the oral arguments pointed out is that there is no threat to the nation in any of this.
The hysterical fears of the left require not merely a president willing to egregiously violate the law – but an entire executive willing to do so, and courts and congress willing to go along with it.
Everyone in the executive takes an oath to uphold the constitution. The military in particular but the rest of the executive also is required not to obey and illegal order.
A president can order Seal Team Six to do anything. He can not compel them to violate the law.
The threat tot he nation is not a criminal president but a criminal executive, and no one is seeking immunity for the executive.
The debate over Presidential immunity is overshaddowed by the FACT that you are trying to prosecute Trump for LEGAL conduct.
There is no crime of trying to “overturn an election”
If such a law were passed it would be unconstitutional.
Gorsuch made his contempt and the weakness of this case clear when he asked the SC about a hypothetical that EXACTLY matched what Trump allegedly did and the SC said DOJ OBVIOUSLY would not try to prosecute in a case like that.
Except that is precisely why this is before SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is not being asked to determine whether expresidents are immune from charges of murder while in office.
They are being asked if expresidents can be criminally prosecuted for what in the light most favorable to the prosecutors is free speech that gets mildly out of hand.
That is an incredibly hard sell.
I am not up to the minute on the pro-hamas protests. but it is pretty certain that large numbers of these protestors are going to be arrested.
While they have an absolute right to protest, they are not free to destroy private property or interfere with the rights of others to attend classes and graduate.
At the same time – though many – thousands are likely being arrested, very few will ever be prosecuted – despite far more egregious crimes than those at J6.
Why ? Because free speech that goes too far is ALWAYS treated deminimis. about 1050 Kavanaugh protestors were arrested – none were charged. The same with the protestors who breached the White House, torched a church, and threw rocks and frozen watter bottles at police.
Even in NYC a pair of attorney’s protesting BLM who threw molotov cocktails into an occupied police car where given 18months probation.
The FACT is that we ALWAYS try to err on the side of free speech.
This has often infuriated conservatives who just as you are doing now, confuse their beleif that the protestors are wrong about what they are protesting with heightened rather than dimminished criminal responsibility.
There were violent protests when Trump was elected. There will with near certainty be far more violent protests from the left when Trump is re-elected.
Hillary sought to “overturn” the election. She asked electors to change their votes – some did.
No one prosecuted her.
Democrats are constantly seeking to “overturn elections” often their own primaries.
Biden and democrats are trying to keep Kennedy off the ballot – at the same time as they are cliaming that Kennedy hurts Trump more than Biden.
Isn’t that trying to “overturn an election” ?
Where is the actual crime that you are alleging ?
What do you have beyond “I do not like what Trump did or Tried to do” ?
Do you have evidence of bribery ?
Did Trump assault someone ?
Did he send Seal Team 6 after Biden ?
Did Trump deny a political candidate secret service protection ?
Please name an actual crime – not some vague nonsense with even vaguer evidence.
Most people understand that a Crime is not merely actions or words by others you do not like.
John Say, you are clearly deluded.
Trump did commit crimes. The evidence will be presented at trial. That’s why Trump is desperately trying to avoid the trials. Because once the evidence is presented it will be up to a jury to decide if Trump indeed committed a crime. To say he hasn’t committed a crime without reviewing the evidence in court and under oath. Is idiotic at best.
You know what the “end of democracy” looks like?
A “president” struggling to feed himself a *salad*.
Watch the video. It’s painfully humiliating.
Trump is demanding full immunity for the President to commit any crime, including assassination of political foes and coups. Ya, that seems like end of democracy to me.
“Trump is demanding full immunity for the President to commit any crime, including assassination of political foes and coups. Ya, that seems like end of democracy to me.”
How thoughtful and touching, Sammy! Tying questionable legal activity to the political concept of “democracy”. How about these events to consider since they are much more clear cut in terms of illegal activity:
-Wilson and his stooges came up with the Espionage Act that Wilson used to imprison his political rivals. Any charges? No.
-Wilson re-introduced racial segregation into the government (not a crime Sammy?).
-FDR imprisoned thousands and confiscated their property based on race.
-FDR and his stooges created ‘red lining’ (probably related as to why he refused to consider legislation to ban the lynching of blacks).
-Nixon allegedly covered up a ‘break-in’ of political rivals. Any charges? No.
-Carter’s decision to proceed with “Operation Eagle Claw’ was likely more political than strategic (as evidenced by poor planning and massive failure) and resulted in the deaths of US servicemen. Any criminal accountability? No.
-Clinton lied under oath (and only got impeached and disbarred?). Any criminal charges? No. Would only that have happened if anyone else who lied under oath?
-Bush lied about Iraq and thousands died. Impeached? No. Any criminal charges? No.
-Obama ordered US citizens to be assassinated. Any criminal charges? No.
And with this partial recount of history you are claiming that Trump is demanding full immunity to commit any crime? Get real, Sammy and look at the real issues at stake and try putting aside your partisan bigotry.
Sammy, did you ever get a chance to read the Espionage Act that you were so found of referencing?
Sammy! Look! Trump is hiding under your bed!!!! Better call Mommy! Quick!
1) Prosecutors enjoy immunity and as a result we have cases of obvious misconduct by prosecutors like Weissmann (Enron/Andersen), Bragg, Willis, Smith. Perhaps we should change that doctrine as well and allow the victims of prosecution to go after the personal assets of the prosecutors. Sure that would reins them in and would guarantee that they are prudent what cases to prosecute and what to charge someone with.
2) Prosecutors have far too much power to prosecute. There is a lack of adequate oversight (justices allow far too much as demonstrated by the case brought by Bragg against Trump). We need to establish a system that allows for a review of prosecutions before they actually start. The Grand Jury system is a failure, and justices have proven to be unreliable and partisan. The decision to prosecute should be a proposal that requires review by a board and only with the board’s approval would it be able to move forward.
3) Weissmann should have been disbarred for his past actions but the ABA is also partisan and dominated by Democrats. Instead they go after prof. Chapman for having a legal opinion with which Democrats disagree.
4) Prosecutors (at least federally) win about 95% of cases, because most defendants plead out. Except for the very rich (like Trump) nobody can afford the attorney fees required for a proper defense. If someone agrees to take a plea to a lesser charge and go to jail to avoid his family’s bankruptcy, the guilty plea is not proof of guild (as the prosecutors argue) but a symptom of the failure of our justice system. Nobody should go to jail because they lack the funds to pay for their defense. The result is systemic injustice. Hence my proposals sub 1 and 2.
5) The US are a paradise for lawyers. They extract large fees because of the unlimited ability to sue or prosecute anyone. In a free market, the high fees would attract more suppliers and then prices would come down. But that is not the case because of the ABA which is essentially a medieval guild holding a monopoly. They control access to the profession via the bar exam, can disbar attorneys, essentially making it impossible for them to make a living in the future (with no appeal: the ABA is the highest authority!), and control the content of law teaching at law schools. Monopolies like the ABA do not fit in a free society. The ABA has to go!
6) Fear mongering is a proven strategy. The end of democracy. The type of decry that people like Weissmann want to install, is 51% of people telling the other 49% what to do. In other words, majority dictatorship. That is not democracy at all.
Prosecutors don’t have absolute immunity. They can still be charged and prosecuted for committing crimes. They are not above the law.
I did not say “absolute immunity”. I said “immunity”, i.e., for their actions as prosecutors.
They have civil immunity only. Which is also wrong but that is not the topic for today.
George, learn to read.
Weissmann confirms, again, that there is a deep state.
I don’t believe the Framers of the Constitution ever envisioned people of such low character as Weissmann and Jack Smith being in the positions they are in
I disagree, they knew it would happen and that’s why they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They came out of tyranny and were fully aware of what power corrupts. What I do not think they were aware of is how obtuse and ignorant the majority of the population would become.
Only WE can fix the problems and that might take some discipline and difficult times ahead, it will happen.
What I do not think they were aware of is how obtuse and ignorant the majority of the population would become.
I’ve been pondering about that. Not sure if I have any answers. 1st the removal, or massive dumbing down of Civics instruction, and American History. The Universities would not be full of students against free speech, if the Bill of Rights was covered in high school and students understood the protections afforded citizens by the limits of Govt power.
Next is the lefts 4+ decades of indoctrinating students with the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. The left has taken over almost all positions of authority over children and students. “Follow the Science” is nothing but appeal to authority. A law professors opinion, is an appeal to authority. (see Dennis quoting the discredited Prof Tribe).
This leads us into the courtroom. Juries “believe” they are bound by a Judges instruction. They have been taught to appeal to authority, and the Judge leaves no doubt S/he is the Ultimate Authority. The lack of history education about WHY juries exist, leave those on the jury to “believe” they are nothing but programed AI. Juries dont know they have plenary power to judge the facts. AND judge the law used to prosecute the defendant. A Judge will remove a lawyer if he mentions jury nullification. The Judge MUST have ignorant juries if the Judge is going get the verdict he wants
Just last week my daughter was selected for a jury. Child porn case. She called after it was over, 3 days total, not counting jury selection. She was an absolute wreck. She said 2 got physically sick, and she almost lost it too. Just from glances at the content. She was so upset, because she thought the jury instructions demanded she aquit, because of some bad police work. But she was absolute about the guilt. She finally did vote guilty. Then carried that guilt, thinking she had no out, because of the jury instruction. I think I finally showed her how she did the right thing with all the facts, and as a citizens it was HER decision if the hinky cops demanded an acquittal. NOT the letter of the law.
I don’t know if we can turn this around. Probably not unless we can get primary education back on track.
It’s always been part of their dream for some social Marxist wet dream. As these young Socialists go to work and start their families they lose their zeal as they become self sufficient. The Marxist plan has always been to infiltrate academia, corporate and government entities to shepherd their political agenda. To me their is really only one difference, in Communism wealth is defined by party standing, with Capitalism wealth is defined by the individuals own abilities to engage in a free market. I will take door number Capitalism any time, as it has provided more opportunities for more people than any other form of government. Get government out of the way and allow it to work as it should, winners win and failure fails, it doesn’t get subsidies and bail outs.
Traveler said: “What I do not think they were aware of is how obtuse and ignorant the majority of the population would become.”
I think that what they possibly did not specifically anticipate was the eventual scope of “public education” and the potential for it to be completely coopted by collectivists for the nearly exclusive purpose of indoctrinating children to be unthinking, willing, slaves.
Similarly, the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned people of such low character as Trump being in the position of President.
Sure they did! As evidenced by, over the past 100 years, the US survived in spite of Obama, in spite of Bush(s), in spite Clinton, in spite of Carter, in spite of Kennedy, in spite of FDR and in spite of Wilson. These guys, as a group, displayed all the vile characteristic of racism, naivete, disregard for constitutional rights and law that even the lowest life “low character” person could ever manifest. The difference is that we now have a president that has ALL the manifest ‘weaknesses’ of these prior “low characters” and is also a cheap hood.
Why didn’t you mention Nixon? The only one in the history of the U.S. to resign in disgrace.
Resigned exactly why? What was the awfulness?
The true awfulness with Nixon was that in efforts to win the presidency he secretly sent Kissinger to meet with the North Vietnamese sabotaging Johnson’s efforts to end the war. He won and prolonged the war that cost America 58,150 lives in total and over 1M Vietnamese. They were both dishonest typical politicians.
What would be the point? He resigned and the system ‘worked’ so to speak. And Nixon’s fate is what was envisioned in the impeachment clause: removal from office.
The ones mentioned remained in office and were never held criminally/legally accountable, yet the US survived.
What would be the point? He resigned and the system ‘worked’
You did not tell the whole story. Out of fear that at some point the party in power would seek criminal prosecution.
Hence the need for a Pardon by Ford.
So yes, even 50 years ago, there was fear of political persecutions.
“You did not tell the whole story. Out of fear that at some point the party in power would seek criminal prosecution.”
Wrong, Ford pardoned Nixon to put an end to the news about Nixon. Nixon resigned in disgrace, the news was still filled with Nixon, not unlike today’s news being filled with trump. So Ford pardoned Nixon and said, let’s move on. The repos had a chance to impeach trump, twice. They chose not to. trump took this to mean he was invincible. No, break the law, go to court. If the evidence shows, guilty, if not, he goes free. Let’s see where the evidence leads us. Unlike the lack of evidence for voter fraud trump has been yelling about for 5 years.
As always, impressive mind reading skills
Don’t forget Johnson! He’s certainly a shining example!
Well I am voting for the candidate that works for free and has Americas best interests in their policies, strong belief in family, understands private side commerce, doesn’t sell out our Nation, secures our borders and opposes excessive taxation to support a tyrannical bureaucracy. Let me consider hmmmm, I guess that’s Trump!
Actually, I think they did. That is why the system of checks and balances is in place.
The best the “Framers” could do is play the odds that enough virtuous individuals would be in place to counter the assault of the ever present “low character” types. Think of it, those “Framers” were products of a time when a corrupt, tyrannical leader (their king) acted without their being effectively represented in their government. And the king did so through the use of a multitude of bureaucrats, stooges and violence. So the ‘framers’ incorporated all the tools they could think of in a relatively simple document to empower their descendants with the ability to manage the ever present threat from a government of tyrants. Thus, the question is not did the framers ‘envision such low characters’, the questions is are we, the social descendants of those ‘framers’, up to the task of using the tools they provided?
You have a sound foundational argument for determining Congress shall be the soul decider of what Presidential actions are constitutional.
Yes one every century may avoid being held accountable. That is much preferred to handing over congressional power to the Judicial branch
Actually, I think they did. That is why the system of checks and balances is in place.
The best the “Framers” could do is play the odds that enough virtuous individuals would be in place to counter the assault of the ever present “low character” types. Think of it, those “Framers” were products of a time when a corrupt, tyrannical leader (their king) acted without their being effectively represented in their government. And the king did so through the use of a multitude of bureaucrats, stooges and violence. So the ‘framers’ incorporated all the tools they could think of in a relatively simple document to empower their descendants with the ability to manage the ever present threat from a government of tyrants. Thus, the question is not did the framers ‘envision such low characters’, the questions is are we, the social descendants of those ‘framers’, up to the task of using the tools they provided?
Very nice. Well stated
“one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances”? That statement says NOTHING and is typical of Andrew Weissmann.
We have been a republic for over 240 years and the beauty of that system (among the ‘uglies’ that are the price of that system) is that we are not, practically speaking, ever “one vote” away from anything. When we theoretically AND practically get close to “one vote away”, what do we see? We see the the likes of the 118th Congress situation where essentially nothing is accomplished. Would that happen in a true one man, one vote democracy? NEVER! And if the country is that evenly split, should anything happen? NO!
The safe bet: Whatever Andrew Weissmann says or recommends, strongly consider or do the opposite. Andrew’s entire career has essentially been taking up extreme positions to be used for the advancement of his /his party’s political agenda. The inherent problem of extreme positions is that there are never any limits to extreme so the dilemma expands and is never resolved….EXACTLY Andrew’s goal.
This vile individual should know that the US is not a ‘democracy’. We are a Constitutional Republic.
“. . . one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it . . .”
When the Right warns about the end of America, it’s smeared as a “conspiracy theory.”
When the Left does so, it’s hailed as words of wisdom.
This is “Groundhog Day” all over again.
Andrew Weissman has the integrity of Goebbels and a send of justice and what constitutes democracy reminiscent of Beria. Period!
First off, good job refereeing the table on the HUNGER GAMES panel on Fox yesterday, Turley.
While the discussion of just exactly what would constitute presidential immunity is a very worthy discussion that I’ve felt should’ve happened for years, I’m totally in Weisman’s camp in his distrust for this particular Court. Trump’s lawyer argued some absurd hypotheticals that several members seemed entirely open to….
Truth is, really sussing out what constitutes presidential immunity would clarify the issue enough to lift the OLC guidelines against prosecuting a president while in office. Trump would’ve/should’ve been prosecuted while in office, and a clarification of immunity would’ve made it possible.
And no, the D’s don’t want to pack the Court, Turley…, they want to unpack it. I’ve always thought your best idea, hands down, was how to expand court membership. Of course you came up with it in the Clinton administration and your motivation was entirely partisan…, but still, good plan, Turls.
In regard to Weisman though, he’s spot on and you’re fiddling while Rome burns, Jon. That front man for Project 2025 job you’re after is starting to look really good to you no doubt. Especially now Hunter is going to sue and take your stuff.
Party on!!
Party on!!
I skipped all of your drug induced writing and skipped to your oft repeated phrase. “Partying on” is what cocaine and crystal meth users did in the 80s and 90s. Seek sobriety no matter your age
Thanks for reading! Been completely sober for four plus decades actually. There are many ways to party on, many of which don’t involve drugs. I basically use the term to distinguish myself from other anonymous posters and to throw hints for you tone deaf and clueless rat f$%kers on this blog.
, I’m totally in Weisman’s camp in his distrust for this particular Court.
DJT get yelled at for challenging Judges.
I do note you stay far away from naming a ruling. Because you lack the intellectual heft to defend your position against a SCOTUS ruling.
Well, your response sounds garbled and unintelligible to me.
That aside, how’s the toilet treat of the Dobbs overruling of Roe vs. Wade? The taking away of civil rights held for fifty years. Gutting the Voting Rights Act?
Returning Power to the States as enumerated in the 10th amendment.
We all know, you don’t have to keep shouting it. You hate the Constitution. We get it.
Taking away of a civil right is, well, taking away a civil right. Roe needs to be restored federally before the R’s are able to ban abortion federally…, as is trump’s plan for a possible 2nd term shows.
And your cluelessness always amazes me. Your desire to shift the presidency into the role of being a king is something you regularly voice…, and it’s impossible to be more anti Constitution than that. Your delusions on this subject really couldn’t be more glaring. You’re a fascist at heart who wants the U.S. to be a dictatorship….
And the fact you try to convince anyone differently is both insanely laughable and despicable concurrently. At least Mespo will voice his outright support for Christian nationalism and dictatorship. You seem to think of yourself as being pro Constitution in a completely unhinged and uneducated way.
I want a King President.
Never been accused of that. Oh I Remember! I NEVER advocated for such a thing.
Taking away of a civil right is, well, taking away a civil right.
There is the civil right to life. You are forced to admitt the Democrat position is killing babies up to birth, and even allowing delivered babies to die of neglect after birth.
Wow, leftist are demented evil people.
Remember it is only democracy if the correct result occurs, at the ballot box or court system.
The stupid rubes in flyover country need their moral bettors to lead them in the right direction, by force if necessary, since they don’t know what’s best for them.
Screw “Our Democracy(TM)”. You can have it.
I do not want to understand, dialog or reconcile with these people, I want a divorce!
And before one of you s@@tlibs can me a slur, remember I’m Hispanic, member of a recognized victim group and if my views were like AOC’s, you’d be k@@ing my a@@ by now.
antonio
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass, Antonio.
Actually the D position on the one time civil right of abortion is quite varied. But all under the umbrella of viability. 23 weeks. Abortion rights should be allowed up to the point where a fetus can then survive on its own outside the womb. We’ll end up back there as a nation because it makes the most sense. This venture into a religious conception of when life begins will drift off.
We’ll end up back there as a nation because it makes the most sense.
I think most of Europe has landed around 16 weeks.
Regardless, States will find their way. The People will actually set the laws the live under.
Truley wrote: ‘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.”
All due deference to Roberts, sounds more like a clear presumption of guilt, to me.
number 6, this is not Roberts.
Roberts was questioning the the govt’s lawyer during oral arguments. Roberts asked about determining what actions taken by the President can be called ‘personal’. The govt lawyer cited the appeal courts ruling the President did not have immunity, because there are charges against him.
Its the old, if the cops say your guilty, your guilty. No trial needed
iowan2 said: ” this is not Roberts.”
Understood. I was trying to present an alternative to Roberts’ (overly generous, imo) characterization of the prosecutor’s claim. Should have made that clearer 🙂
Sorry, I tried to read carefully, still got it wrong.
But the extra attention is good. Exposing the lefts “theory” is something that needs dismembered, dissected, burned and buried.
Further in the same questioning, the govt lawyer was asked about Obama’s murder of a US citizen.
The lawyer expanded and offered that if the President had the approval, of an inferior cabinet officer, it would be a Presidential act.
Laying out the idiocy of inferior officers controlling the President of the United States. These are highly trained lawyers, that get simple Constitutional fact wrong. 180 degrees wrong. Yet we should give their opinion any weight? They are idiots by their own words.
iowan2 said: “Further in the same questioning, the govt lawyer was asked about Obama’s murder of a US citizen…”
Ah, got it! One problem with me getting this information from news accounts (even non-MSM news) is that individual statements deemed “newsworthy” are generally presented in isolation, absent the context that might be found in something linked a little more closely to the transcript.
Biden is currently providing some interesting examples of the limits of presidential authority that could later be challenged. One example would be his student loan programs in the face of great over-spending despite the Supreme Court’s decision that he did not have the power to unilaterally forgive college student loans — such spending on a major program needs congressional approval but he is going ahead with them somehow. His unprecedented invitation to illegal aliens and subsequent spending programs to assist them is puzzling at best. It would seem that this type of spending and future obligations of our country should also require more authority than the whim of a president with clear cognitive issues.
Another is his use of government and other entities like the SBA to recruit and enroll new democrat voters in an effort to assist in his re-election. It would be interesting to see whether the ratio of new democrats to republicans (or independents) registered as a result of these efforts is any better than NPR’s (87 to 0).
Biden seems to have disappeared lately — dereliction of duty as another “summer of love” is getting started thanks to a paid army of protesters — or should we call them Protest Supervisors/Trainers of useful idiots? And a less biased Department of Justice may not look as kindly on his treatment of classified documents obtained over decades with no authority to possess them, especially given his family influence-peddling business’ access to those documents. Not to mention which of his erratic decisions were made because of some personal benefit he derived as a result?
In light of the lawsuits/criminal actions against Trump, the above would be interesting topics once Biden is no longer president.
I thought that the justices asked appropriate questions. Weissmann — a leopard doesn’t change its spots; hopefully, he’ll never again be in a position of authority.
@sd,
Trump has been making an interesting argument to save himself from being held accountable. He’s arguing that Biden would not be able to be prosecuted for any of the “crimes” he has committed after he leaves office if the Supreme Court rules in his favor. He’s basically saying, “ if you give me immunity Biden can’t be prosecuted for his crimes either.” But that would be highly suspect given Trump’s penchant for dishonesty.
Trump has been making an interesting argument to save himself from being held accountable
Biden’s handlers have been making unpersuasive arguments to save him from history books sending him to the glue factory
-JT …” 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.”…
IF Trump didn’t bring ((Had not brought) this Immunity challenge and the other Cases against him continued and he prevailed victorious, and Nixon v. Fitzgerald remains nu-abridged, What would change?
Rephrase; What would change if the Supreme Court did not rule on this challenge until the Other Cases had come to conclusion in favor of Trump?
IMO: The SCOTUS should wait until all the Cases against Trump are resolved. Thereafter make a ruling on the Immunity Challenge.
This would be the way to proceed, in order for the Court to avoid any Election Interference (Lawfair) of the Litigants.
If the SCOTUS steps in now (Rules), It ‘could-be-said’ that it was Politically Motivated Election Interference or a perverse situation of Election Engineering via Lawfair.
If the SCOTUS Ruling came after the lower court’s outcome, it could change the some outcomes or cause some re-litigation,
but all would be post Presidential Election 2024. Where in if Trump is successfully Elected, the question of Self-Pardons would become relevant. Hence the SCOTUS should wait for the outcome of the Lower Courts. If it were possible to negate the engineered Election Lawfair at this point (which is not possible) that would be ideal, but the Lower Courts have what is locked into Agenda and must play-out the Election-Lawfair.
-TRA
The SCOTUS can postpone the Immunity Ruling (post the 2024 Election), They can postpone one as long as They want.
It understandable that the Court would not want to be be incorporated into Electionengeering (2024),
particularly since they just sent a Ruling to Congress (via The Colorado Case) that the Election is Their responsibility (regarding the Electoral College).
Watch the SCOTUS: There has been some ‘cherry-picking’ going on.
The Colorado Case could have been instructive to Congress (resolve the Electoral College gaming – Fix it), and now the Immunity Challenge, of which may ultimately become the responsibility of Congress as well.
IMO: Chief Justice John G. Roberts is weak and not willing to let Opinions go to the necessary remedies by Suggestion or Orders.
-TRA
and now the Immunity Challenge, of which may ultimately become the responsibility of Congress as well.
Jr High Civics teach us that our Three Branches of Government have the power to Check an balence the other two.
Congress has the constitutional enumerated power to check the actions of the President. He vetoes spending, it can be overoad by congress. Abuses Presidential power. He can be impeached and removed.
So it is not “may ultimately become the responsibility of Congress”.
It has ALWAYS ultimately been the responsibility of Congress. What has happened is congress has been shirking their enumerated power for decades. Congress is frozen in fear of not getting re-elected. Thus leadership does not put controversies up for a recorded vote. Huge omnibus bills are voted on blind with all the icky stuff hidden from public view and elected representatives have an out, claiming they had to vote yes, or shut down the federal govt.
The same is going on with holding the President accountable for their action.
Even so. It is better to let questionable actions slide than allow the Judicial Branch to take over power. that is meant to be checked by the voters.
iowan2 said: “congress has been shirking their enumerated power for decades.”
e.g., “War Powers Act”. Best example I know of. While Congress’ failure to fulfill impeachment responsibilities negatively impacts th US over time, its effective unconstitutional delegation of the power to declare war to the President has a real-time, constant, negative impact on the entire world, as well.
A simple way to look at this is:
The SCOTUS has been incorporated into this Election Cycle’s ‘Lawfair Election Engineering’ – Hence they must Recuse themselves.