Criminal law, Politics, Supreme Court

Too Clever By Half: Justice Jackson’s Suggested Path Forward for Jack Smith Could Lead to Another Reversal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. However, it is not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith will yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.

Smith has long tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

It is doubtful that he will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision. In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the current indictment.

That is not Smith’s style. He may decide to push even harder for a trial before the election on the remaining counts. Smith has made the trial before the election an overriding priority throughout his appointment. He also has a very favorable and motivated judge in United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

He could also take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence. Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.

However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:

“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”

Notably, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence. However, Smith and Chutkan could reason that it was not expressly rejected and presumably, the three justices in dissent would support the broader reading since they were willing to sign off on the ultimate extension of the obstruction of justice statute. That includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

However, that still leaves less than a majority and an application that runs against the grain of the opinion. Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.

The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.

Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would likely, in my view, result in another reversal. It is, in my view, too clever by half.

That may not concern Smith who may still want to use the obstruction counts to increase the likelihood of convictions on the other counts. In such a circumstance, the overturning of the two obstruction convictions might still leave the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.

We will see in the coming weeks, but Smith is likely waiting for the other shoe to drop in the Trump immunity case. That could add additional complications if the case is remanded by the Court for further proceedings. There is little time for a trial before November if the district court must hold hearings on claims that statements or actions were taken by Trump as part of his office.

Chutkan sought to meet Smith’s demand for a trial before the election by converting her court into a virtual rocket docket. The cost of the fast pace was that she created little record on these issues. That might have to be done in a remand and will exhaust additional days on the rapidly shrinking calendar for Smith.

Either way, Monday will throw the final card on the table for Smith and the Court will determine if what is left in his hand. It may not deter Smith. It often seems like both bad gamblers and special counsels tend to double down on weak hands. If history is any measure, Smith is likely to bet the farm on whatever remains.

The problem is that the farm does not belong to him.

449 thoughts on “Too Clever By Half: Justice Jackson’s Suggested Path Forward for Jack Smith Could Lead to Another Reversal”

  1. People might be interested in where one member of the squad’s loyalties lie. Remember, Ilhan Omar is actually a member of Congress – the U.S. Congress. Here she is smiling, nodding, and waiving with approval as the former PM of Somalia gives a speech at a Minnesota campaign rally in which he says:

    Representative Ilhan Omar who has written the name of Somalia with a gold pen . . . The interests of Ilhan Omar are not Ilhan’s, they’re not the interests of Minnesota, nor are they the interests of the American people. The interests of Ilhan are those of the Somalian people and Somalia. The success of Ilhan is the success of Somalia, and that carries a heavy meaning to us. Me speaking in the name of the Somalian people everywhere they are on the planet, I am asking that you support and give money to Ilhan’s campaign, to support her with your votes, tell your neighbors and friends and anyone you know to come out and support Ilhan Omar . . .

    Here’s the video. It’s clear she is in agreement with the statement that her interests are those of Somalia and not those of America or Minnesota.

    https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1807868434799112196

  2. I respectfully repeat what I said earlier today: that using the vehicle of Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute these defendants is stretching the reaches [and legislative intent] of Sarbanes, so far indeed that I remain surprised that the majority opinion did not address it.
    If you include Jack Smith’s other attempts to apply other peripheral statutes, it smells more of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks than it does of administering justice.
    Notwithstanding, I concede that courts have (unfortunately) previously expanded the use of 1512(c)(1) to cover a plethora of uses/applications to reach generally alleged frauds), but 1512(c)(2) goes even further. I regret that these extended applications were not earlier throttled, which would have forced the Jack Smiths of the world to come up with real crimes, -and not perceived wrongdoing in violation of some convoluted expansion and interpretation of existing statute. In other words, come up with a new statute that addresses such proscribed behavior, rather than expand the application of, and/or, stretch like a balloon an already-stretched statute originally intended for other proscribed conduct.

    1. (Sorry everyone. In simpler words, I agree with the majority decision in Fischer, but wish that the Court would have frowned upon such “creative” attempts to stretch the reaches of existing statutes in order to obtain a political result. Instead of waxing prolix on “noscitur a sociis” and “ajusdem generis,” the Court could simply have said, “come up with something more on-target here….”)

    2. If you include Jack Smith’s other attempts to apply other peripheral statutes, it smells more of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks than it does of administering justice.

      Thanks Lin for your legal analysis.

      Im not an attorney but it has always struck me that all of the charges against Trump were “throwing everything to the wall”. A very close friend of mine, a Judge and admired by both sides of the aisle in a large diverse city, did not know that a unanimous SCOTUS overturned Jack Smith’s bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, did not know Jack Smith’s wife did a puff documentary on Michelle Obama, and did not know she has a history of financial donations to Joseph Biden.

      Like physicians, Judges and prosecutors, make conclusions first, then look for evidence to support their conclusions. In the case of Jack Smith, Sotomayor, Jackson, et al, they are like quack doctors who somehow got into medical school, then residency, and do great damage to patients with erroneous diagnosis’ and treatment plans.

      All of us are capable of bias, but the higher one gets in the decision making process that affects the lives of people, the higher the expectation I have in their rigorous, expert decision making process. It seems Democrats just dont GAF about truth or laws, while Republicans are just pussιεs

      my 2 cents

    3. Lin,

      The problem with this reasoning is that 1512 existed before Sarbanes-Oxley was first enacted. Before SOX, 1512 criminalized anyone who “corruptly persuades” others to destroy, alter or conceal evidence. It was modified by SOX, and therefore, its legislative purpose must encompass both the purpose for which they were originally enacted (which is much broader than financial crimes) and the purpose for enactment of SOX. Otherwise, why would Congress incorporate it into the existing obstruction framework?

      I presume that is why the majority did not address your concern.

      1. Thanks for taking the time to respond. In return, respectfully, as you note, the prior [general] version of 1512 criminalized only the persuasion of OTHERS to destroy documents, so your proposition is not quite on pointe. It was SOX that survived/succeeded/modified/replaced it. THAT provision (modified by SOX), -is what prosecutors cited and relied on, n’est ce pas? and
        (2) As CJ Roberts pointed out, there certainly are many other sections of the criminal code that address conduct obstructing justice (that would be subsumed under such a broad interpretation of (c)(2). The Court just said a few weeks ago, in Bissonnette, that general catchall phrases at the end of a statute are “controlled and defined by reference to the terms that precede it.” So SOX was the controlling, surviving version of the Code,–the one invoked by prosecution, and that is why I opined as I did.

        P.S. So do you think Smith tried to use (c(2) because of potentially higher/heftier 20-year sanctions/punishments? Backfired, …bigly.

        1. P.S. Sarbanes- Oxley Act actually uses the word, “amends” in RETIRING/REPLACING the previous Section 1512, as you can see in my attachment of the Act, see p. 63 of 66 (1102):
          “SEC. 1102. TAMPERING WITH A RECORD OR OTHERWISE IMPEDING
          AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.

          Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
          (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as sub-
          sections (d) through (j), respectively; and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new sub-
          section:
          ‘‘(c) Whoever corruptly—
          ‘‘(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, docu-
          ment, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent
          to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an
          official proceeding; or
          ‘‘(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official
          proceeding, or attempts to do so,
          shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20
          years, or both.’’.

          https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ204/PLAW-107publ204.pdf

          Thanks.

          1. (sorry, one more thing. I do understand your position that the general 1512 encompasses more than just SOX. But it was SOX that modified 1512(c), and the Court refers to SOX in its decision, as did the prosecution. Otherwise, your broader position would make more sense to me. I apologize for any confusion in my comment(s). Signing off, have a good holiday.)

      2. Anon, I think what she is saying is that Sarbanes replaced the old 1512 section, just as it added or replaced other sections of the general 1512 criminal code (like sections in the 7200s, etc.) As Roberts said, prosecution could have cited other 1512 provisions for obstruction, but it chose (c)(2), as amended by Sarbanes.

    1. @David B. Bezene – “Just what the young-men-at-heart want!”

      Oh yes, at a reasonable price of $205,000.00. Hahahahaha. I think in this economy they’d settle for a Yugo?

      1. Sure man…lot’s of young people and young at heart people can afford a $205k car.

        They just cant afford the payment because of the INTEREST RATE.

        Total cost with interest under Trump $54k less than under Biden.

    4. Is there any doubt now that the good Professor Bender is a liberal elitist prick?

    5. A recent survey found just over 50% of EV owners want and are going to go back to ICE vehicles.
      In three years I am buying a F250 diesel. Should be the last truck I ever buy. No having to wait around for an hour to charge it.

  4. Let the counter-lawfare prosecutions begin:

    The United States of America

    vs.

    – Barack Obama

    – Fanny Willis

    – Alvin Bragg

    – Jack Smith

    – Merrick Garland

    – Michael Colangelo

    – Juan Merchan

    – Tanya Chutkan

    et al.

  5. When a candidate’s pitch at a campaign rally is, in essence, despite what you saw, I really am able to do this job, doesn’t that mean the candidate is on the defensive?

      1. So the Dems are now admitting that JB is not in charge and there’s a shadowy cabal of unknown, unelected people running the country? Wow.

      2. Kelly clip, obviously the corporation united states does not want a competent , creative, intelligent parti ipant as president. It would be too much trouble. The Corp can depend on Joe to do absolutely nothing.

  6. With the Grim Reaper, sharpening up his scythe for Jumbled Joe, I thought this classic poem apropos!

    The Conqueror Worm
    BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

    Lo! ’t is a gala night
    Within the lonesome latter years!
    An angel throng, bewinged, bedight
    In veils, and drowned in tears,
    Sit in a theatre, to see
    A play of hopes and fears,
    While the orchestra breathes fitfully
    The music of the spheres.

    Mimes, in the form of God on high,
    Mutter and mumble low,
    And hither and thither fly—
    Mere puppets they, who come and go
    At bidding of vast formless things
    That shift the scenery to and fro, (Is this the DNC Shill Brigade??? – Floyd’s note)
    Flapping from out their Condor wings
    Invisible Wo!

    That motley drama—oh, be sure
    It shall not be forgot!
    With its Phantom chased for evermore
    By a crowd that seize it not,
    Through a circle that ever returneth in
    To the self-same spot,
    And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
    And Horror the soul of the plot.

    But see, amid the mimic rout,
    A crawling shape intrude!
    A blood-red thing that writhes from out
    The scenic solitude!
    It writhes!—it writhes!—with mortal pangs
    The mimes become its food,
    And seraphs sob at vermin fangs
    In human gore imbued.

    Out—out are the lights—out all!
    And, over each quivering form,
    The curtain, a funeral pall,
    Comes down with the rush of a storm,
    While the angels, all pallid and wan,
    Uprising, unveiling, affirm
    That the play is the tragedy, “Man,”
    And its hero, the Conqueror Worm.

    1. its cute how you upvote your comment seconds after you post.
      Give away your troll employment every.single.time.

      👍🏽

  9. Jack Smith will continue to do what he’s done best: violating the US Constitution and lying his rear end off. And Ketanji “I don’t know what a woman is” Jackson will do the same, along with the other anti-Cosntitution “justices.”

  10. “TRANSPARENTLY ARTIFICIAL AND FORCED”

    “Just saying that a proceeding involves ‘certain records’ is transparently artificial and forced.”

    – Professor Turley
    _____________________

    The Good Professor just expressed an accurate observation of the deleterious effects of unconstitutional communist social engineering in the particular form of affirmative action.

    If America had simply adhered to the Constitution and law, that partial and inane concurrence-cum-dissent would have never been spewed.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “It’s [Merit] That Matters.”

    – Randy Newman

  11. Heard trump just lost secret service protection today. Things are getting way crazy up in here.

  12. Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸
    @AndrewYang

    So I’m hearing there are Democratic-aligned donors putting together a fund that would go to the Dem nominee – but not if the candidate is Joe Biden whom they regard as too likely to lose. It’s designed to show support for moving on from Joe.
    2:51 PM · Jun 30, 2024
    https://x.com/AndrewYang/status/1807487244015481020

    1. If Biden got out of the race his money automatically goes to Harris.

      1. Hunter can lend his pop money, sell some paintings, his laptop from hell x videos, whatever it takes

        🤡

    2. See below as Dennis the cock sucking liar continues to live in denial in his fantasy world.

      “if DJT loses this election, “

      His big take from the debate is concern over whether trump had sex with a porn star.

      Dennis the cock sucking liar loves his Supermarket Tabloid

  13. Jonathan: Getting back to CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday night. All of Joe Biden’s gaffes aside what else should we take away from their performances. On the issues Biden won. On bombasity and lies DJT won hands down. He is the master charlatan when it comes deflection and falsehoods.

    The whopper was when DJT proclaimed “I didn’t have sex with a porn star”. Even the MAGA crowd admits that was a BIG FAT LIE! When Stormy Daniels testified in the NY criminal trial she explained in detail what happened. The 12 jurors believed her–not DJT–and he is now a “convicted felon”.

    When asked repeatedly by the CNN moderator whether he would accept the results of the 2024 election if he lost DJT refused to answer “Yes” or “No”. He deflected by accusing Biden of being the “worst President in American history” or other non-answers. No doubt if DJT loses this election, like the last, he will claim it was “rigged” and “stolen”. Nothing changes in DJT’s playbook of lies and distortions.

    And Joe Biden made a mistake by playing into DJT’s challenge of a golf game. Biden said he would accept the challenge as long as DJT carried his own golf bag. DJT bragged about winning two recent golf tournaments at his club. I would have “teed” off with this retort: “Yeah, you won at your own golf resorts by cheating. Just ask Tiger Woods and other professional gofers who have played with you. And why is it that neither LIV, the PGA or the LPGA has scheduled one of their tournaments at your golf courses this year? Could it be your bad moral character now as a ‘convicted felon'”?.

    Frankly, the CNN debate didn’t tell us anything about DJT we didn’t know already. He is a bombastic con artist and narcissistic sociopath who lies about everything and tried to overturn an election through violence. A “convicted felon” shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the WH!

    1. Earth to Dennis

      Trump exaggerated 30 times and Biden lied 60 times.

      Or do you really believe that there were NO JOBS when he took office. Do you believe that “many young women” are being raped by “their sisters”?

      Do you believe Joes son “came back” from Iraq with stage 4 brain cancer?

      Just 3 of 60.

      1. Waters,
        Dont forget he claimed no one in the military has died while he was in office, forgetting that disaster of an Afghanistan exit.

        1. I havent forgotten. If the coward who calls himself an American were to ever answer for the first 3 i mentioned, I would give him a chance to respond to the other 57.

          But he wont, because he doeant even believe his own lies.

    2. Dennis, if Biden did so well at the debate, why do polls since then
      show that half of the Dems want him to drop out?
      And speaking of ‘convicted felons’, why is Biden too old and out of it
      to prosecute, but he’s A-OK to be President?
      And: If ‘the debate didn’t tell us anything about DJT we didn’t already know’,
      why are you here posting the same old complaints and lies about him?

    3. Dennis “Call me Baghdad Bob” McIntyre, shows up to once again STEAL space from Professor Turley to try writing his own blog. Typical communist – won’t buy his own space to publish his own blog. Instead, like any other parasite, shows up here to use Professor Turley’s comment section to publish is Dennis’s Blog Of Biden Lies. Dennis’s biggest problem isn’t being too cheap to purchase his own blog space.

      No, Dennis’s biggest problem is that if he wasn’t a parasite living like a tapeworm inside this comment section – Dennis wouldn’t get any views of his trash. Even Bribery Biden’s incompetent White House Spokes Liar, Cringe Jean-Pierre is a more competent liar than Dennis “call me Baghdad Bob” McIntyre.

      Liars like Dennis shouldn’t be allowed to pimp for pedophile felons who gave themselves a pass for 40 years of corruption and crime. No Apparatchik-First Daughter Inappropriate Showers for you, Dennis

  14. Would this ruling effect the first impeachment? Ukraine phone call? Wouldn’t that be protected? Just a thought….

    1. Not much of a thought. None of this applies to impeachment

      Next?

    2. Awesome YouTube.

      By the same token taking mar a lago, Bedminster and trump tower by eminent domain would be totally cool. While we’re at it, D’s took all 3 branches of the election. Results have been tallied. Seal team 6 has 6 assignments to clear up over the summer. And we could make mtg and gaetz say some hilarious things and post them to youtube.

  15. It appears that Justice Clarence Thomas just gave suggestions to Judge Aileen Cannon in how to send Jack Smith packing, and perhaps the middle finger to Merrick “Obama SCOTUS Nominee” Garland.

    I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the Pres- ident—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.

    No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.

    page 52 in Thomas’ concurrence

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

  16. By the way, for all you idiots out there, the president cannot order seal team six to do anything

    Not how it works

    1. You’re saying the commander in chief cannot order seal team six to do anything?

      So they can tell the president, their commander, no. That wouldn’t fly in the military. Any hesitation would immediately relieve one from duty and order the next individual. He can go on until one does.

      1. That is correct George. Who is they?

        Chris Kyle, for instance?

        So, if President Bush had flown to Iraq, gotten off the plane, taken a troop transport out to Fallujah, and ordered Chris Kyle to shoot one of his fellow Seals, you think that would “fly”?

        How the fvck would you know what would “fly” in the military? How many combat tours have you?

        What doesn’t fly is your ignorant assumptions and childish presumptions.

        It’s called GUARDRAILS, numbskull. I know this is pig latin to you because the Dims have been at work tearing down guardrails for years.

        Its also called Chain of Command.

        Let me give you another scenario. The President goes for a tour on the USS Chicago, SSN721. He goes into the engine room and tells the Reactor Operator to place the Battleshort Switch in battleshort, and withdraw the control rods to the top of the core. Think its gonna happen? Think that will “fly”? He would keep looking for someone to do it until he found himself stuffed in the TDU (trash disposal unit) and jettisoned.

        Leaving that ridiculousness aside, there is a chain of command for more than one reason. Every attempt to do something stupid by a President hasn’t been an overt act of malfeasance.

        You’re horse shit scenario is as lame as KBJ.

        “Any hesitation”….OMG dude, you have seen way too many movies.

        1. Waters,
          As you have point out, and George the moron has also shown us, he is a moron with no military experience.
          There is something called a lawful order. We obey only lawful orders. Someone gives us a unlawful one, we refuse. We then report that individual to our SNCO or OIC along with other witnesses and or evidence. The UCMJ then takes over from there or the US AG.
          A sitting president ordering any military member to assassinate their political rival, for being their political rival, would be a unlawful order. The only people who would undertake such an order, would be a psychopath like the person giving the order.

          1. Upstate

            Svelaz George speaks out of turn and from a position of utter ignorance as a matter of course. Nothing new to see here.

            He could have ignored my comment but actually CHOSE to engage. This is his problem. He assumes that everyone operates the same way he does. That they say shit just to be saying it, with zero basis in fact OR experience. That they are governed solely by some misguided devotion to their ideology. Therefore they will say ANYTHING, whether they know it to be true or even believe it themselves. That is Svelaz-George, and he can’t imagine anyone who just speaks the truth.

            So he sets himself up to be made to look empty-headed, and doesn’t even have the good sense to learn from his stupendous mistakes. Also, severely lacking in self awareness and self respect.

            There is a nuance here that Svelaz is ignorant of as well. If, lets say, dementia Joe were to wander on down to the Pentagon, and go the the Captain in charge of Task Force Blue, and order him to kill ANYONE, the first question (HESITATION, for you Svelaz the idiot) out of the Captain’s mouth would be “why hasn’t this order come through the Chain of Command” or “is JSOC aware of this”?

            Thee Chain of Command is not there just to ensure that Petty Officer So-and-so doesn’t bother his CO with “i need a light duty chit”. LMAO at the idiots.

            1. Do you really think that the president needs to issue an order to any soldier thru the chain of command. Are you saying that the president can’t walk up to any soldier and issue a direct order? The president can skip the chain of command if he chooses. They CAN do that. But it’s not wise to do so. He IS the commander in chief.

              1. LOL this is getting comical.

                I just gave you the EXACT scenario and the reasons why it would NEVER happen. Could NEVER happen.
                Are you really going to sit there and pretend the sky is not blue?

                What you are describing is how it works in Absurdistan, numbskull.

                So Biden wakes up tomorrow morning and says: “Bring me the nuclear football. I’m going to nuke Mar-A-Lago to “save democracy””

                Tell me what happens next in your fantasy world, Svelaz?

                Do you really think that the president needs to issue an order to any soldier thru the chain of command.

                I don’t THINK it, you imbecile, I KNOW it. Because it’s a fact. If the President ordered me personally to torpedo a RUSSIAN submarine, with no provocation, I would not be court martialed, EVER, I can assure you. HE would be constrained and turned over to the authorities. My biggest concern would be keeping my crew from mummifying him in EB Green tape before we got to port.

                You live in some sort of fantasy of your own making. Where do you get these notions? Which branch did you serve in?

          2. Or a totally loyal soldier. Who gets to determine what’s an unlawful order? The soldier? A soldier can refuse, but he will still face court martial to determine if the order was indeed unlawful.

            However the Supreme Court just invalidated the idea of an unlawful order. Because the president is immune from prosecution. Nothing is unlawful as long as it’s part of the official acts of the president. Any soldier can simply say they were just obeying the president’s orders.

            1. Or a totally loyal soldier.

              Again, you are speaking out of total ignorance, Svelaz.

              A TOTALLY LOYAL soldier would ask, “with all due respect, why the fvck are YOU giving me this order, Mr President”?

              1. It would seem to me that every soldier that is not assigned specifically to the President, would question the lawfulness of an order given to them directly by the President. What possible reason could there be for bypassing the chain of command in order to kill a civilian who was not directly endangering the President? The mere act of personally delivering the order itself smells of illegality. Are we enlisting 4th graders into the military now?

            2. Who gets to determine what’s an unlawful order?

              Are you really this dense?

              YOU and KBJ determined it was. Your RIDICULOUS hypothetical argues that it is unlawful.

              Are you now arguing that assassinating Trump is a lawful order? Because what I heard you say is that SCOTUS granted him immunity from an UNLAWFUL order. If it were not unlawful, why would he need immunity? SCOTUS did not grant him immunity from an UNLAWFUL order. UNLAWFUL orders are outside of the “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility,”

              I gotta believe you are just acting the simpleton at this point.

        2. Waters, so any soldier or officer is not required to follow a direct order from the President? They can do so without co sequences? No court martial or a free trip to Leavenworth?

          “ Every attempt to do something stupid by a President hasn’t been an overt act of malfeasance.”

          That doesn’t negate the fact that a direct order from the president is not always going to be refused. The president can’t convince a fellow soldier turns out to be a traitor? How many orders from your superiors have you refused or questioned in their presence?

          The President can issue a direct order to any soldier in the military. He can bypass the regular chain of command. He’s the guy at the very top.

          1. The President can issue a direct order to any soldier in the military. He can bypass the regular chain of command. He’s the guy at the very top.

            The President can also take a shit off the eifel tower. So the fvck what? Then what?

            He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants. And face the consequences. Tell Chris Kyle to kill a fellow seal. He refuses, as he would have, most definitely. So he attempts to relieve Chris Kyle of his weapon, and do it himself. What do you think happens next? This isn’t Russia, you moron. Or Absurdistan.

            Putin is the “guy at the top”. HE could order one of his goons to shoot his Cabinet, and possibly get him to do it. The POTUS is not Putin, and does not enjoy that POWER, much less immunity from the act.

            Bypassing the regular Chain of Command unlawful order is OUTSIDE the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. So no, the SCOTUS did NOT grant him immunity to nuke Mar-a-lago. Nor has he the power to do so.

            You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re argument is simply, well, he can because I say he can. Really???

            Did I ever refuse an order from a superior? Absolutely NOT. Guess why, retard?

            1. To follow up on that. Did I ever question an order from a superior? You bet I did. Many times. And in one instance, 144 people survived that day because of it.

              I bet you’d love to be part of an organization where people just blindly follow orders, wouldn’t you? Oh wait, you are. The DNC.

              Just keep speaking out of turn, dumb ass. It becomes you.

      2. George was gaslit by Ketanji Brown Jackson

        Low IQ….really low.

  17. Wow,
    The trolls are out in force today.

    Clearly they do not understand what was said in the ruling.

    Must be something that they’ve been feeding to Dims.

    -G

    1. Gumby,
      They are in desperation over how badly Biden preformed at the debate, the beating he is taking in the polls, the fact other Democrats are calling for him to step down from the race, some in MSM are calling for him to step down from the race, donations may dry up, and this ruling, and a few others by the SC have really made a mess of their narrative.
      Their narrative is falling apart.

  18. OT, The Ukraine president Zelensky has said there is a model in which a peace agreement can be reached with Russia.
    Wait and see what happens.

    1. Eventually he will run out of Ukranian solders, before NATO money. Then peace will be a option.

  19. Meh. Biden should just execute Trump and be done with it, and thanks to SCOTUS he can get away with it.

    1. “thanks to SCOTUS he can get away with it.”

      No, just according to Sotomayor. That was the dissent, so, um , yea.

      Besides, Biden doesn’t have the balls. Your fever dream is quite amusing. You still think Biden is making any decisions.

      5 Americans have been held by a terrorist group for TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR DAYS, and Biden has done NOTHING

      He can’t even get away with shitting his pants. The cameras catch it every time.

      1. You are right. Biden does not have it in him to execute Trump. But legally he could.

          1. Of course it would be. All Biden has to say is that Trump is a national security threat. Safeguarding the country is an official act.

            1. By the way, for all you idiots out there, the president cannot order seal team six to do anything

              Not how it works

            1. By the way, for all you idiots out there, the president cannot order seal team six to do anything

              Not how it works

    3. You are jesting or being facetious, but you should not dismiss that an attempted assassination attempt occurring. My guess is watch out. Already have a Lee Harvey Oswall in the loop to scapegoat with asinine reasons.

    4. Biden can’t execute descending two stairs. He is the face of DIE, he was the token straight white catholic for obammas need to get PA. He is also the result of what DIE gets you – a brainless person so above their Peter Principle station that it harms not just others but even themselves. Moreover, he is a DIE front for the DIE’d cabal of behind-the-scenes group of mulatto racists including obamma, jarret, and rice, all of whom should be Mussolini’d.

  20. @SageListener

    🚨🚨Breaking News!!! 🚨🚨
    We have uncovered hidden video from the DNC Headquarters after the debate.

    2. Anonymous 1:14PM
      Absolutely the best. That was hysterical. Probably true but hysterical.

    3. We have uncovered hidden video from the DNC Headquarters after the debate.

      Are you sure that wasn’t Dennis “call me Biden’s Baghdad Bob” McIntyre? The ranting vitriol seems familiar.

Comments are closed.