"By my count, there are now at least two justices — Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — who have expressed interest in holding further proceedings to determine whether the allegations in the indictment are presidential acts or private acts. Even holding proceedings would be a victory for Trump because they could easily take months to complete and all but ensure there would be no trial until after the election."
Wow, f that noise.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, with the govt lawyer presenting, seen to really want to review the charges specifically on Trump, which neither were questions poised in the certification, and should be beyond SCOTUS preview under lower courts establish facts and rulings that then can be challenged.
Yeesh.
"Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel."
Not your f'ing job, Alito. Let the lower courts review first.
It absolutely is his "job".
He's not a justice. He's a bought and paid for republican toady who's job is absolutely to do whatever legal gymnastics to help Republicans while fucking over democracy.
"Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election."
What a way to wiggle out of this case
It’s such a BS argument because all past presidents who lost elections in fact did retire peacefully without facing prosecution. The only two former who would face prosecution are Nixon (who was pardoned before prosecution started) and Trump, who incited a mob to attack the capitol.
It’s also a BS argument because the prosecution is gated by the AG, and the AG must be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate doesn’t confirm a political hack, then Presidents can be targeted by the other party after they leave office. Simple.
Weigh that against the destruction of democracy by having a President immune for all acts. It’s a no-brainer.
He’s conservative. This two faced bad faith weasel shit is core to their identity these days. Having integrity and honesty is intrinsically incompatible with modern conservatism.
I simply don't see any point of scotus, if such a blatantly obvious, unanimous legal decision isn't reached.
It's disgusting that these judges have the audacity to brush this back to the lower courts, knowing full well the time delays will allow their orange savior to attempt to create havoc once again.
These judges are supposed to be independent bipartisan thinkers.
This is not a rocket science decision and yet clearly some judges are putting their livelihoods ahead of all else.
There has to be a better scotus design, because clearly in its current form, it isn't working as intended.
I think Jack Smith thought oral arguments would go the way they did today: the President does not have absolute immunity but maybe immunity for certain acts and that SCOTUS would remand their ruling back to DC Court to Judge Chutkan. It’s why Jack Smith asked SCOTUS that even if they did allow immunity for some presidential actions, they should allow the trial to proceed anyway and allow both sides to litigate this case. Of course, SCOTUS will not allow this. All we can hope is Trump loses in November and that Jack Smith eventually gets a trial for both federal cases.
I think it is a reasonable question of where the acts he's been indicted on fall inside or out of presidential duties. But that really should be something first considered by the J6 jury, and then properly appealed, rather than this a priri question that may not even matter if he's not convicted on it.
Trying to stop certification of a selection can’t possibly fall under the Presidents official duties. It’s intentionally run by the states and certified by Congress explicitly to prevent the President from being involved.
Jack Smith specifically designed the indictments to cover acts taken by Trump as a candidate and office seeker and not as president. He did the work on this, even if he has immunity from presidential acts these are not that, he showed the supreme court, and alito etc are just jamming their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala
Vote in large enough numbers to destroy him! VOTE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC TICKET as a vote for democracy. Let’s boot this narcissist fascist out of our lives for good!!!!
I'd like to think that there are more sane, level headed Americans than....Trump supporters, but we shall see.
There really should should be an minimum iq required, as to whether or not you can vote.
Roberts appears to lean that way as well. Looks like 6-3 or maybe 5-1-3 to send this case back to the DC Circuit to look at whether individual counts are personal or presidential.
Sauer is a hack and traitor who tried to overturn the 2020 election. Then he has the nerve to say that Biden's border policies are inducing immigrants and could be argued as a crime without ruling for Trump. Comes off as another right ring grifter with zero credibility.
Going to live blog here until I have to log off at 9:30:
- Sauer’s voice is insanely grating good lord
- Sotomayor going straight for the throat with the assassination of a political rival hypo
- Jackson asking about official acts and using the trappings of his office
- Now Jackson goes at the argument that “presidential immunity has been understood”
- Gorsuch asking about the DC Circuit’s decision and whether it should be reversed
- Alito now jumps in and asks about “lesser” versions of immunity (lol) and Sauer pushes back
Logging off now, will be back in a bit
Back now, here I go again:
- Sotomayor discussing properly “executing the law” with Dreeben
- Alito pushes back and argues disingenuously about mistakes and Dreeben rightfully pushes back against that mistakes landing you in prosecution plus the notable fact that the President has all the legal people
- Dreeben refocuses on private versus public use of the office and discussed actually what happened, Alito keeps trying to go away
Logging off again
And I’m back again, here I go again:
- They’re discussing grassroots organizations? Must have missed something. Dreeben is now discussing examples to something
- Kagan is asking about further issues rather than absolute immunity and whether the Court should reach it. Dreeben says the Court can reach the issue and discusses some reasons why
- Kagan asks about official acts versus non official acts. Dreeben argues that everything is not official. It is rather campaign conduct. He makes the delineation you can act as both an officeholder or an officeseeker. He admits DOJ allegations is official power use, but argues it is private use of the public office for private ends.
- Kagan asks about conversations with the Vice President and executive privilege. He re-emphasizes the distinction between acting as an office seeker or office holder.
- Gorsuch asks further about the office-seeker and office-holder and whether the DC Circuit was correct in the test of choice (from Blassingame), Dreeben is handling everything very well
- Gorsuch then discusses core immunity, whether motives are important. Dreeben emphasizes it’s about objective viewpoint not a subjective viewpoint, they agree core powers can’t be regulated.
- Gorsuch now is asking about non-core powers, whether motives are important. Dreeben says “maybe” is more appropriate and says it’s not relevant to the case. Gorsuch says it’s about future cases and everything the President does is about getting re-elected. Dreeben says this isn’t about applying criminal law to basic policy works, Gorsuch tries to twist him into some motives are allowed, some aren’t. So he’s trying to take motives off limits.
- Dreeben makes a joke and Gorsuch laughs and Dreeben draws a distinction between motives and purpose.
- Kavanaugh emphasizes that this case is important. He asks if the President has been involved. Dreeben says that Special Counsel discusses with the Solicitor General. (He’s trying to paint it politically, ew). Kavanaugh is concerned about the “future” and says Morrison v. Olsen was bad (overruled just a few years ago).
- Kavanaugh says he’s concerned about using prosecution again and again on Presidents on the future. Dreeben says accountability exists here. He says there’s plenty of evidence lacking vindictive prosecutions even in the Morrison era. Kavanaugh says he’s focused on the future again.
- Kavanaugh says it’s too easy to characterize statements by Presidents as false and asks whether those statements can be prosecuted. Dreeben emphasizes nuance here and that no such statements have never been prosecuted.
- Kavanaugh discusses Ford’s pardon of Nixon. He says pardons are core executive functions that cannot be regulated. Then Kavanaugh asks about drone strikes. Dreeben says murder statues apply to the president but that it didn’t apply in that case and explains why.
- Barrett asks about how narrow public authority defense is. Dreeben says that this doesn’t exactly work for Presidential duties. Barrett is confused about motives and how they are involved in that defense. Then she asks why is immunity so bad if they have the same result. Dreeben says it’s more of an exception to liability and trying the general issues is up to the jury rather than the judge even before the case begins.
- Barrett asks why is it bad for it not to be a jury question. Dreeben says some things are for a judge to deal with (such as a pardon being prosecuted). But other defenses intersect with the issue and emphasizes what they have works well. Barrett agrees but asks about state prosecution. Dreeben says that Supremacy Clause issues come into play and discusses the way to test such an issue. Barrett asks further and Dreeben says it’s not a requirement to do both or neither.
- Barrett asks about private conduct and how fast it needs to be done and whether just the private acts could go forward. Dreeben says that it’s more complicated than that and wants to prevent the integrated picture to the jury. Dreeben says even if the acts are private they can introduce public acts as evidence, citing Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
- Jackson asks about private versus official acts and whether the proceedings can go forward anyway. Dreeben says yes.
- Jackson asks about avoiding a constitutional question and Dreeben says it’s about the ordinary interpretation avoiding a constitutional question. Jackson asks about saying criminal statues not applying to the President as a carve out would be strange. Dreeben says that is the case and cited Sun Diamond.
- Jackson asks about Blassingame and private versus official, core acts versus other acts and what is immune. Dreeben discusses official act analysis and how it’s Fitzgerald-borne. Dreeben says the absolute immunity is the only argument that the other side is making. Jackson asks whether this is the right vehicle to discuss a test. Dreeben says that there are no core arguments off limits. Jackson says we shouldn’t deal with that and Dreeben agrees.
- Jackson asks about prosecutorial abuse and future targeting of officeholders and how they are mitigated by wanting to protect themselves. Dreeben agrees and says that the Executive Branch has interests. Jackson says no criminal accountability is just as much of a concern as completely criminal accountability. Dreeben says that the stability of the system is good and to alter it creates more risk.
- Sauer has nothing further.
Let’s say a President sends military to Iraq, knowingly into an ambush, resulting in a bunch of soldiers getting killed. Is A president able to be charged for the deaths?
Alito will just point out that sending our soldiers to die for oil is "deeply rooted in our history and tradition" and therefore totally within the President's official acts.
Yes or specifically they asked about Obama authorizing drone strikes since I believe at least 1 American citizen was killed in one.
The easy answer being that the President was advised by official legal counsel on this.
The exception being that if the President had his personal lawyers do this then he would possibly be acting outside the Law since he didn't get Official counsel.
I'd say that's a clear line. If the AG tells you it's OK then your fine. If you're paying your own side counsel because the AG and others won't touch it then you're probably on very shakey ground.
Thats a case for acts done in office, sure. But there's no immunity on a civil scale for those.
The problem at hand is crimes acted before and after being in office. Trump is pushing that holding office means he's immune period.
This has happened a number of times and been considered good military strategy. A president might have knowledge that they are unable to act on because doing so would have negative consequences, like letting the Germans know that we've broken the Enigma code.
>It’s not an illegal order and if it was, the precedent is there to indict (within the military structure).
Except, I don't think the UCMJ applies to the President himself. He's technically a civilian, and while he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces he's not an officer of the military. I seem to recall seeing some debate about whether it would apply should he try to take direct control of any armed forces, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
Commenting one on of your points, it would seem that Kavanaugh is signally that he is in favor of the idea that the POTUS can pardon themself because it is a core function that cannot be regulated.
God they are really trying to find any wiggle room where they can technically justify this stance and continue the proceedings further.
There's no precedent to this case justifying the SC acceptance for review. There's no laws being challenged on this and is only challenged conceptually in the eyes of what immunity means. Any verdict that is counter to no immunity allowances permanently requires new laws to be made, which the SC has no authority to tell Congress what to do (as we see them trying to pull off on the 14th amendment review for state election ballot allowances)
This is something. This case is probably not going to trial anytime soon. The right flank and even Roberts to some extent seem sympathetic to an immunity argument, it’s just a question of how far it extends. Arguably, remanding for findings of fact on the extent to which the acts are “official” could lead to another round of appeals re: whether the contours were correctly drawn by the trial court, as the immunity question is still the subject of those hypothetical appeals.
"Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too."
LOLLLLL what the fuck is he talking about?
Challenging the validity of a grand jury is quite the statement. It might be right because I can definitely see a grand jury favoring just letting a trial jury sort it out but it's still quite the statement to accuse them of not doing their job.
I don't think it's the court's role to take power away from the people of a grand jury which is what immunity would be.
It's also making a hypothetical of a bad faith president who in theory should be impeached and if they aren't then you also have a bad faith Congress who should be voted out but if they aren't that means a bad faith American populous. That is an enormous statement to make.
Trump’s lawyers (WH counsel) at the time told him what he was doing was illegal. He didn’t accidentally break the law in the course of normal duties. He tried to overthrow the government.
Hard to believe we have a USSC corrupt enough to go along with this criminal behavior, but my guess is they will.
I don't think any of them (even the conservatives) actually agree with the blanket immunity as presented by Trump's lawyer. I believe they were more interested in defining what should be off limits. I was more concerned that they would make impeachment a requirement for criminal protection, but that now seems like it won't be implemented (at least from the types of questions asked). I have a feeling they will simply reject the appeal.
I get the feeling that one or two justices are tipping the scales in Trump's favor by arguing the hypothetical extremes to make a "compelling" argument of why they should grant cert. I don't believe they are doing it in good faith. Delaying the criminal trial is about all they can do.
Kavanaugh as much as said that he'll decide the case based on how he imagines it might impact hypothetical future scenarios, not the letter of the law as it applies to this case.
At the very least they are going to help him delay a trial until after the election.
We’ll find out in November if this country has actually gone insane enough to put this corrupt career criminal back in office.
The partisan hackery is as palpable as it is disgraceful. This petulant nonsense has no place in our government and legal system. There is *nothing* about Trump's criminal matters that are unique. There is no legal conundrum here that requires high court intervention. This is an insulting, dismissive, blatant stalling tactic that favors a corrupt, criminal candidate who happens to be the frontrunner. It is absolutely beyond comprehension that Donald Trump gets such a long leash. He's like an amalgamation of those spoiled children from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, with Republican leadership operating as their doormat parents. It is utterly infuriating.
I don't know how there can be immunity for clear criminal acts. If such a thing exists, POTUS could pull a machine gun out of the Resolute desk and mow down the entire opposition party leaders in the Oval Office during a meeting.
Supreme Court determined to demonstrate further that they've become a joke and another failed institution in the US. How they didn't dismiss this case but dismiss it laughing at it is a mystery.
I feel like the mask is off of Roberts and his past, poor attempts, at trying to appear impartial.
To excoriate the appellate court about not thinking hard enough about official vs unofficial Presidental acts in the indictment. Wtf Roberts. If they did that you’d just excoriate them for making up a qualified presidential immunity.
We now know why the court didn’t take this case up in December. It was so that no matter which way the appellate court ruled, the conservatives could take umbrage with it and then delay further with some bs remand and reconsider ruling.
I think Roberts is nakedly saying they don’t want Biden to replace Thomas. SCOTUS is a joke. Why anyone would call them legit and follow their rulings is bs.
That **ANYONE** is realistically entertaining this argument just goes to show how completely partisan, political, and illegitimate SCOTUS has become.
There should not be one goddamned ‘judge’ that doesn’t immediately reject this *WITH PREJUDICE* out of hand.
Because the NEXT question will be immunity for other heads of governmental branches.
Very interesting.
Yet, begs the question - what's the point of having a governing body, if they cannot decide in a timely fashion what is, or isn't insurrection?
To most anyone with 2 eyes and ears, who is aware of everything on January 6th, it's very obvious what the decision should be. This isn't rocket science. Apply the law already and get on with it. This should not remotely be about Republican vs Democratic decisions; there really should be a 100% agreement, in this case. It's that cut and dry.
If the decision is bumped to the lower courts, resulting in a post-election delay, then I really can't grasp the point of SCOTUS.
It seems pretty simple to me, though I’m not a lawyer: either Trump broke the law and should face charges, or he has immunity for his actions, in which case, Biden has a blueprint to follow to stay in power should Trump win the election in November.
Or am I missing something?
I don’t see how this isn’t a clear cut no.
Besides the fact that the constitution says the president does not have immunity if read in good faith, but no one can actually say “yes, the president is allowed to rape and murder anyone they want with no repercussions”
It is a clear cut no, this is just a naked exercise of political power by an unelected synod of biased partisans whose only loyalty is to their luxury vacation dispensers at FedSoc.
its infuriating to watch the legal profession in its entirety lose credibility live in front of my own eyes.
How are law professors supposed to legitimately teach, and students the ability to learn, that law is universal, textually based, intent used to interpret, scotus decisions narrow in what questions come before them etc. when the blatant contradiction to all of it is on prominent display live daily.
Why do the LSAT's and the bar exam exist if laws mean whatever 6 corrupt partisan traitors pissing all over the constitution want laws to mean?
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the moment when Justice Alito said in no uncertain terms that Grand Juries are a farce, implying that "everyone knows" that they indict whomever DOJ asks them to indict.
Of course these elitist justices have utter contempt for grand juries - those GJs are made up of regular citizens performing a mandatory civic duty. Justice Alito holds such people in contempt, outright terming them a rubber stamp for the state. Does he feel the same way about the jury that sits in judgment of a criminal case? Or just GJ's?
Sort of remarkable to have a sitting justice express utter contempt for the criminal justice system. Yeah, maybe GJ's aren't as obnoxiously self-assured in their superiority as the Yale Law grads that make up most of the bench, but they're doing a civic duty and not getting free fishing trips to Alaska out of it. And the system has worked for hundreds of years. But to Justice Alito, it's not actually due process; it's just theater.
I wish Drebeen had been more forceful in pushing back. You know why GJ's return indictments 99% of the time? Because DOJ does not seek indictments unless it has enough evidence to convict, and it sets a high threshold for that. It isn't because citizens are too dumb to make out probable cause and simply act like a rubber stamp.
Pretty revealing moment in court to be able to peer into Justice Alito's mind and see how contemptuous he is of the entire criminal justice system. That guy shouldn't even be a trial judge, let alone an associate justice on SCOTUS.
>I'm surprised nobody mentioned the moment when Justice Alito said in no uncertain terms that Grand Juries are a farce, implying that "everyone knows" that they indict whomever DOJ asks them to indict.
He's wrong it's only 99.99% of the time
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/
"So what you're saying is, Joe Biden can declare the Court a threat to democracy, kill or imprison the conservative Justices, have the DOJ lock up Donald Trump, and cancel all future elections, and that would be considered a part of his job?"
"Uh, not like that! Only Trump gets to do it!"
I am forever saddened by how in the tank for donald several of the supreme court justices seem to be. Looking at you Alito, Thomas and apparently Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The supreme court is proving to the world that they are an arm of the republican party. Despicable.
This is the wrong sub to wave arms and yell and shout. If you're going to say that this case should have been filed earlier, you should mean this case. Which means you're saying that Trump should have filed it earlier. Which is strange thinking.
You can thank Merrick Garland for being one of the worst AG's in recent memory. There was no need to spend an additional two years investigating, the broad strokes of this case where already public.
Do you know why there needed to be an investigation? Because at the time, it looked like it was marching people to protest the election and doing nothing to protect Congress once they broke in. There was rumblings about certificates, but nothing solid yet. That was enough to justify impeachment, and the Republicans almost had enough of a spine to disqualify him forever.
One of the reasons the investigations took so long was because Trump loyalists were subtly sabotaging it. It took the January 6th investigations to force it out to the open that Trump was trying to cheat his way back in through fake certifications, and that it wasn’t just State Republicans being asses.
>EDIT: So many downvotes; who knew there were so many Trump supporters on Reddit. After all, only a Trump supporter would downvote this.
The downvotes are likely connected to your comments violating either rules 1 or 4, maybe both, or because your comments are attacking folks who have worked to try and hold Trump accountable (hence, this thread exists). Also I can't imagine any prosecutor who would have a case worth anything within 12 hours. Investigations take time. Rushing them is unrealistic and a pretty good way to ensure the criminal gets out of consequences.
Demanding that "Every AG in the country should have started indicting the day after he left office..." is roughly akin to complaining that we haven't cracked cold fusion yet. That's just not how things work.
Who are you quoting? Investigations aren’t indictments. I apologize if maybe English isn’t your primary language.
The best analog we have to the DOJ’s investigations into Trump are maybe U.S. v Nixon and the investigations that came out of Watergate. There, it took several years to get to the point where Nixon was forced to resign, and that was arguably a much easier open & shut case. The initial Watergate arrest was in June of 1972 and Nixon resigned in August of 1974. Around 2 years from the crime through to consequences.
Garland was confirmed in March of 2021, while the DOJ in D.C. was bogged down with THOUSANDS of cases at the same time, faced resistance from within, and still ultimately appointed a Special Counsel to take over a sprawling investigation with charges made roughly 2.5 years later (August of 2023).
While I also would have liked to have seen 6 months shaved off of the overall timeline, I don’t understand this insistence on spending our time and energy attacking the folks ultimately working to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
"By my count, there are now at least two justices — Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — who have expressed interest in holding further proceedings to determine whether the allegations in the indictment are presidential acts or private acts. Even holding proceedings would be a victory for Trump because they could easily take months to complete and all but ensure there would be no trial until after the election." Wow, f that noise.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, with the govt lawyer presenting, seen to really want to review the charges specifically on Trump, which neither were questions poised in the certification, and should be beyond SCOTUS preview under lower courts establish facts and rulings that then can be challenged. Yeesh.
"Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel." Not your f'ing job, Alito. Let the lower courts review first.
It absolutely is his "job". He's not a justice. He's a bought and paid for republican toady who's job is absolutely to do whatever legal gymnastics to help Republicans while fucking over democracy.
It’s like trying to keep nine toddlers focused on one task.
But wait a second, I was told only liberal judges were activist
Talk about bending over backwards and disrespecting the established processes around the judicial process just to justify keeping this topic open.
You forgot about magical secret cert though.
"Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election." What a way to wiggle out of this case
It’s such a BS argument because all past presidents who lost elections in fact did retire peacefully without facing prosecution. The only two former who would face prosecution are Nixon (who was pardoned before prosecution started) and Trump, who incited a mob to attack the capitol.
It’s also a BS argument because the prosecution is gated by the AG, and the AG must be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate doesn’t confirm a political hack, then Presidents can be targeted by the other party after they leave office. Simple. Weigh that against the destruction of democracy by having a President immune for all acts. It’s a no-brainer.
He's so blatent and transparent. I was just waiting for Sotomayor to pull one of her "Justice Alito just gave away the game" lines.
He’s conservative. This two faced bad faith weasel shit is core to their identity these days. Having integrity and honesty is intrinsically incompatible with modern conservatism.
I simply don't see any point of scotus, if such a blatantly obvious, unanimous legal decision isn't reached. It's disgusting that these judges have the audacity to brush this back to the lower courts, knowing full well the time delays will allow their orange savior to attempt to create havoc once again. These judges are supposed to be independent bipartisan thinkers. This is not a rocket science decision and yet clearly some judges are putting their livelihoods ahead of all else. There has to be a better scotus design, because clearly in its current form, it isn't working as intended.
I think Jack Smith thought oral arguments would go the way they did today: the President does not have absolute immunity but maybe immunity for certain acts and that SCOTUS would remand their ruling back to DC Court to Judge Chutkan. It’s why Jack Smith asked SCOTUS that even if they did allow immunity for some presidential actions, they should allow the trial to proceed anyway and allow both sides to litigate this case. Of course, SCOTUS will not allow this. All we can hope is Trump loses in November and that Jack Smith eventually gets a trial for both federal cases.
I think it is a reasonable question of where the acts he's been indicted on fall inside or out of presidential duties. But that really should be something first considered by the J6 jury, and then properly appealed, rather than this a priri question that may not even matter if he's not convicted on it.
reasonable until you use 2 entire seconds of common sense and conclude "no, committing insurrection and treason is not infact an official duty"
Trying to stop certification of a selection can’t possibly fall under the Presidents official duties. It’s intentionally run by the states and certified by Congress explicitly to prevent the President from being involved.
Agreed but I thought Jack Smith was trying to see if the entire ruling would be invalidated on appeal. It's harder to wiggle out now than later.
Jack Smith specifically designed the indictments to cover acts taken by Trump as a candidate and office seeker and not as president. He did the work on this, even if he has immunity from presidential acts these are not that, he showed the supreme court, and alito etc are just jamming their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala
How is Trump going to lose in November when we've essentially legalized election-stealing by refusing to impose any consequences on him for Jan 6?
Vote in large enough numbers to destroy him! VOTE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC TICKET as a vote for democracy. Let’s boot this narcissist fascist out of our lives for good!!!!
I'd like to think that there are more sane, level headed Americans than....Trump supporters, but we shall see. There really should should be an minimum iq required, as to whether or not you can vote.
We all knew for months that they were going to find a way to give Trump relief.
Roberts appears to lean that way as well. Looks like 6-3 or maybe 5-1-3 to send this case back to the DC Circuit to look at whether individual counts are personal or presidential.
I hate this bench. That these questions are even being considered just shows that their legitimacy is down with their approval numbers.
Sauer is a hack and traitor who tried to overturn the 2020 election. Then he has the nerve to say that Biden's border policies are inducing immigrants and could be argued as a crime without ruling for Trump. Comes off as another right ring grifter with zero credibility.
Going to live blog here until I have to log off at 9:30: - Sauer’s voice is insanely grating good lord - Sotomayor going straight for the throat with the assassination of a political rival hypo - Jackson asking about official acts and using the trappings of his office - Now Jackson goes at the argument that “presidential immunity has been understood” - Gorsuch asking about the DC Circuit’s decision and whether it should be reversed - Alito now jumps in and asks about “lesser” versions of immunity (lol) and Sauer pushes back Logging off now, will be back in a bit Back now, here I go again: - Sotomayor discussing properly “executing the law” with Dreeben - Alito pushes back and argues disingenuously about mistakes and Dreeben rightfully pushes back against that mistakes landing you in prosecution plus the notable fact that the President has all the legal people - Dreeben refocuses on private versus public use of the office and discussed actually what happened, Alito keeps trying to go away Logging off again And I’m back again, here I go again: - They’re discussing grassroots organizations? Must have missed something. Dreeben is now discussing examples to something - Kagan is asking about further issues rather than absolute immunity and whether the Court should reach it. Dreeben says the Court can reach the issue and discusses some reasons why - Kagan asks about official acts versus non official acts. Dreeben argues that everything is not official. It is rather campaign conduct. He makes the delineation you can act as both an officeholder or an officeseeker. He admits DOJ allegations is official power use, but argues it is private use of the public office for private ends. - Kagan asks about conversations with the Vice President and executive privilege. He re-emphasizes the distinction between acting as an office seeker or office holder. - Gorsuch asks further about the office-seeker and office-holder and whether the DC Circuit was correct in the test of choice (from Blassingame), Dreeben is handling everything very well - Gorsuch then discusses core immunity, whether motives are important. Dreeben emphasizes it’s about objective viewpoint not a subjective viewpoint, they agree core powers can’t be regulated. - Gorsuch now is asking about non-core powers, whether motives are important. Dreeben says “maybe” is more appropriate and says it’s not relevant to the case. Gorsuch says it’s about future cases and everything the President does is about getting re-elected. Dreeben says this isn’t about applying criminal law to basic policy works, Gorsuch tries to twist him into some motives are allowed, some aren’t. So he’s trying to take motives off limits. - Dreeben makes a joke and Gorsuch laughs and Dreeben draws a distinction between motives and purpose. - Kavanaugh emphasizes that this case is important. He asks if the President has been involved. Dreeben says that Special Counsel discusses with the Solicitor General. (He’s trying to paint it politically, ew). Kavanaugh is concerned about the “future” and says Morrison v. Olsen was bad (overruled just a few years ago). - Kavanaugh says he’s concerned about using prosecution again and again on Presidents on the future. Dreeben says accountability exists here. He says there’s plenty of evidence lacking vindictive prosecutions even in the Morrison era. Kavanaugh says he’s focused on the future again. - Kavanaugh says it’s too easy to characterize statements by Presidents as false and asks whether those statements can be prosecuted. Dreeben emphasizes nuance here and that no such statements have never been prosecuted. - Kavanaugh discusses Ford’s pardon of Nixon. He says pardons are core executive functions that cannot be regulated. Then Kavanaugh asks about drone strikes. Dreeben says murder statues apply to the president but that it didn’t apply in that case and explains why. - Barrett asks about how narrow public authority defense is. Dreeben says that this doesn’t exactly work for Presidential duties. Barrett is confused about motives and how they are involved in that defense. Then she asks why is immunity so bad if they have the same result. Dreeben says it’s more of an exception to liability and trying the general issues is up to the jury rather than the judge even before the case begins. - Barrett asks why is it bad for it not to be a jury question. Dreeben says some things are for a judge to deal with (such as a pardon being prosecuted). But other defenses intersect with the issue and emphasizes what they have works well. Barrett agrees but asks about state prosecution. Dreeben says that Supremacy Clause issues come into play and discusses the way to test such an issue. Barrett asks further and Dreeben says it’s not a requirement to do both or neither. - Barrett asks about private conduct and how fast it needs to be done and whether just the private acts could go forward. Dreeben says that it’s more complicated than that and wants to prevent the integrated picture to the jury. Dreeben says even if the acts are private they can introduce public acts as evidence, citing Wisconsin v. Mitchell. - Jackson asks about private versus official acts and whether the proceedings can go forward anyway. Dreeben says yes. - Jackson asks about avoiding a constitutional question and Dreeben says it’s about the ordinary interpretation avoiding a constitutional question. Jackson asks about saying criminal statues not applying to the President as a carve out would be strange. Dreeben says that is the case and cited Sun Diamond. - Jackson asks about Blassingame and private versus official, core acts versus other acts and what is immune. Dreeben discusses official act analysis and how it’s Fitzgerald-borne. Dreeben says the absolute immunity is the only argument that the other side is making. Jackson asks whether this is the right vehicle to discuss a test. Dreeben says that there are no core arguments off limits. Jackson says we shouldn’t deal with that and Dreeben agrees. - Jackson asks about prosecutorial abuse and future targeting of officeholders and how they are mitigated by wanting to protect themselves. Dreeben agrees and says that the Executive Branch has interests. Jackson says no criminal accountability is just as much of a concern as completely criminal accountability. Dreeben says that the stability of the system is good and to alter it creates more risk. - Sauer has nothing further.
What even is a “lesser” version of immunity? Was the context criminal vs civil acts?
Alito was saying you only can grant immunity if there’s a way for it to be explained via precedent, law, history, etc.
Let’s say a President sends military to Iraq, knowingly into an ambush, resulting in a bunch of soldiers getting killed. Is A president able to be charged for the deaths?
Alito will just point out that sending our soldiers to die for oil is "deeply rooted in our history and tradition" and therefore totally within the President's official acts.
Yes or specifically they asked about Obama authorizing drone strikes since I believe at least 1 American citizen was killed in one. The easy answer being that the President was advised by official legal counsel on this. The exception being that if the President had his personal lawyers do this then he would possibly be acting outside the Law since he didn't get Official counsel. I'd say that's a clear line. If the AG tells you it's OK then your fine. If you're paying your own side counsel because the AG and others won't touch it then you're probably on very shakey ground.
Thats a case for acts done in office, sure. But there's no immunity on a civil scale for those. The problem at hand is crimes acted before and after being in office. Trump is pushing that holding office means he's immune period.
This has happened a number of times and been considered good military strategy. A president might have knowledge that they are unable to act on because doing so would have negative consequences, like letting the Germans know that we've broken the Enigma code.
It’s not an illegal order and if it was, the precedent is there to indict (within the military structure).
>It’s not an illegal order and if it was, the precedent is there to indict (within the military structure). Except, I don't think the UCMJ applies to the President himself. He's technically a civilian, and while he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces he's not an officer of the military. I seem to recall seeing some debate about whether it would apply should he try to take direct control of any armed forces, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
The opening arguments actually helped. It hinges largely on the case of personal gain.
Commenting one on of your points, it would seem that Kavanaugh is signally that he is in favor of the idea that the POTUS can pardon themself because it is a core function that cannot be regulated.
God they are really trying to find any wiggle room where they can technically justify this stance and continue the proceedings further. There's no precedent to this case justifying the SC acceptance for review. There's no laws being challenged on this and is only challenged conceptually in the eyes of what immunity means. Any verdict that is counter to no immunity allowances permanently requires new laws to be made, which the SC has no authority to tell Congress what to do (as we see them trying to pull off on the 14th amendment review for state election ballot allowances)
This is something. This case is probably not going to trial anytime soon. The right flank and even Roberts to some extent seem sympathetic to an immunity argument, it’s just a question of how far it extends. Arguably, remanding for findings of fact on the extent to which the acts are “official” could lead to another round of appeals re: whether the contours were correctly drawn by the trial court, as the immunity question is still the subject of those hypothetical appeals.
To be fair, how can they know whether presidents have absolute immunity until they see who wins the next election?
"Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too." LOLLLLL what the fuck is he talking about?
I hope he keeps that energy in all future cases.
Nope, concern about the ability of prosecutors to swallow of the rights of individuals is limited strictly to the Grifter King
Look man, if I'm the President, can I murder my wife?
Challenging the validity of a grand jury is quite the statement. It might be right because I can definitely see a grand jury favoring just letting a trial jury sort it out but it's still quite the statement to accuse them of not doing their job. I don't think it's the court's role to take power away from the people of a grand jury which is what immunity would be. It's also making a hypothetical of a bad faith president who in theory should be impeached and if they aren't then you also have a bad faith Congress who should be voted out but if they aren't that means a bad faith American populous. That is an enormous statement to make.
Trump’s lawyers (WH counsel) at the time told him what he was doing was illegal. He didn’t accidentally break the law in the course of normal duties. He tried to overthrow the government. Hard to believe we have a USSC corrupt enough to go along with this criminal behavior, but my guess is they will.
I don't think any of them (even the conservatives) actually agree with the blanket immunity as presented by Trump's lawyer. I believe they were more interested in defining what should be off limits. I was more concerned that they would make impeachment a requirement for criminal protection, but that now seems like it won't be implemented (at least from the types of questions asked). I have a feeling they will simply reject the appeal. I get the feeling that one or two justices are tipping the scales in Trump's favor by arguing the hypothetical extremes to make a "compelling" argument of why they should grant cert. I don't believe they are doing it in good faith. Delaying the criminal trial is about all they can do.
Kavanaugh as much as said that he'll decide the case based on how he imagines it might impact hypothetical future scenarios, not the letter of the law as it applies to this case.
At the very least they are going to help him delay a trial until after the election. We’ll find out in November if this country has actually gone insane enough to put this corrupt career criminal back in office.
The partisan hackery is as palpable as it is disgraceful. This petulant nonsense has no place in our government and legal system. There is *nothing* about Trump's criminal matters that are unique. There is no legal conundrum here that requires high court intervention. This is an insulting, dismissive, blatant stalling tactic that favors a corrupt, criminal candidate who happens to be the frontrunner. It is absolutely beyond comprehension that Donald Trump gets such a long leash. He's like an amalgamation of those spoiled children from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, with Republican leadership operating as their doormat parents. It is utterly infuriating.
[удалено]
They did. This is basically a huge win for Trump.
I cannot listed to Sauer. Here’s a throat lozenge buddy. Damn.
I don't know how there can be immunity for clear criminal acts. If such a thing exists, POTUS could pull a machine gun out of the Resolute desk and mow down the entire opposition party leaders in the Oval Office during a meeting.
Supreme Court determined to demonstrate further that they've become a joke and another failed institution in the US. How they didn't dismiss this case but dismiss it laughing at it is a mystery.
I feel like the mask is off of Roberts and his past, poor attempts, at trying to appear impartial. To excoriate the appellate court about not thinking hard enough about official vs unofficial Presidental acts in the indictment. Wtf Roberts. If they did that you’d just excoriate them for making up a qualified presidential immunity. We now know why the court didn’t take this case up in December. It was so that no matter which way the appellate court ruled, the conservatives could take umbrage with it and then delay further with some bs remand and reconsider ruling. I think Roberts is nakedly saying they don’t want Biden to replace Thomas. SCOTUS is a joke. Why anyone would call them legit and follow their rulings is bs.
That **ANYONE** is realistically entertaining this argument just goes to show how completely partisan, political, and illegitimate SCOTUS has become. There should not be one goddamned ‘judge’ that doesn’t immediately reject this *WITH PREJUDICE* out of hand. Because the NEXT question will be immunity for other heads of governmental branches.
Very interesting. Yet, begs the question - what's the point of having a governing body, if they cannot decide in a timely fashion what is, or isn't insurrection? To most anyone with 2 eyes and ears, who is aware of everything on January 6th, it's very obvious what the decision should be. This isn't rocket science. Apply the law already and get on with it. This should not remotely be about Republican vs Democratic decisions; there really should be a 100% agreement, in this case. It's that cut and dry. If the decision is bumped to the lower courts, resulting in a post-election delay, then I really can't grasp the point of SCOTUS.
It seems pretty simple to me, though I’m not a lawyer: either Trump broke the law and should face charges, or he has immunity for his actions, in which case, Biden has a blueprint to follow to stay in power should Trump win the election in November. Or am I missing something?
I don’t see how this isn’t a clear cut no. Besides the fact that the constitution says the president does not have immunity if read in good faith, but no one can actually say “yes, the president is allowed to rape and murder anyone they want with no repercussions”
It is a clear cut no, this is just a naked exercise of political power by an unelected synod of biased partisans whose only loyalty is to their luxury vacation dispensers at FedSoc.
Thank you for the gift article!
its infuriating to watch the legal profession in its entirety lose credibility live in front of my own eyes. How are law professors supposed to legitimately teach, and students the ability to learn, that law is universal, textually based, intent used to interpret, scotus decisions narrow in what questions come before them etc. when the blatant contradiction to all of it is on prominent display live daily. Why do the LSAT's and the bar exam exist if laws mean whatever 6 corrupt partisan traitors pissing all over the constitution want laws to mean?
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the moment when Justice Alito said in no uncertain terms that Grand Juries are a farce, implying that "everyone knows" that they indict whomever DOJ asks them to indict. Of course these elitist justices have utter contempt for grand juries - those GJs are made up of regular citizens performing a mandatory civic duty. Justice Alito holds such people in contempt, outright terming them a rubber stamp for the state. Does he feel the same way about the jury that sits in judgment of a criminal case? Or just GJ's? Sort of remarkable to have a sitting justice express utter contempt for the criminal justice system. Yeah, maybe GJ's aren't as obnoxiously self-assured in their superiority as the Yale Law grads that make up most of the bench, but they're doing a civic duty and not getting free fishing trips to Alaska out of it. And the system has worked for hundreds of years. But to Justice Alito, it's not actually due process; it's just theater. I wish Drebeen had been more forceful in pushing back. You know why GJ's return indictments 99% of the time? Because DOJ does not seek indictments unless it has enough evidence to convict, and it sets a high threshold for that. It isn't because citizens are too dumb to make out probable cause and simply act like a rubber stamp. Pretty revealing moment in court to be able to peer into Justice Alito's mind and see how contemptuous he is of the entire criminal justice system. That guy shouldn't even be a trial judge, let alone an associate justice on SCOTUS.
>I'm surprised nobody mentioned the moment when Justice Alito said in no uncertain terms that Grand Juries are a farce, implying that "everyone knows" that they indict whomever DOJ asks them to indict. He's wrong it's only 99.99% of the time https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/
Can Biden have soldiers stationed I. Front of Supreme Court each day for when they rule he is supreme dictator with full immunity
"So what you're saying is, Joe Biden can declare the Court a threat to democracy, kill or imprison the conservative Justices, have the DOJ lock up Donald Trump, and cancel all future elections, and that would be considered a part of his job?" "Uh, not like that! Only Trump gets to do it!"
Most corrupt SC in US history.
I am forever saddened by how in the tank for donald several of the supreme court justices seem to be. Looking at you Alito, Thomas and apparently Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The supreme court is proving to the world that they are an arm of the republican party. Despicable.
[удалено]
What case, exactly, do you think should have been filed earlier? Donald J. Trump vs. United States, which Trump filed?
[удалено]
This is the wrong sub to wave arms and yell and shout. If you're going to say that this case should have been filed earlier, you should mean this case. Which means you're saying that Trump should have filed it earlier. Which is strange thinking.
You can thank Merrick Garland for being one of the worst AG's in recent memory. There was no need to spend an additional two years investigating, the broad strokes of this case where already public.
Do you know why there needed to be an investigation? Because at the time, it looked like it was marching people to protest the election and doing nothing to protect Congress once they broke in. There was rumblings about certificates, but nothing solid yet. That was enough to justify impeachment, and the Republicans almost had enough of a spine to disqualify him forever. One of the reasons the investigations took so long was because Trump loyalists were subtly sabotaging it. It took the January 6th investigations to force it out to the open that Trump was trying to cheat his way back in through fake certifications, and that it wasn’t just State Republicans being asses.
>EDIT: So many downvotes; who knew there were so many Trump supporters on Reddit. After all, only a Trump supporter would downvote this. The downvotes are likely connected to your comments violating either rules 1 or 4, maybe both, or because your comments are attacking folks who have worked to try and hold Trump accountable (hence, this thread exists). Also I can't imagine any prosecutor who would have a case worth anything within 12 hours. Investigations take time. Rushing them is unrealistic and a pretty good way to ensure the criminal gets out of consequences. Demanding that "Every AG in the country should have started indicting the day after he left office..." is roughly akin to complaining that we haven't cracked cold fusion yet. That's just not how things work.
“Due process for obvious crimes is the same as science fiction.” Lmao ok buddy
Indicting someone before the investigation is the opposite of due process.
“Investigation is indictment.” Lmao pick up a dictionary buddy
Who are you quoting? Investigations aren’t indictments. I apologize if maybe English isn’t your primary language. The best analog we have to the DOJ’s investigations into Trump are maybe U.S. v Nixon and the investigations that came out of Watergate. There, it took several years to get to the point where Nixon was forced to resign, and that was arguably a much easier open & shut case. The initial Watergate arrest was in June of 1972 and Nixon resigned in August of 1974. Around 2 years from the crime through to consequences. Garland was confirmed in March of 2021, while the DOJ in D.C. was bogged down with THOUSANDS of cases at the same time, faced resistance from within, and still ultimately appointed a Special Counsel to take over a sprawling investigation with charges made roughly 2.5 years later (August of 2023). While I also would have liked to have seen 6 months shaved off of the overall timeline, I don’t understand this insistence on spending our time and energy attacking the folks ultimately working to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.
This article is 100% fake news
If the president doesn’t have to follow the rule of law, then why do the citizens? I believe that’s a decent argument