Something that just occurred to me: if whatever court this tops out at rules there is no absolute immunity for official acts, doesn’t that also put paid to the idea that a President can pardon themselves?
Otherwise, they can just pardon themselves as their last official act, which would effectively be the same thing as having absolute immunity.
Trump’s arguments were originated by England’s Charles I. Chosen by God, ruling by divine right, absolutely above the law. Charles dissolved Parliament three times before they declared war on him, defeated him, arrested him and his supporters. Charles refused to cooperate, was tried, convicted, faced his execution bravely, and was beheaded. I don’t imagine Cadet Bone Spurs would face death with such courage.
When you are throwing a bunch of BS at the court hoping something will stick, consistency is not your friend. Inconsistency also serves to keep trump's base, citizens, off balance. The last thing trump wants is for them to realize the truth about Don the Con. That he will destroy both the Republicans and Democrats lives as they know them, in his psychopathic delusion of unilateral control of all government agencies.
Thx for the explanation of unitary executive. I didn't realize it meant the DOJ can't investigate the President. So under this theory, if the president can’t investigate himself, then he can't pardon himself either.
Thanks for pointing out in great detail, the contradictory, laughable arguments being made by Trump's attorneys. I truly wonder if they are fully aware of their lack of merit but know that is not the point., the point being to run out the clock?
Asha, I have a question about what Renato said while you were discussing the allegations against Fani Willis. He said such allegations from the defense are not an unusual practice. In less high profile cases, it doesn't matter so much. But from Trump-aligned defense attorneys? That matters becuase it gets attention. As you well know, a lie is half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. I know the DOJ policy is to speak through their indictments and motions, but with a character like Trump, who has only attacked the legal system and delayed legal procedures since he first met Roy Cohn, how can such misinformation stand unopposed in the real-time moment?
Trump prosecutors need a war room like the one Carville created in '92: Respond to the Willis allegations in real-time that these were filed by an attorney for one of the co-defendants, and they have absoutely no hard evidence to support them. This is just a political stunt. Don't buy it.
And isn't the purpose of the stunt to influence the jury pool, as Renato said. Isn't that pre-trial jury tampering?
Thank you so much Asha, as always, for your astute analysis. I find it so helpful in trying to understand the complex nuance of the law in these cases. I also much appreciate the links. I don't have TV (by choice) and it's sometimes a pain to try to access these interviews.
Asha, thanks for an informative Round Up. I especially appreciate your legal term Koo Koo for Coco puffs. 😂
When I hear or read the Trump legal arguments I am reminded of my High School debate coach. She evaluated one of my arguments as “burning time with sophomore logic”. See you Wednesday
On an episode of Politicon's iGen Politics where Jill Wine-Banks interviews Jon Sale, Sale offers the theory that Trump's lawyers _know_ they will probably not win these cases in a court of law and that what they're saying in court is not necessarily directed at the court. That's certainly the best explanation I've heard so far, given behavior that appears to be aberrant in terms of the way lawyers would normally approach a case. (Note that Sale and Wine-Banks are both former Watergate prosecutors, so this is not a just a discussion between random bloviators)
Something that just occurred to me: if whatever court this tops out at rules there is no absolute immunity for official acts, doesn’t that also put paid to the idea that a President can pardon themselves?
Otherwise, they can just pardon themselves as their last official act, which would effectively be the same thing as having absolute immunity.
Excellent point
Trump’s arguments were originated by England’s Charles I. Chosen by God, ruling by divine right, absolutely above the law. Charles dissolved Parliament three times before they declared war on him, defeated him, arrested him and his supporters. Charles refused to cooperate, was tried, convicted, faced his execution bravely, and was beheaded. I don’t imagine Cadet Bone Spurs would face death with such courage.
When you are throwing a bunch of BS at the court hoping something will stick, consistency is not your friend. Inconsistency also serves to keep trump's base, citizens, off balance. The last thing trump wants is for them to realize the truth about Don the Con. That he will destroy both the Republicans and Democrats lives as they know them, in his psychopathic delusion of unilateral control of all government agencies.
Thx for the explanation of unitary executive. I didn't realize it meant the DOJ can't investigate the President. So under this theory, if the president can’t investigate himself, then he can't pardon himself either.
Thanks for pointing out in great detail, the contradictory, laughable arguments being made by Trump's attorneys. I truly wonder if they are fully aware of their lack of merit but know that is not the point., the point being to run out the clock?
I saw this wonderfully succinct summary elsewhere:
Trump and Republicans:
"A sitting President has full Immunity from prosecution."
Also Trump and Republicans:
"Impeach President Biden and lock him up right now."
Asha, I have a question about what Renato said while you were discussing the allegations against Fani Willis. He said such allegations from the defense are not an unusual practice. In less high profile cases, it doesn't matter so much. But from Trump-aligned defense attorneys? That matters becuase it gets attention. As you well know, a lie is half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. I know the DOJ policy is to speak through their indictments and motions, but with a character like Trump, who has only attacked the legal system and delayed legal procedures since he first met Roy Cohn, how can such misinformation stand unopposed in the real-time moment?
Trump prosecutors need a war room like the one Carville created in '92: Respond to the Willis allegations in real-time that these were filed by an attorney for one of the co-defendants, and they have absoutely no hard evidence to support them. This is just a political stunt. Don't buy it.
And isn't the purpose of the stunt to influence the jury pool, as Renato said. Isn't that pre-trial jury tampering?
Thank you so much Asha, as always, for your astute analysis. I find it so helpful in trying to understand the complex nuance of the law in these cases. I also much appreciate the links. I don't have TV (by choice) and it's sometimes a pain to try to access these interviews.
Asha, thanks for an informative Round Up. I especially appreciate your legal term Koo Koo for Coco puffs. 😂
When I hear or read the Trump legal arguments I am reminded of my High School debate coach. She evaluated one of my arguments as “burning time with sophomore logic”. See you Wednesday
Trump’s lawyers are grasping for straws! The actually have no case!
On an episode of Politicon's iGen Politics where Jill Wine-Banks interviews Jon Sale, Sale offers the theory that Trump's lawyers _know_ they will probably not win these cases in a court of law and that what they're saying in court is not necessarily directed at the court. That's certainly the best explanation I've heard so far, given behavior that appears to be aberrant in terms of the way lawyers would normally approach a case. (Note that Sale and Wine-Banks are both former Watergate prosecutors, so this is not a just a discussion between random bloviators)