I keep asking all over Substack what rule it is that they fear will delay the trial. What determination can be made that won't depend on what the underlying facts are? Nobody I have read addresses that; they all worry that "some" such thing will happen.
Obviously, I am not talking absolute immunity here. I am talking delay, not end the trial. Nor am I talking absurd holdings that the statute has to explicitly include the president in its scope--that too would be trial-ending.
A conspiracy charge is about as rigorous as you can get by way of burden of proof. The prosecution already has to prove there is a crime, the defendant knew it was a crime, he had an intent to commit that crime, he agreed with conspirators that the crime should be committed, and someone in the conspiracy took steps to substantially further that crime--all the moving pieces are already in the indictments. Whether it was personal or believed to be within the scope of his core duties is there in the intent requirement. As far as I can tell, any restrictions short of full immunity can and should be dealt with in jury instructions.
So PLEASE someone tell me what specifically the court can require that would be appealable BEFORE trial and thus delay it. There well may be one, but I haven't on my own been able to come up with one.
The court most likely will send it back to the lower court to determine what a sitting president is immune to. This will delay the final hearing, possibly till after the election, which will be too late. This is another delay action, but this time it is the supreme court doing the delaying.
It's true after the election will be too late to influence the election. But not too late to get justice unless he wins. As is repeatedly pointed out, if he wins he can easily scuttle the charges. But if he wins, that will be the least of our problems!!!
If he wins the election, there will be no charges, he will pardon himself. The other charges in NY could still hold him accountable before the election. You are right about it would only be the least of our problems.
Well, that's pretty easy. A sitting president is not immune to prosecution for
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) or
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights [of voters])
That's what he is charged with. Whether he VIOLATED those statutes by his actions is a jury question. That's the way crimes work.
Is the Xtreme Court going to honestly say that a president is immune from breaking those laws? Except those who go with "well, if the statute doesn't SAY president" bit.
Judge C could also say something like:
"The president is not immune to murder charges for strangling his wife, or for charges he cheated on his income tax, or for a charge of DUI, or for posting pedophilia on the internet. Since we have not been presented with allegations that he has done those things, we do not have to address whether there is evidence to support such allegation. I cite them only as examples of statutes that could be violated which do not explicitly include the president as a defendant. If the president can convince a jury that he did the various acts alleged to have resulted in those violations as part of his official powers and duties as president, he can claim immunity for them and the jury will be so instructed."
Both sides have gone off on a tangent by focusing on ACTS and whether or not they are official. What matters is whether they were done in accord with his official POWERS AND DUTIES.
You have to realize, one of the judges' wife was involved in J6, he also took money and trips from possible defendants, and he will not recuse himself from the case.
Clarence Thomas is the one who is taking the goods, his wife is the one who was involved in on J6. There are Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court, Biden wants to add 2 more.
Glad I watched you and Renato yesterday so I could dive into some of the other goodies today. I even find myself actually reading Kavanaugh’s scholarly article. Wonder whether he’s reviewed it lately?
Thanks for articulating so clearly for us non-laywers how coo-coo-pants TFG's arguments are for presidential immunity.
I'm skeptical that even most of his team believes these, they're just throwing stuff on every court wall for delay. And I hope someday there could be sanctions against his lawyers if they are indeed this disingenuous in their arguments.
We all think about this claimed presidential 'immunity' in terms of Trump's past abuses or potential future ones - it is after all his claim. But it's worth remembering for a moment that Joe Biden is currently the president. The justices could well have asked Trump's lawyer: "So your position is that if President Biden felt that a political rival, say your client, was a grave threat to democracy, he could have him assassinated and possibly be immune from prosecution, correct?"
Yeah, I thought same. I’ve been worried that they may find a way to give Trump a pass but also state that the ruling should not be considered precedent…. as they did in Bush v Gore. I doubt they would want to give Biden a SCOTUS blessed roadmap to Biden…..a roadmap that has a Get Out if Jail Free card at the end of it.
I think we can assume the play is to delay Trump’s trial till after the election for whatever specious reasons they choose,6 knowing that they are unanswerable and unremovable. Imperial presidency? We have an imperial SCOTUS in absolute control of the fate of our nation and no one can do or will do a damn thing about them.
Do we have any way to register our disgust with the Supreme Court? I mean, do they allow public comments on their website? Most of us can’t go to DC to protest.
If trump gets immunity, then Biden will have it too, so trump might want to rethink it. If they say he has immunity, then the judicial system is going to fail, because most people will be against them, not much we could do, because the POTUS is the one who puts them in there, but it will hurt the republicans the most.
"College Protests Over Gaza Deepen Democratic Rifts
Scenes of chaos unfolding on campuses across the country are stoking internal divisions and carry political risk as a major election year unfolds." - NY Times, April 28.
Maybe I am getting paranoid in my senior years but I cannot help thinking that the emotional turmoil associated with these demonstrations bears the faint odor of a republican operation. This will certainly split the Democrats and some might sit out the election rather than vote for Biden. Certainly the "ovation effect" is in play, but these seem a bit too organized. Anyone else noting this?
It’s not a mutually exclusive description in my humble opinion. It’s a hush-money and fraudulently trying to influence the outcome of a United States Presidential Election. The two co exist.
I caught part of the immunity hearing. Family kept wanting me to turn it off because the voice of Trump’s attorney was grating on their nerves. From what I did hear it seemed like everybody was just haggling on how much crazy we’re going to accept as the new normal.
I guess I get to go back to working this weekend on the family’s bolthole plans. This American Life is getting way too weird.
Well, he did have his fingers crossed when he took the Oath-of-Office. Didn't anyone notice? Case Closed. Also, I declare we're all now immune from everything based on the writ of "The President, once being a human who was a law-abiding citizen of his country, and held to obedience to laws of that country, has declared all humans to be immune from laws, so help me Bizarro World." Have at it. Amen.
I couldn’t agree more, Asha. Trump has turned Supreme Court Justices into trump errand boys. When we have lost the Rule of Law (as you once defined it to mean when parties opposing each other agree to go to court with both parties realizing one will win, one will lose, and both agree to non violence no matter the outcome) the system is corrupted. As I read your article and heard other subject matter experts also comment, the rank hypocrisy several Justices are guilty of is astounding to me. But maybe because I am not an attorney. Just an outsider. Shakespeare writes about the “insolence of office” and how timeless he is. It’s breathtaking and it reminds me of when Robert McFarlane testified at the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 and was asked about his judgement in making some of his decisions and he opened by saying “It was in a White House atmosphere where up was down, and down was up…”
Mar a Lago- The SCOTUS Immunity case seemed to have an agreement that there is no immunity for private acts. Since the MAL indictment was for acts after his presidency (starting at the subpoena) can we feel confident that Judge Cannon is foreclosed on using the issue to justify further delays?
I keep asking all over Substack what rule it is that they fear will delay the trial. What determination can be made that won't depend on what the underlying facts are? Nobody I have read addresses that; they all worry that "some" such thing will happen.
Obviously, I am not talking absolute immunity here. I am talking delay, not end the trial. Nor am I talking absurd holdings that the statute has to explicitly include the president in its scope--that too would be trial-ending.
A conspiracy charge is about as rigorous as you can get by way of burden of proof. The prosecution already has to prove there is a crime, the defendant knew it was a crime, he had an intent to commit that crime, he agreed with conspirators that the crime should be committed, and someone in the conspiracy took steps to substantially further that crime--all the moving pieces are already in the indictments. Whether it was personal or believed to be within the scope of his core duties is there in the intent requirement. As far as I can tell, any restrictions short of full immunity can and should be dealt with in jury instructions.
So PLEASE someone tell me what specifically the court can require that would be appealable BEFORE trial and thus delay it. There well may be one, but I haven't on my own been able to come up with one.
The court most likely will send it back to the lower court to determine what a sitting president is immune to. This will delay the final hearing, possibly till after the election, which will be too late. This is another delay action, but this time it is the supreme court doing the delaying.
It's true after the election will be too late to influence the election. But not too late to get justice unless he wins. As is repeatedly pointed out, if he wins he can easily scuttle the charges. But if he wins, that will be the least of our problems!!!
If he wins the election, there will be no charges, he will pardon himself. The other charges in NY could still hold him accountable before the election. You are right about it would only be the least of our problems.
Well, that's pretty easy. A sitting president is not immune to prosecution for
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) or
---Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights [of voters])
That's what he is charged with. Whether he VIOLATED those statutes by his actions is a jury question. That's the way crimes work.
Is the Xtreme Court going to honestly say that a president is immune from breaking those laws? Except those who go with "well, if the statute doesn't SAY president" bit.
Judge C could also say something like:
"The president is not immune to murder charges for strangling his wife, or for charges he cheated on his income tax, or for a charge of DUI, or for posting pedophilia on the internet. Since we have not been presented with allegations that he has done those things, we do not have to address whether there is evidence to support such allegation. I cite them only as examples of statutes that could be violated which do not explicitly include the president as a defendant. If the president can convince a jury that he did the various acts alleged to have resulted in those violations as part of his official powers and duties as president, he can claim immunity for them and the jury will be so instructed."
Both sides have gone off on a tangent by focusing on ACTS and whether or not they are official. What matters is whether they were done in accord with his official POWERS AND DUTIES.
You have to realize, one of the judges' wife was involved in J6, he also took money and trips from possible defendants, and he will not recuse himself from the case.
well, of course. Alito may think that is cool. I rather doubt the other 7 do.
Clarence Thomas is the one who is taking the goods, his wife is the one who was involved in on J6. There are Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court, Biden wants to add 2 more.
I know who is taking the goods. And I suspect one justice is just OK with that. Not sure about the other 7. 7+2 = 9
Glad I watched you and Renato yesterday so I could dive into some of the other goodies today. I even find myself actually reading Kavanaugh’s scholarly article. Wonder whether he’s reviewed it lately?
Thanks for articulating so clearly for us non-laywers how coo-coo-pants TFG's arguments are for presidential immunity.
I'm skeptical that even most of his team believes these, they're just throwing stuff on every court wall for delay. And I hope someday there could be sanctions against his lawyers if they are indeed this disingenuous in their arguments.
We all think about this claimed presidential 'immunity' in terms of Trump's past abuses or potential future ones - it is after all his claim. But it's worth remembering for a moment that Joe Biden is currently the president. The justices could well have asked Trump's lawyer: "So your position is that if President Biden felt that a political rival, say your client, was a grave threat to democracy, he could have him assassinated and possibly be immune from prosecution, correct?"
Yeah, I thought same. I’ve been worried that they may find a way to give Trump a pass but also state that the ruling should not be considered precedent…. as they did in Bush v Gore. I doubt they would want to give Biden a SCOTUS blessed roadmap to Biden…..a roadmap that has a Get Out if Jail Free card at the end of it.
I think we can assume the play is to delay Trump’s trial till after the election for whatever specious reasons they choose,6 knowing that they are unanswerable and unremovable. Imperial presidency? We have an imperial SCOTUS in absolute control of the fate of our nation and no one can do or will do a damn thing about them.
Do we have any way to register our disgust with the Supreme Court? I mean, do they allow public comments on their website? Most of us can’t go to DC to protest.
If trump gets immunity, then Biden will have it too, so trump might want to rethink it. If they say he has immunity, then the judicial system is going to fail, because most people will be against them, not much we could do, because the POTUS is the one who puts them in there, but it will hurt the republicans the most.
"College Protests Over Gaza Deepen Democratic Rifts
Scenes of chaos unfolding on campuses across the country are stoking internal divisions and carry political risk as a major election year unfolds." - NY Times, April 28.
Maybe I am getting paranoid in my senior years but I cannot help thinking that the emotional turmoil associated with these demonstrations bears the faint odor of a republican operation. This will certainly split the Democrats and some might sit out the election rather than vote for Biden. Certainly the "ovation effect" is in play, but these seem a bit too organized. Anyone else noting this?
Yes!!!!!
Stop calling it a hush money case. It is a case of fradulently trying to undermine an election.
It’s not a mutually exclusive description in my humble opinion. It’s a hush-money and fraudulently trying to influence the outcome of a United States Presidential Election. The two co exist.
Hush money nonsense is for the peerless in vacuous idiocy!
Thanks for outlining such clear possible outcomes!
That must have been some Zoom call yesterday.
I caught part of the immunity hearing. Family kept wanting me to turn it off because the voice of Trump’s attorney was grating on their nerves. From what I did hear it seemed like everybody was just haggling on how much crazy we’re going to accept as the new normal.
I guess I get to go back to working this weekend on the family’s bolthole plans. This American Life is getting way too weird.
Well, he did have his fingers crossed when he took the Oath-of-Office. Didn't anyone notice? Case Closed. Also, I declare we're all now immune from everything based on the writ of "The President, once being a human who was a law-abiding citizen of his country, and held to obedience to laws of that country, has declared all humans to be immune from laws, so help me Bizarro World." Have at it. Amen.
I couldn’t agree more, Asha. Trump has turned Supreme Court Justices into trump errand boys. When we have lost the Rule of Law (as you once defined it to mean when parties opposing each other agree to go to court with both parties realizing one will win, one will lose, and both agree to non violence no matter the outcome) the system is corrupted. As I read your article and heard other subject matter experts also comment, the rank hypocrisy several Justices are guilty of is astounding to me. But maybe because I am not an attorney. Just an outsider. Shakespeare writes about the “insolence of office” and how timeless he is. It’s breathtaking and it reminds me of when Robert McFarlane testified at the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 and was asked about his judgement in making some of his decisions and he opened by saying “It was in a White House atmosphere where up was down, and down was up…”
Mar a Lago- The SCOTUS Immunity case seemed to have an agreement that there is no immunity for private acts. Since the MAL indictment was for acts after his presidency (starting at the subpoena) can we feel confident that Judge Cannon is foreclosed on using the issue to justify further delays?