I don't think I said he should drop immunity argument altogether. I think he's arguing for ridiculous breadth for immunity. I know somewhere in his appeal that he has said immunity is limited to "official acts." He should just go with that and then say everything he is accused of doing was an official act. But to basically say or hedge on whether killing a political rival gets immunity is just stupid and his lawyers should have figured that out before today. They will have to come up with a better answer at SCOTUS, or they will get trashed.
However the argument becomes circular. What is an "official act" and who determines that? Trump? "L'etat cest moi". That's the essence of his argument.
I believe the jury determines that, or maybe the trial judge decides some of it in a preliminary motion on evidence.
There's nothing circular about it at all. It's a legal standard and then a jury decides, based on the evidence, whether it is met or not. Court in the US do stuff like that every day.
But Trump's appeal here is about his imaginary immunity. If he drops immunity argument then this appeal is dropped and he just goes back to arguing that he did no crime.
I don't think I said he should drop immunity argument altogether. I think he's arguing for ridiculous breadth for immunity. I know somewhere in his appeal that he has said immunity is limited to "official acts." He should just go with that and then say everything he is accused of doing was an official act. But to basically say or hedge on whether killing a political rival gets immunity is just stupid and his lawyers should have figured that out before today. They will have to come up with a better answer at SCOTUS, or they will get trashed.
No, there’s no chance of the Supreme Court siding with Trump that he has immunity. All Trump and his attorneys want to do is delay the trial past the election date. If Trump wins, he could then strangle the case in a bath tub.
I read that the decision from the court could take 2 weeks, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be by the end of the week. The next step will be to appeal to the same court with all 11 judges. Hopefully, they will pass on it and kick it up to the Supreme Court.
You raise some very compelling points there, Mungo. Insightful. But what I want to know is did anyone else find it weird that Trump brought Waltine Nauta (Bathroom Boy) to the DC appeal hearing today? Why the hell was he there? That little fvcker Waltine is starting to creep me out. I think he's creeping Trump out too, which is why he's keeping him on a short leash. What do we know about this Waltine guy? It's all very, very creepy and suspicious.
However the argument becomes circular. What is an "official act" and who determines that? Trump? "L'etat cest moi". That's the essence of his argument.
I believe the jury determines that, or maybe the trial judge decides some of it in a preliminary motion on evidence.
There's nothing circular about it at all. It's a legal standard and then a jury decides, based on the evidence, whether it is met or not. Court in the US do stuff like that every day.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
I believe the jury determines that, or maybe the trial judge decides some of it in a preliminary motion on evidence.
There's nothing circular about it at all. It's a legal standard and then a jury decides, based on the evidence, whether it is met or not. Court in the US do stuff like that every day.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
The Blassingame v Trump decision last month from DC appeals court is an interesting read, concerning this stuff. Trump's lawyer Sauer did not mention Blassingame because Trump loses that one.
Scroll down a little in the story below to find link to Blassingame.
Cough and you’ll miss it. Right at the Two Minute mark in this audio recording. The words are: That would not be held as an official act. Now, other commentators are rightly observing that Dr. Sauer was flailing and dodging a...
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
The Blassingame v Trump decision last month from DC appeals court is an interesting read, concerning this stuff. Trump's lawyer Sauer did not mention Blassingame because Trump loses that one.
Scroll down a little in the story below to find link to Blassingame.
Yes, the Blassingame reference is a good one. And it's a good piece overall, even though it's precarious to rely on insight from such a post (it being tantamount to a message board post linking to a message board post or an X/tweet, etc.). I've found Daily Kos to be hit-and-miss generally, and the "contributor" (not reviewed) stuff even more so (as you'd expect), but this is solid.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
The Blassingame v Trump decision last month from DC appeals court is an interesting read, concerning this stuff. Trump's lawyer Sauer did not mention Blassingame because Trump loses that one.
Scroll down a little in the story below to find link to Blassingame.
As I thought, the Trump argument about what constitutes an "official act" is determined solely by whether he decides any given act he commits is "official". The word thus construed has no definition until he chooses what that meaning is and how it is to apply. It amounts to little more than the view taken by the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, when confronted with the fact that she has used a word that is not in accordance with the common meaning she says, "a word means what I choose it to mean". But the slip by his counsel indicates that a Court would need to find its meaning themselves, independently of the former President's view. That would require according an objective basis to its meaning and not simply be an expression of the former President's whim or choosing.
As I thought, the Trump argument about what constitutes an "official act" is determined solely by whether he decides any given act he commits is "official". The word thus construed has no definition until he chooses what that meaning is and how it is to apply. It amounts to little more than the view taken by the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, when confronted with the fact that she has used a word that is not in accordance with the common meaning she says, "a word means what I choose it to mean". But the slip by his counsel indicates that a Court would need to find its meaning themselves, independently of the former President's view. That would require according an objective basis to its meaning and not simply be an expression of the former President's whim or choosing.
Sauer did admit that selling military secrets 'would not be held as an official act', suggesting that courts do have a role in deciding what is an official act. But he stuck to his stance that a president who ordered the assassination of a political rival could not be prosecuted unless already impeached and convicted by the senate.
I believe the jury determines that, or maybe the trial judge decides some of it in a preliminary motion on evidence.
There's nothing circular about it at all. It's a legal standard and then a jury decides, based on the evidence, whether it is met or not. Court in the US do stuff like that every day.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
We're talking past each other. If the DC Appeals court or the SCOTUS determines there is presidential immunity for official acts, I believe it is the jury that determines whether the acts that Trump is accused of are within the "outer perimeter" of "official acts of president" or not. It's a factual determination (although the Judge may rule on some of it according to a pretrial motion). In jury instructions, the Judge may also spell out in slightly more detail what an "official act" is, although judges usually just recite whatever definitions, if any, that appeals courts give.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. If it is solely the opinion of a jury to determine what is "official" that is bad law and it mostly doesn't work that way. The term would require defined criteria under the law. A jury would then only decide if the facts fitted the legal definition. It is not for them to come up with a definition of what is "official".
We're talking past each other. If the DC Appeals court or the SCOTUS determines there is presidential immunity for official acts, I believe it is the jury that determines whether the acts that Trump is accused of are within the "outer perimeter" of "official acts of president" or not. It's a factual determination (although the Judge may rule on some of it according to a pretrial motion). In jury instructions, the Judge may also spell out in slightly more detail what an "official act" is, although judges usually just recite whatever definitions, if any, that appeals courts give.
I agree it's factual determination but before then there has to be a definition of what constitutes an "official act". That will be a determination of law.
As I thought, the Trump argument about what constitutes an "official act" is determined solely by whether he decides any given act he commits is "official". The word thus construed has no definition until he chooses what that meaning is and how it is to apply. It amounts to little more than the view taken by the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, when confronted with the fact that she has used a word that is not in accordance with the common meaning she says, "a word means what I choose it to mean". But the slip by his counsel indicates that a Court would need to find its meaning themselves, independently of the former President's view. That would require according an objective basis to its meaning and not simply be an expression of the former President's whim or choosing.
Sauer did admit that selling military secrets 'would not be held as an official act', suggesting that courts do have a role in deciding what is an official act. But he stuck to his stance that a president who ordered the assassination of a political rival could not be prosecuted unless already impeached and convicted by the senate.
The requirement for a prior impeachment is an appalling argument. An impeachment is a political act whereas a prosecution is not political but an expression of the law. It is his standing under the law which is at issue.
The requirement for a prior impeachment is an appalling argument. An impeachment is a political act whereas a prosecution is not political but an expression of the law. It is his standing under the law which is at issue.
Correct. If you set impeachment as a requirement before a prosecution, a President (who has the majority in the Senate and their blind support) can simply refuse to leave office (an auto-coup), not be found guilty of anything by the Senate, and then would have immunity forever, apparently.
Regardless of anyone's political affiiation, we should all admit that is crazy, unconstitutional, etc.
The requirement for a prior impeachment is an appalling argument. An impeachment is a political act whereas a prosecution is not political but an expression of the law. It is his standing under the law which is at issue.
Correct. If you set impeachment as a requirement before a prosecution, a President (who has the majority in the Senate and their blind support) can simply refuse to leave office (an auto-coup), not be found guilty of anything by the Senate, and then would have immunity forever, apparently.
Regardless of anyone's political affiiation, we should all admit that is crazy, unconstitutional, etc.
Yes, and listening to the tape from the hearing yesterday, it was apparent that Judge Pan was pulling answers from Trump's lawyer Sauer to make that point clear to everyone. As well as the point that any ruling of immunity from criminal prosecution can lead to a very dark place.
No Kings. No dictators murdering judges and political rivals. No immunity for Trump.
This is an interesting quirk. Ramaswam filed an amicus brief on behalf of Trump today in the Colorado case. It doesn't have much law, mostly just political arguments about how Trump's enemies are out to get him, and then some really goofy hypotheticals about Carter, Clinton and Obama. The only legal argument -- that the president is not an officer of the US -- seems thrown in at the end just to pretend this is an actual legal brief.
But it struck my interest as to how Ramaswam can just file a political brief like this with the Supreme Court. I understand he's a political celebrity at the moment, but how can he file a brief with the Supreme Court, especially one that just reads like a political opinion? Can anyone do that? Can LeBron James or Aaron Rodgers or Kid Rock or JFK Jr. or Rachel Maddow just file briefs whenever they want to say something? I guess I had always assumed you had to have some legal credentials to do something like this.
Some deep hypocrisy and irony in some of Trump's stuff in his Petition on the Colorado case.
"It is a ‘fundamental principle of our representative democracy,’ embodied in the Constitution, that ‘the people should choose whom they please to govern them.’" Yeah, except sometimes alternate electors and the Vice President get to choose whom they want to govern the people. Right? That's a fundamental principle of our representative democracy too.
"Not all claims are “properly suited for resolution by the courts.” Says the guy who filed over 70 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election, most of which were immediately booted precisely because they were NOT properly suited for resolution by the courts.
"The election of the President of the United States is a national matter, with national implications, that arises solely under the federal Constitution and does not implicate the inherent or retained authority of the states." HAHA! Yeah, I remember you saying that in 2020 on the phone, in court, in letters, in speeches . . . . .
Speaking of hypocrisy. Trump is arguing in Colorado that he is NOT an officer responsible for the constitution at the same time he argues that he IS an officer in his federal case and therefore deserving of full immunity.
Daily Kos (/koʊz/ KOHZ) is a group blog and internet forum focused on the U.S. Democratic Party.
So what? It links to audio recording of the hearing. Do you defend the idea that a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate judges, political rivals, prosecutors? That's what Trump's lawyer Sauer did yesterday. It is a horrific position.
Daily Kos (/koʊz/ KOHZ) is a group blog and internet forum focused on the U.S. Democratic Party.
So what? It links to audio recording of the hearing. Do you defend the idea that a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate judges, political rivals, prosecutors? That's what Trump's lawyer Sauer did yesterday. It is a horrific position.
And if your preferred news sources did NOT link to audio of the hearing and point out that Trump's lawyer argued that a president can ASSASSINATE political rivals and whoever else they may choose, then perhaps your preferred new source is hiding the truth from you about this issue central to our democracy.
