I always appreciate people who put a lot of thought into their posts, even though I strongly disagree with a lot of what you said. In summary, this case is not about whether the President is "above the law" or immune from prosecution. It says two things: 1) there is a difference between "official" acts as President and "unofficial" acts, and 2) for "official acts," the President has absolute immunity. Then, it says the case must return to the lower courts to settle the matter for unofficials acts (including ones that may be seen as "official," such as commication with the Vice President).
Actually, I think they held that there are (1) core official acts (“core Constitutional powers”) which have absolute immunity, and then (2) there are official acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility which are presumptively immune, and then (3) there are unofficial acts. The remand is to the trial court on the last two categories. The presumptive immunity seems like irrebuttable immunity to me as the test is whether prosecution “would pose no danger on the authority or functions of the Executive Branch.” The test seems deliberately guaranteed to provide immunity for all official acts.
Anyway, I believe I said I understand why there is presidential immunity, but it was the special exclusionary evidentiary rules that the Court conjured up just for Trump to exclude massive amounts of evidence (which will kill the case) that showed improper bias. Where did that even come from? Totally fabricated judicial activism.
You wrote that Trump has a "history of crimes and criminal behavior." And I will concede that Trump has been convicted of certain crimes...which unfortunately undermines the very premise that the Court just gave Trump a blank check to take out Biden with Seal Team Six. How is possible for Trump to be tried and convicted? It's in the decision: those convictions were for unoffial acts (or those that pre-ceeded his Presidency). Your statement is biased and prejudicial, but you are allowed to make it as as American. Please remember that Trump has a right to appeal those convictions...and you have the right not to recognize their reversal, if it happens. But the final outcome matters.
With respect to criminality, I was referring to Trump’s behavior in the Florida Bathroom case and in this Fake Electors case. I don’t need a conviction to have an opinion that someone is behaving like a criminal or is a criminal.
In the Florida Bathroom case, I don’t see how any reasonable person can conclude otherwise as to Trump – he took Classified Documents from the White House when he became a civilian (very likely knowingly did so), he knowingly kept the Classified Documents at an unsecured location without any authorization to do so, he blatantly lied to investigating federal agencies about possessing the Classified documents, he had his attorney submit a false affidavit regarding his possession of the Classified Documents, he tried to get his other attorneys to bless his criminal scheme for keeping Classified Documents and, when he was in the process of getting busted for those felonies, he intentionally tried to destroy evidence (and I’ll bet he engaged in witness tampering too). We all know all of that. Trump is a serious criminal.
You write that the Constitution has no clause concerning Presidential immunity. You are correct. But if you read the decision, you'll find Roberts making his case plainly: there is legal precedent to lay the foundation for this ruling and, more bluntly: Again, that's *from* the decision. We get the concept from Marbury v Madison, which is peppered liberally in the ruling.
I agree that Courts can find rights outside the express text of the Constitution. I was more taking a jab at those who start every discussion of the Establishment Clause with what is now a cliched slogan: “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the First Amendment.” Judge Thomas is actually someone who does that. It’s an invalid criticism as you point out and it is quite hypocritical at the moment when “presidential immunity” was just discovered – and as you also pointed out, it was discovered buried in another concept that is ALSO not expressed in the Constitution. That’s some super-activist judge work there. Like I said, if you try hard enough, you can find anything you want in the Constitution.
Listen, I'm honestly surprised at the outcome. Trump doesn't need a win here to get the outcome he wants, because the case won't go to trial before the election. Roberts *hates* issuing rulings that have a whiff of politics to them (that's why he upheld Obamacare, calling it a "tax," when betting markets had the odds over 90% that it would be ruled unconstitutional; ahem...infuriating conservatives with his ruling).
Don’t kid yourself. There’s no guarantee Trump will win the election, even after Biden’s debate fiasco. Trump is not thinking that way. He needs the case dismissed, not just delayed. I agree Roberts is a good judge who has displayed an ability to be objective and faithful to the law no matter what the outcome, but in this instance he went out of his way to effectively kill the case against Trump here. The reason Roberts wrote the opinion, and not Alito, is because Roberts can more subtly pull it off (as you pointed out), whereas Alto has lost any ability to even pretend to appear objective.
You see spots of him hating the politics of it in the ruling itself; it's the only ruling I've ever read that makes reference to the dissents in the body of the ruling.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something or misunderstanding you, majority opinions address the dissents all the time. I would guess 90% of the time they address the dissenting opinions in the majority opinion.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the media is way off on the ruling. The media is terrible when it comes to legal reporting – they routinely don’t understand what was decided, routinely highlight things of little consequence, and routinely miss things that matter. They aren't the only ones. In other threads here, few seem to grasp that it is the new special evidentiary rules that the SCOTUS created -- the SCOTUS seemed to heap scorn ("prosaic tools") on the evidentiary rules everyone else has to follow -- that have the biggest impact here, and the Constitutional support for inventing those rules or even announcing those rules is minimal. You can't help but think the SCOTUS went out of its way to skewer the case in Trump's favor.
I’ve considered the viewpoint that these cases are politically motivated. I’ve never seen anyone attach any facts or decent argument to that viewpoint. But I have considered that viewpoint and I don’t see it happening to any extent that matters. With respect to the Florida Bathroom case, there is not a prosecutor in America who would not have filed charges. The facts compel them to. It would be a politically motivated act not to file charges. The guy stole Classified Documents, then lied and obstructed the investigation into their return.
On this Fake Electors case, again, how could someone not pursue prosecution? No prosecutor was going to know the contours of this presidential immunity when filing charges. Trump engaged in a complicated conspiracy to overturn the election with several others who have since pled guilty. The guilty pleas alone show the validity of the prosecution. If anyone else did exactly what Trump did, would you honestly be opposed to filing charges? What about if Biden hands Harris a bunch of fake elector certificates to count next January (unlike Pence, she will probably do what she’s told) – you think anyone charging him down the road is just being politically motivated?
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
Throughout the oral arguments the majority tried to make it appear that their entire motivation for making a "ruling for the ages" was their deep concern for rogue prosecutors putting a President in prison. Even Biden.
Yet, there is no evidence of Rogue Prosecutors putting President's in jail. And there are a boatload of guardrails that would make that nearly impossible without true crimes being committed. Such as prosecutable Evidence. Grand Jury. (see Andy McCabe and Durham grand jury failures). A jury of peers trial. Instead there is plenty of evidence of a Rogue President abusing their power. That is where the true danger is.
You are being dishonest when you claim Trump did not do the things he is charged with and instead it is just a political attack. That is why you avoid the first part of that sentence. Nobody claims that Trump did not do exactly what he is charged with. Instead, the gaslighting is simply that he shouldn't have been charged and that takes the discussion away from the awful and criminal conduct that Trump engaged in.
The bias of SCOTUS can be seen in the fact that they provided clear examples of Presidential acts that Trump is immune for. And those are some of the most damning and damaging evidence to convict Trump. They show his intent which is vital for a conviction. Yet, the SCOTUS did not provide any examples of Private acts that would not be immune. Instead they sent that back down to the lower court to hammer out for years and then they will ultimately wind up ruling on those after it gets appealed.
When did I claim that Trump never did the things people allege he did? The term "gaslighting" has been so overused it is meaningless. But, for the record, it does *not* mean, "making assertion I disagree with," nor does it mean, "telling me I'm wrong."
I tried to outline what I thought happened behind the scenes for the very reason that Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to Court's decisions to be political. You have disregard most of my claims, sensed strong opposition where it isn't present, and are currently lecturing me on topics that I didn't even comment on.
Have you read the ruling? It is "yes/no" question. Answer to yourself, please. And if the answer is "no," then please read it and see how your own claims stack up.
I always appreciate people who put a lot of thought into their posts, even though I strongly disagree with a lot of what you said. In summary, this case is not about whether the President is "above the law" or immune from prosecution. It says two things: 1) there is a difference between "official" acts as President and "unofficial" acts, and 2) for "official acts," the President has absolute immunity. Then, it says the case must return to the lower courts to settle the matter for unofficials acts (including ones that may be seen as "official," such as commication with the Vice President).
Actually, I think they held that there are (1) core official acts (“core Constitutional powers”) which have absolute immunity, and then (2) there are official acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility which are presumptively immune, and then (3) there are unofficial acts. The remand is to the trial court on the last two categories. The presumptive immunity seems like irrebuttable immunity to me as the test is whether prosecution “would pose no danger on the authority or functions of the Executive Branch.” The test seems deliberately guaranteed to provide immunity for all official acts.
Anyway, I believe I said I understand why there is presidential immunity, but it was the special exclusionary evidentiary rules that the Court conjured up just for Trump to exclude massive amounts of evidence (which will kill the case) that showed improper bias. Where did that even come from? Totally fabricated judicial activism.
You wrote that Trump has a "history of crimes and criminal behavior." And I will concede that Trump has been convicted of certain crimes...which unfortunately undermines the very premise that the Court just gave Trump a blank check to take out Biden with Seal Team Six. How is possible for Trump to be tried and convicted? It's in the decision: those convictions were for unoffial acts (or those that pre-ceeded his Presidency). Your statement is biased and prejudicial, but you are allowed to make it as as American. Please remember that Trump has a right to appeal those convictions...and you have the right not to recognize their reversal, if it happens. But the final outcome matters.
With respect to criminality, I was referring to Trump’s behavior in the Florida Bathroom case and in this Fake Electors case. I don’t need a conviction to have an opinion that someone is behaving like a criminal or is a criminal.
In the Florida Bathroom case, I don’t see how any reasonable person can conclude otherwise as to Trump – he took Classified Documents from the White House when he became a civilian (very likely knowingly did so), he knowingly kept the Classified Documents at an unsecured location without any authorization to do so, he blatantly lied to investigating federal agencies about possessing the Classified documents, he had his attorney submit a false affidavit regarding his possession of the Classified Documents, he tried to get his other attorneys to bless his criminal scheme for keeping Classified Documents and, when he was in the process of getting busted for those felonies, he intentionally tried to destroy evidence (and I’ll bet he engaged in witness tampering too). We all know all of that. Trump is a serious criminal.
You write that the Constitution has no clause concerning Presidential immunity. You are correct. But if you read the decision, you'll find Roberts making his case plainly: there is legal precedent to lay the foundation for this ruling and, more bluntly: Again, that's *from* the decision. We get the concept from Marbury v Madison, which is peppered liberally in the ruling.
I agree that Courts can find rights outside the express text of the Constitution. I was more taking a jab at those who start every discussion of the Establishment Clause with what is now a cliched slogan: “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the First Amendment.” Judge Thomas is actually someone who does that. It’s an invalid criticism as you point out and it is quite hypocritical at the moment when “presidential immunity” was just discovered – and as you also pointed out, it was discovered buried in another concept that is ALSO not expressed in the Constitution. That’s some super-activist judge work there. Like I said, if you try hard enough, you can find anything you want in the Constitution.
Listen, I'm honestly surprised at the outcome. Trump doesn't need a win here to get the outcome he wants, because the case won't go to trial before the election. Roberts *hates* issuing rulings that have a whiff of politics to them (that's why he upheld Obamacare, calling it a "tax," when betting markets had the odds over 90% that it would be ruled unconstitutional; ahem...infuriating conservatives with his ruling).
Don’t kid yourself. There’s no guarantee Trump will win the election, even after Biden’s debate fiasco. Trump is not thinking that way. He needs the case dismissed, not just delayed. I agree Roberts is a good judge who has displayed an ability to be objective and faithful to the law no matter what the outcome, but in this instance he went out of his way to effectively kill the case against Trump here. The reason Roberts wrote the opinion, and not Alito, is because Roberts can more subtly pull it off (as you pointed out), whereas Alto has lost any ability to even pretend to appear objective.
You see spots of him hating the politics of it in the ruling itself; it's the only ruling I've ever read that makes reference to the dissents in the body of the ruling.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something or misunderstanding you, majority opinions address the dissents all the time. I would guess 90% of the time they address the dissenting opinions in the majority opinion.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the media is way off on the ruling. The media is terrible when it comes to legal reporting – they routinely don’t understand what was decided, routinely highlight things of little consequence, and routinely miss things that matter. They aren't the only ones. In other threads here, few seem to grasp that it is the new special evidentiary rules that the SCOTUS created -- the SCOTUS seemed to heap scorn ("prosaic tools") on the evidentiary rules everyone else has to follow -- that have the biggest impact here, and the Constitutional support for inventing those rules or even announcing those rules is minimal. You can't help but think the SCOTUS went out of its way to skewer the case in Trump's favor.
I’ve considered the viewpoint that these cases are politically motivated. I’ve never seen anyone attach any facts or decent argument to that viewpoint. But I have considered that viewpoint and I don’t see it happening to any extent that matters. With respect to the Florida Bathroom case, there is not a prosecutor in America who would not have filed charges. The facts compel them to. It would be a politically motivated act not to file charges. The guy stole Classified Documents, then lied and obstructed the investigation into their return.
On this Fake Electors case, again, how could someone not pursue prosecution? No prosecutor was going to know the contours of this presidential immunity when filing charges. Trump engaged in a complicated conspiracy to overturn the election with several others who have since pled guilty. The guilty pleas alone show the validity of the prosecution. If anyone else did exactly what Trump did, would you honestly be opposed to filing charges? What about if Biden hands Harris a bunch of fake elector certificates to count next January (unlike Pence, she will probably do what she’s told) – you think anyone charging him down the road is just being politically motivated?
Cheers.
I haven't read your entire post...but simply want to marvel at the thought you put into it. You wouldn't be the person who linked the podcast after Rahimi, by any chance, would you? If you are...could you share the title of that podcast again? Most political podcasts are hot garbage warmed over for an audience to hear what it wants. That one did an amazing job of explaining SCOTUS in terms an eighth grader could understand.
Edit: Read your post. Thank you for the civility. Even if we disagree on some points, I'm impressed. I also think that Roberts ruling was extremely tepid, except for him calling out the dissents. I'm really hoping whoever did the Rahimi podcast does one in this case and someone links it.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Actually, I think they held that there are (1) core official acts (“core Constitutional powers”) which have absolute immunity, and then (2) there are official acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility which are presumptively immune, and then (3) there are unofficial acts. The remand is to the trial court on the last two categories. The presumptive immunity seems like irrebuttable immunity to me as the test is whether prosecution “would pose no danger on the authority or functions of the Executive Branch.” The test seems deliberately guaranteed to provide immunity for all official acts.
Anyway, I believe I said I understand why there is presidential immunity, but it was the special exclusionary evidentiary rules that the Court conjured up just for Trump to exclude massive amounts of evidence (which will kill the case) that showed improper bias. Where did that even come from? Totally fabricated judicial activism.
With respect to criminality, I was referring to Trump’s behavior in the Florida Bathroom case and in this Fake Electors case. I don’t need a conviction to have an opinion that someone is behaving like a criminal or is a criminal.
In the Florida Bathroom case, I don’t see how any reasonable person can conclude otherwise as to Trump – he took Classified Documents from the White House when he became a civilian (very likely knowingly did so), he knowingly kept the Classified Documents at an unsecured location without any authorization to do so, he blatantly lied to investigating federal agencies about possessing the Classified documents, he had his attorney submit a false affidavit regarding his possession of the Classified Documents, he tried to get his other attorneys to bless his criminal scheme for keeping Classified Documents and, when he was in the process of getting busted for those felonies, he intentionally tried to destroy evidence (and I’ll bet he engaged in witness tampering too). We all know all of that. Trump is a serious criminal.
I agree that Courts can find rights outside the express text of the Constitution. I was more taking a jab at those who start every discussion of the Establishment Clause with what is now a cliched slogan: “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the First Amendment.” Judge Thomas is actually someone who does that. It’s an invalid criticism as you point out and it is quite hypocritical at the moment when “presidential immunity” was just discovered – and as you also pointed out, it was discovered buried in another concept that is ALSO not expressed in the Constitution. That’s some super-activist judge work there. Like I said, if you try hard enough, you can find anything you want in the Constitution.
Don’t kid yourself. There’s no guarantee Trump will win the election, even after Biden’s debate fiasco. Trump is not thinking that way. He needs the case dismissed, not just delayed. I agree Roberts is a good judge who has displayed an ability to be objective and faithful to the law no matter what the outcome, but in this instance he went out of his way to effectively kill the case against Trump here. The reason Roberts wrote the opinion, and not Alito, is because Roberts can more subtly pull it off (as you pointed out), whereas Alto has lost any ability to even pretend to appear objective.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something or misunderstanding you, majority opinions address the dissents all the time. I would guess 90% of the time they address the dissenting opinions in the majority opinion.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the media is way off on the ruling. The media is terrible when it comes to legal reporting – they routinely don’t understand what was decided, routinely highlight things of little consequence, and routinely miss things that matter. They aren't the only ones. In other threads here, few seem to grasp that it is the new special evidentiary rules that the SCOTUS created -- the SCOTUS seemed to heap scorn ("prosaic tools") on the evidentiary rules everyone else has to follow -- that have the biggest impact here, and the Constitutional support for inventing those rules or even announcing those rules is minimal. You can't help but think the SCOTUS went out of its way to skewer the case in Trump's favor.
I’ve considered the viewpoint that these cases are politically motivated. I’ve never seen anyone attach any facts or decent argument to that viewpoint. But I have considered that viewpoint and I don’t see it happening to any extent that matters. With respect to the Florida Bathroom case, there is not a prosecutor in America who would not have filed charges. The facts compel them to. It would be a politically motivated act not to file charges. The guy stole Classified Documents, then lied and obstructed the investigation into their return.
On this Fake Electors case, again, how could someone not pursue prosecution? No prosecutor was going to know the contours of this presidential immunity when filing charges. Trump engaged in a complicated conspiracy to overturn the election with several others who have since pled guilty. The guilty pleas alone show the validity of the prosecution. If anyone else did exactly what Trump did, would you honestly be opposed to filing charges? What about if Biden hands Harris a bunch of fake elector certificates to count next January (unlike Pence, she will probably do what she’s told) – you think anyone charging him down the road is just being politically motivated?
Cheers.
I haven't read your entire post...but simply want to marvel at the thought you put into it. You wouldn't be the person who linked the podcast after Rahimi, by any chance, would you? If you are...could you share the title of that podcast again? Most political podcasts are hot garbage warmed over for an audience to hear what it wants. That one did an amazing job of explaining SCOTUS in terms an eighth grader could understand.
Edit: Read your post. Thank you for the civility. Even if we disagree on some points, I'm impressed. I also think that Roberts ruling was extremely tepid, except for him calling out the dissents. I'm really hoping whoever did the Rahimi podcast does one in this case and someone links it.
Wasn't me. I don't have much interest in Second Amendment issues. I get drunk on weekends and shoot off guns in my backyard.
Huge far-reaching effects. In the Hooker-Porn case, Judge Merchan is postponing sentencing to allow briefing on vacating the verdict under the SCOTUS Trump case. Note that Merchan even suggested that there may be no sentencing necessary at all.
I think Blanche and geekman Bove are correct in that even in a state case regarding Trump's pre-president crimes, evidence of any of his wide-ranging "official acts" is inadmissible. Are calls he makes to his co-conspirators from the White House official acts? Arguably so. Certainly any motive or intent he had in making the calls or what he expressed on the calls is inadmissible as of yesterday's SCOTUS ruling.
What standard would Merchan be using in determining whether to vacate the verdict? Seems like he would have to balance the harm/prejudice from inadmissible evidence with the judicial interest in finality and preserving a jury's work. Whatever standard he uses, the Supreme Court will absolutely review this, and I'd bet they would categorically say that any trial that admits evidence of an official act or motive, no matter how little, is a violation of his Trump's new immunity rights.
I'm sure this carries over to the Bathroom case as well. Blanche will probably be moving for additional briefing on presidential immunity (they already briefed this months ago, but of course it has not been decided yet) and probably move for another fvcking all-day hearing, which will assuredly be granted. The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday is looking more and more like a MASSIVE dispositive victory for Trump, the extent to which we are going to continue to find out.
And yes, Biden's lawyers and advisors should really be looking at this ruling continuously in planning what to do for the next 5 months. There's a lot of room to maneuver and strategize here.
And it now is carrying over the bathroom case. Judge Cannon hustles up and, on a Saturday and one day after files a motion to stay, issues a partial stay on a bunch of key deadlines and agrees to hear more briefing on immunity as it affects classified documents in Trump's bathroom. Cannon is on top of this stuff!
The SCOTUS went bananas in the presidential immunity case. You just can't help but see the huge overreach of the opinion as the SCOTUS majority trying to protect Trump, the law be damned. They had to know it was extend to Trump's hookers and his bathroom. Excluding all evidence of Trump's motives in any case ever? GTFO.
I can see Cannon dismissing this entire Bathroom case despite all of the crimes being committed after Trump's presidency ended. According to the SCOTUS, the issue is whether handling, reviewing or characterizing documents is part of a President's job -- which, of course, it is -- and any issues about whether he did so legally are irrelevant and any evidence he did so illegally is largely excluded (motive, communications with others, etc.). I think the SCOTUS was actually banking on the fact that no other president will ever behave like Trump did, so they felt safe issuing this insanely overbroad ruling which immunizes a president for everything - yes, including trying to overturn an election by submitting fake certificates or seizing voting machines or threatening bogus lawsuits, etc. That is clearly immunized now, but SCOTUS believes no President going forward will ever do it. Very disappointing.
Why did Trump call Jeffery Epstein to schedule massages?
It doesn't matter why. You can't inquire as to Trump's motives for doing anything. Furthermore, scheduling massages is presumptively immune from prosecution. Have you been paying attention at all, ya whackadoo?
And it now is carrying over the bathroom case. Judge Cannon hustles up and, on a Saturday and one day after files a motion to stay, issues a partial stay on a bunch of key deadlines and agrees to hear more briefing on immunity as it affects classified documents in Trump's bathroom. Cannon is on top of this stuff!
The SCOTUS went bananas in the presidential immunity case. You just can't help but see the huge overreach of the opinion as the SCOTUS majority trying to protect Trump, the law be damned. They had to know it was extend to Trump's hookers and his bathroom. Excluding all evidence of Trump's motives in any case ever? GTFO.
I can see Cannon dismissing this entire Bathroom case despite all of the crimes being committed after Trump's presidency ended. According to the SCOTUS, the issue is whether handling, reviewing or characterizing documents is part of a President's job -- which, of course, it is -- and any issues about whether he did so legally are irrelevant and any evidence he did so illegally is largely excluded (motive, communications with others, etc.). I think the SCOTUS was actually banking on the fact that no other president will ever behave like Trump did, so they felt safe issuing this insanely overbroad ruling which immunizes a president for everything - yes, including trying to overturn an election by submitting fake certificates or seizing voting machines or threatening bogus lawsuits, etc. That is clearly immunized now, but SCOTUS believes no President going forward will ever do it. Very disappointing.
The fact that the SCOTUS made the ruling that no evidence could ever be admitted or used on an official act is a huge Tell on what they were doing. Trying to spring Trump on all his cases.
It was crafted out of thin air based on nothing. There is a boatload of precedent that constitutionally protected actions can be used in criminal cases.
For example, you have a first amendment right to say racist hate speech. But if you go shoot up a black church that hate speech is admissible as evidence! It can even cause a harsher sentence even though it’s constitutionally protected.
Here is an important point about this Presidential Immunity ruling;
Some are saying “Why doesn’t Joe Biden just do this or just do that”? Like cancelling or postponing the election. Or taking actions to ensure he wins the election through orders. Like signing an executive order that a felon can’t serve as President. Well, none of those are criminal acts. All of those actions would be overturned legally. This ruling by SCOTUS will only benefit a Criminal President that uses the entrapments of the office to commit crimes. It was a gift custom tailored to a Criminal President and only a Criminal President. It was not a ruling for the ages. Because any future gray area would be determined on a case by case basis by the courts. (Enormous Power Grab from Congress)
It was written for Trump exclusively to get out of all of his cases. Even Justice Thomas throws in a piece about the Special Counsel’s legality! That wasn't an issue that was even before the court. The government had no chance to address that. Why are you commenting on something not brought before the Supreme Court? Yet Thomas gave a roadmap to Cannon to dismiss her case.
It was written for Trump exclusively to get out of all of his cases. Even Justice Thomas throws in a piece about the Special Counsel’s legality! That wasn't an issue that was even before the court. The government had no chance to address that. Why are you commenting on something not brought before the Supreme Court? Yet Thomas gave a roadmap to Cannon to dismiss her case.
I think Thomas was signaling to Cannon that he thinks he has the votes to affirm any ruling she makes on illegality of a special counsel. I doubt he does, but he's telling Cannon to go for it. And she will.
Otherwise, yes, it was a very odd tangent/non sequitur in an opinion about presidential immunity (which he never said a word on). Thomas is not even trying to hide his agenda on all this. Again, very disappointing to see Supremes acting like this. From Alito (and often Sotomayor), you can expect that behavior - the rest of them should know better and usually do. WTF hold does Trump have over so many people in this country? He's a compulsive lying criminal and a massive elitest. The whole MAG@ thing is currently the world's largest non-religious cult. I'll never understand what people see in it.
It was written for Trump exclusively to get out of all of his cases. Even Justice Thomas throws in a piece about the Special Counsel’s legality! That wasn't an issue that was even before the court. The government had no chance to address that. Why are you commenting on something not brought before the Supreme Court? Yet Thomas gave a roadmap to Cannon to dismiss her case.
I think Thomas was signaling to Cannon that he thinks he has the votes to affirm any ruling she makes on illegality of a special counsel. I doubt he does, but he's telling Cannon to go for it. And she will.
Otherwise, yes, it was a very odd tangent/non sequitur in an opinion about presidential immunity (which he never said a word on). Thomas is not even trying to hide his agenda on all this. Again, very disappointing to see Supremes acting like this. From Alito (and often Sotomayor), you can expect that behavior - the rest of them should know better and usually do. WTF hold does Trump have over so many people in this country? He's a compulsive lying criminal and a massive elitest. The whole MAG@ thing is currently the world's largest non-religious cult. I'll never understand what people see in it.
It's dense material to read and I'm sure most people refrained from reading all the briefing closely until now. It will take a few reads to understand what Cannon is saying when she basically strikes down at least 25 years (and probably 150 years) of Special Counsels.
Two things seem to stick out: (1) she boldly labels the part of the Supreme Court decision in Nixon (1974) that specifically said the AG has statutory power to appoint special counsel as dictum so that she can ignore it -- and I emphasize boldly because it take some major balls for a district court judge to tell the Supreme Court they didn't really mean what they expressly said -- and (2) her ruling is so form over substance that it seem like you could easily circumvent it by (a) hiring Smith as a federal employee first (even retroactively) and then naming him the special counsel or (b) taking Smith off the case and promoting any other DOJ lawyer on the case to lead lawyer -- it would defeat the entire purpose of independent counsel, but Trump (and Cannon) is actually arguing that special counsel's independence is the whole problem to begin with or (c) have the Assistant AG for the 11th circuit refile the whole case tomorrow -- it would be a re-do from scratch, all the previous rulings and discovery would apply.
But I doubt the prosecution does any of that -- ironically, the DOJ will feel compelled to protect the extremely important practice of special counsels by getting a Supreme Court ruling saying "Yes, the DOJ can and SHOULD use independent counsel sometimes" -- and appeal to the 11th circuit hoping for quick reversal and remand. Which, of course, will then go to SCOTUS for decision sometime in summer of 2026 . . . . . .
It's dense material to read and I'm sure most people refrained from reading all the briefing closely until now. It will take a few reads to understand what Cannon is saying when she basically strikes down at least 25 years (and probably 150 years) of Special Counsels.
Two things seem to stick out: (1) she boldly labels the part of the Supreme Court decision in Nixon (1974) that specifically said the AG has statutory power to appoint special counsel as dictum so that she can ignore it -- and I emphasize boldly because it take some major balls for a district court judge to tell the Supreme Court they didn't really mean what they expressly said -- and (2) her ruling is so form over substance that it seem like you could easily circumvent it by (a) hiring Smith as a federal employee first (even retroactively) and then naming him the special counsel or (b) taking Smith off the case and promoting any other DOJ lawyer on the case to lead lawyer -- it would defeat the entire purpose of independent counsel, but Trump (and Cannon) is actually arguing that special counsel's independence is the whole problem to begin with or (c) have the Assistant AG for the 11th circuit refile the whole case tomorrow -- it would be a re-do from scratch, all the previous rulings and discovery would apply.
But I doubt the prosecution does any of that -- ironically, the DOJ will feel compelled to protect the extremely important practice of special counsels by getting a Supreme Court ruling saying "Yes, the DOJ can and SHOULD use independent counsel sometimes" -- and appeal to the 11th circuit hoping for quick reversal and remand. Which, of course, will then go to SCOTUS for decision sometime in summer of 2026 . . . . . .
Yes. Trump has filled the same thing in his DC case on the special counsel. Judge Chutkin will deny and that will be appealed. So the SCOTUS could have two contradictory rulings on constitutionality of the special counsel. Maybe in the year 2032
It's dense material to read and I'm sure most people refrained from reading all the briefing closely until now. It will take a few reads to understand what Cannon is saying when she basically strikes down at least 25 years (and probably 150 years) of Special Counsels.
Two things seem to stick out: (1) she boldly labels the part of the Supreme Court decision in Nixon (1974) that specifically said the AG has statutory power to appoint special counsel as dictum so that she can ignore it -- and I emphasize boldly because it take some major balls for a district court judge to tell the Supreme Court they didn't really mean what they expressly said -- and (2) her ruling is so form over substance that it seem like you could easily circumvent it by (a) hiring Smith as a federal employee first (even retroactively) and then naming him the special counsel or (b) taking Smith off the case and promoting any other DOJ lawyer on the case to lead lawyer -- it would defeat the entire purpose of independent counsel, but Trump (and Cannon) is actually arguing that special counsel's independence is the whole problem to begin with or (c) have the Assistant AG for the 11th circuit refile the whole case tomorrow -- it would be a re-do from scratch, all the previous rulings and discovery would apply.
But I doubt the prosecution does any of that -- ironically, the DOJ will feel compelled to protect the extremely important practice of special counsels by getting a Supreme Court ruling saying "Yes, the DOJ can and SHOULD use independent counsel sometimes" -- and appeal to the 11th circuit hoping for quick reversal and remand. Which, of course, will then go to SCOTUS for decision sometime in summer of 2026 . . . . . .
Yes. Trump has filled the same thing in his DC case on the special counsel. Judge Chutkin will deny and that will be appealed. So the SCOTUS could have two contradictory rulings on constitutionality of the special counsel. Maybe in the year 2032
Like I hope I've said before, having this Bathroom case dismissed before trial will be the REAL travesty of justice in all this, far more so than any other Trump case or investigation. Trump is just flat out guilty of serious felonies in the Bathroom case. Blatant, deliberate and continuing felonies and lies. If it ever got to trial, it would be a slam dunk felony conviction no matter who was on the jury. America's citizens deserve to see all the criminal evidence against Trump publicly presented in a court of law. It's a massive travesty if they don't get that opportunity.
Jesus Christ, 93 page ruling on this. That's probably more pages than every Order Cannon has issued in this case combined. When she complained in that previous Order a few months ago, that she was really busy and working hard, she was really working hard on one fvcking motion. That must have taken her and her clerks at least 6 weeks to draft. I can't help but think she never had any interest in moving this case along at all, but just wanted some judicial glory for being the first judge to ever drill down on the Constitutionality of special counsel and to vindicate some fringe political position that 95% of Americans never even knew about until today.
Thomas is a bulldog, I'll give him that. He plays the long game like no one I've ever seen. He stakes a political result he wants, then keeps randomly mentioning it in opinions even when it has no relevance to a case at all (see, e.g., presidential immunity case), and slowly something that never mattered before grows into a full blown legal controversy -- with his own previously weird and irrelevant musings as support for the existence controversy -- and a decade later he gets some new law. Pretty amazing.