Donald Trump

[grunge]

Pretty clear it’s going to be a majority ruling of immunity for ‘official’ acts and no immunity for ‘personal’ acts, which would kill the Jan 6th case and potentially also the Documents case if he could get traction behind the notion he moved the documents in an official capacity, yet avoid the ludicrous theoretical that Biden could have Trump and the SC killed with immunity.

It also creates the theoretical that Biden can just cancel the next election or rule Trump ineligible to take part.

Now of course he would never do that, but if he loses it means Trump/GOP can & will abandon any future elections with full immunity to do so.

Not so sure on this if it was set up even in an official/personal state. there's plenty of evidence that he was trying to find votes rather than investigate any voter fraud for Jan 6th. and most of the Documents charges are about not returning the documents when requested to do so while he wasn't president.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Looks like his SCOTUS mates are gonna come through.

Denying questions on Jan 6 and making up ridiculous arguments that Presidents should be immune from "Rogue DA's" prosecuting them outside of office.

The BBC page doesn't seem so convinced.

US Supreme Court divided on whether Trump can be prosecuted

The justices discussed immunity, coups, pardons, Operation Mongoose - and the future of democracy.

www.bbc.co.uk

Vendetta prosecutions could certainly be an issue, but then you have to trust that courts/juries do their job.

Agreed.

I am guessing 7-2 for the US, maybe 8-1, with either or both insane lunatics Alito and Thomas voting against or one for with a concurrence.

If the SCOTUS rule that the shit gibbon is totally immune from prosecution, I honestly believe it will be the death knell for democracy as they know it in the USA. Every single one of those judges voting in favour of it should be marched outside and assassinated.

Based on the transcript of proceedings, and expert analysis I have read, it seems more likely that they’ll remand the case back the Court of Appeals to create a test for “private vs official acts” before it then again ascends to SCOTUS for further arguments and ruling.

Which is designed to delay any actual ruling until after the 2024 presidential election. The far-right super majority is destroying the legitimacy of the one brand of government Americans once actually trusted.

By the way, the sheer audacity and obviousness of the supposed conservative “originalist” judges rejecting the universally agreed reality that the founding fathers of the US specifically crafted the office of the presidency to not be a king by another name (i.e. a leader on high above the law) is truly breathtaking. This is not the first time they have cast aside the basic tenets of their own insane originalist ideology to argue for even more crazy breaks from precedent that align with far-right aspirations, but it is probably the most egregious.

These judges are not only undermining the public trust in SCOTUS—which is very dangerous given that is literally the only actual power SCOTUS has—but also in the legal system more broadly.

The US is creeping toward a situation where states will begin to regularly ignore SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court rulings. It has already happened in isolated cases in Texas and Alabama. But soon they could see it in other jurisdictions, including blue states.

So much for the party of ‘law and order’.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I don’t think they will remand.

Several of the “conservative” justices raised the question of whether to remand the case back down to the Court of Appeals to conduct further proceeding during the hearing, including creating a test to determine acts as “private” or “official”. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seemed especially smitten with the idea. A number of legal and political analysts I trust are predicting they will go that route in order to delay their ruling until after the election (thereby avoiding giving Biden new powers before it).

I think they were setting the groundwork for doing just that.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Based on the transcript of proceedings, and expert analysis I have read, it seems more likely that they’ll remand the case back the Court of Appeals to create a test for “private vs official acts” before it then again ascends to SCOTUS for further arguments and ruling.

Which is designed to delay any actual ruling until after the 2024 presidential election. The far-right super majority is destroying the legitimacy of the one brand of government Americans once actually trusted.

By the way, the sheer audacity and obviousness of the supposed conservative “originalist” judges rejecting the universally agreed reality that the founding fathers of the US specifically crafted the office of the presidency to not be a king by another name (i.e. a leader on high above the law) is truly breathtaking. This is not the first time they have cast aside the basic tenets of their own insane originalist ideology to argue for even more crazy breaks from precedent that align with far-right aspirations, but it is probably the most egregious.

These judges are not only undermining the public trust in SCOTUS—which is very dangerous given that is literally the only actual power SCOTUS has—but also in the legal system more broadly.

The US is creeping toward a situation where states will begin to regularly ignore SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court rulings. It has already happened in isolated cases in Texas and Alabama. But soon they could see it in other jurisdictions, including blue states.

So much for the party of ‘law and order’.

A vote to 7-2 or 8-1 vote to remand sucks but it’s still not a win on the merits for Trump. He’s not going to be granted absolute immunity. Which is what some other posters here seem to think is going to happen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

A vote to 7-2 or 8-1 vote to remand sucks but it’s still not a win on the merits for Trump. He’s not going to be granted absolute immunity. Which is what some other posters here seem to think is going to happen.

It isn’t a win on the merits for Trump, I agree, but it is a win for Trump, as it likely delays any ruling until after the election and avoids—at least for a time—the SCOTUS super majority needing to find a way of threading the needle between protecting Trump from persecution and giving Biden new power before the election.

As far as the likelihood of them granting absolute immunity, I also think that is unlikely. But the mere fact they were making such outright batshite crazy arguments for some sort of immunity for “official” acts should concern any rational observer.

Some of the questions raised and statements made by Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts in particular where astoundingly intellectually dishonest (conflicting with nearly everything they have held as their supposed guiding principles throughout their careers across the court system) and are further proof of the far-right pragmatist capture of the supermajority. At one point several seemed to agree with the notion that a president can’t be criminally prosecuted for violating any law that does not specifically state in its text that it applies to the president.

They were essentially rejecting their own “originalism” ideology for the sake of finding a method of insulating Trump from consequences for all of the world to see. The supermajority isn’t even attempting to veil their partisanship at this point.

I really don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that any ruling on this case coming from the supermajority is yet another threat to the American republic.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump

The mechanics of the case as District Attorney Alvin Bragg is prosecuting it.

www.lawfaremedia.org

A good summary for anybody interested in the slightly tortured legal theory behind the ongoing Trump trial.

In a nutshell there are three “tiers” of crimes that need to be proven.

The first is 175.10 - this is falsifying business records. Basically a slam dunk and the defence will likely concede on this. On its own it’s a misdemeanour, but rises to a felony if proven to be in furtherance of another crime. What is that crime? Well it’s likely…

17-152, this is NY Election Law prohibiting “conspiracy to promote the election of an individual through unlawful means”. The conspiracy needs to involve multiple actors undertaking illegal activities. The involvement of multiple people is basically proven by the agreement with Pecker/AMI but then the obvious question is what constitutes “unlawful” in these actions. This is tier three.

Most likely “unlawful means” is referring here to FECA, Federal Election law. Basically campaign finance violations. This is the stuff that Cohen pled guilty to. Except they are not allowed to use Cohen’s plea deal as evidence, they can only use the foundational evidence of that case.

Importantly, the second tier doesn’t require the proving of a breaking of the law, only the proving of an attempt to do so. So in theory, if Trump falsified business records, and that was in furtherance of circumnavigating campaign finance regulations under FECA, then under this theory that would meet the standard of a felony.

And good luck to the jurors in their attempt to understand that mess.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It isn’t a win on the merits for Trump, I agree, but it is a win for Trump, as it likely delays any ruling until after the election and avoids—at least for a time—the SCOTUS super majority needing to find a way of threading the needle between protecting Trump from persecution and giving Biden new power before the election.

As far as the likelihood of them granting absolute immunity, I also think that is unlikely. But the mere fact they were making such outright batshite crazy arguments for some sort of immunity for “official” acts should concern any rational observer.

Some of the questions raised and statements made by Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts in particular where astoundingly intellectually dishonest (conflicting with nearly everything they have held as their supposed guiding principles throughout their careers across the court system) and are further proof of the far-right pragmatist capture of the supermajority. At one point several seemed to agree with the notion that a president can’t be criminally prosecuted for violating any law that does not specifically state in its text that it applies to the president.

They were essentially rejecting their own “originalism” ideology for the sake of finding a method of insulating Trump from consequences for all of the world to see. The supermajority isn’t even attempting to veil their partisanship at this point.

I really don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that any ruling on this case coming from the supermajority is yet another threat to the American republic.

I agree with the implications you suggest in terms of what this case ultimately means to the nation. But having been to a number of SC hearings in my life, the act of questioning -- or even statements made -- by the justices are designed to test boundaries -- they aren't necessarily reflective of internal monologue or thought process, although of course they sometimes they are. I 100% agree some of the "conservatives" have absolutely come full circle to being activist re-interpretationalists. I just don't think the oral argument process is necessarily reflective of what ends up on the pages of the opinion.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I agree with the implications you suggest in terms of what this case ultimately means to the nation. But having been to a number of SC hearings in my life, the act of questioning -- or even statements made -- by the justices are designed to test boundaries -- they aren't necessarily reflective of internal monologue or thought process, although of course they sometimes they are. I 100% agree some of the "conservatives" have absolutely come full circle to being activist re-interpretationalists. I just don't think the oral argument process is necessarily reflective of what ends up on the pages of the opinion.

I agree that in the past questions and statements from the justices during SCOTUS oral arguments have not necessarily been representative of where they actually fell in the delivered ruling.

But this court, over the last few years, has generally worn their positions on their sleeves, as it were, consistently delivering opinions in line with the nature and scope of their arguments during hearings.

I don’t think past courts are a very good baseline for analysis of this current court—it is exceptional in so many ways, but the directness and unity of the supermajority’s ideology (or, really, lack there of at times), is one of the most prominent.

And I think how the justices engaged with the Trump and Smith teams is generally representative of where they fall on the subject… unfortunately for the US.

 

[Iassel]

He’s not going to be granted absolute immunity. Which is what some other posters here seem to think is going to happen.

I mean I don’t think anyone genuinely expects an absolute immunity ruling - even this SC isn’t that fucking mental.

It seems pretty clear that Trump will win on some level of immunity however, even if it doesn’t ‘save’ him from all of the indictments against him.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I mean I don’t think anyone genuinely expects an absolute immunity ruling - even this SC isn’t that fucking mental.

It seems pretty clear that Trump will win on some level of immunity however, even if it doesn’t ‘save’ him from all of the indictments against him.

I think realistically, it's all about PR for the Conservative justices. It is not about Trump. With the exception of perhaps Alito and Thomas, I genuinely think the rest of them see him as a circus clown and would be quite happy to be rid of him.

They care about basically one thing and that's preserving their own little fiefdom. They have already made it onto the gravy train, they don't care for some deranged man's pseudo-ideological conquest. In practice, that usually means they will argue Conservative talking points so they continue to be looked after by the various lobbies and try and determine some wishy-washy middle ground that puts their independence or authority at no risk. That's basically what happened on the ballot case. Despite being the protectorate of state's rights, on that occasion they argued the need for a federal mandate, but didn't dismiss the merits of the case against Trump, they just kicked it into the territory of "not our problem".

I suspect, to Seb's point, the same will happen here. They don't need or want to protect Trump, they just want to make sure they're still sat in those seats. That means not giving out the power to remove them, not empowering Trump, but also ensuring no progress on this is made prior to the election to keep their paymasters happy. Whatever mechanism they choose for that is sort of moot, if that's what they want to do, then they will make it happen.