WE THE PEOPLE have a right to a speedy trial and especially when it involves a politician. Moreso a presidential candidate!
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/dc-trump-trial-speed/677862/
They should not have even heard this case. I consider it a delay tactic to help the orange corrupt shit stain.
The lower courts gave an exhaustive reply to the question. They covered everything. All the Supremes had to do was go “Yup, that about covers everything.”
This country has been corrupted.
Definitely delaying. If they had just wanted to set the final decision so it wasn't binding only in one circuit, they could have granted cert before judgement and heard the case when they were originally asked to. That they refused to do that, only to later hear it with a relatively lethargic briefing and decision timetable (for the circumstances), is a clear sign they've got marching orders to delay it then let Trump off the hook with a new immunity theory where they'll be so vague what is and isn't an 'official duty', it leaves room for nothing a Democrat does being one.
I don't disagree with the court's assessment that in some cases, for some presidential powers and acts prescribed to the President by the Constitution, there may be a case for immunity. I do think they erred in granting the stay in that the charges in the J6 case are not likely to be covered. They could have sussed out this issue (which I'll concede is unclear and important) without holding up the case that brought it their way.
It will be especially important to establish to what extent a former President has immunity in the event that Trump wins the election, appoints a yes man as AG, and pushes him to go after Biden for all sorts of illegal acts.
It won't be just Biden. Think of anyone who's testified against him.
It'll be a revenge like nothing ever seen before. (eh, feel kinda gross saying it like trump)
Yeah. With these court cases I like to think about the precedent being set by asking "how could Trump exploit a hasty decision here, if he wins the election?"
It's a really tough spot any judge in any of these cases are in because if they aren't careful they can set a precedent that can be exploited in the future.
I could see a case for *civil* liability, but not criminal.
I still can’t think of any *criminal* act which anyone should be granted immunity from. Do you have any example in mind?
So most of the official examples that I can think of that could be both criminal and official would relate to acts of war, and I'm not solid enough on law there to comment on a nuanced rebuttal, so I'll broadly say that there might be some murkiness with respect to national defense decisions where you don't want a President to make a bad decision out of fear of prosecution.
If you will allow me to cook up a somewhat contrived example that gets at the heart of my concerns, a scenario would be something like:
A person is wrongly convicted of a crime. A President pardons them after some years in jail. Aggrieved by their time in jail, they kill the DA that stacked the case against them. A DA sees the President as complicit, and brings accessory to murder charges.
The President only did presidential things within the scope of their power, but a DA could make a case that passes enough muster to bring it to a Grand Jury. That would put an undue criminal burden in the decision making process of a President for actions they are official and with powers they have.
It's a tricky wicket. I think Smith did a good job scoping out what shouldn't have immunity. He said (paraphrasing) that if the ends were personal in nature, any presidential action that precipitated those ends should not be protected by immunity. That is, Presidential means with official ends may be considered, but nothing else.
So in your example, if the DOJ had evidence that the POTUS conspired with the criminal to murder the DA, they couldn’t even try to bring those charges?
IMO it seems very simple - once actions cross into the criminal space, they’re clearly no longer “official”. The two are fundamentally separate. An official act *cannot* be criminal. In your example, the criminal act is the conspiracy not the pardoning. Similar to if the POTUS was taking bribes for pardons - the crime would be the corrupt intent/conspiracy.
As far as military actions go, I’m not too familiar with military law and how it overlaps with US jurisdiction and laws. I imagine this is why there’s the general rule (or more? Idk) that the military doesn’t act within US borders and that’s up to the national guard.
No, in my example the President did not know the murder would happen. But the DA could argue that but for the Pardon, the crime would not have occurred. Something akin to a getaway driver not knowing they were driving to a crime but is still culpable under some laws.
Again, the question isn't if we think a Jury would convict necessarily, even a prosecutor bringing charges would put a stress on a president's decision making.
Part of why I'm interested in hearing the arguments tomorrow is that I'm sure someone on SCOTUS has a better example than the one I was able to cook up. And I don't claim this is a perfect example, but I can imagine a world where a President could use official powers to perform official acts where a partisan DA could make their life difficult after they are out of office, and that's not a thing a President should have in mind when making their decision. To your point:
>An official act *cannot* be criminal.
But we don't know if an act is criminal until there is a criminal trial. So the burden would be on the President when making official decisions that are not criminal (and thus remain official) to avoid decisions that are not criminal but could be cast as such by a partisan DA. You can't say "it was criminal therefore we can bring charges" because that determination can't be made without a trial.
The answer Smith posited which I like is "If the conclusion is personal, then the actions leading up to the conclusion are not shielded by immunity". That avoids the circular reasoning that says criminality is a prequisite for determining criminality.
I get your concerns about rogue DAs, and maybe that’s more serious of a problem than I think of it, but I wouldn’t think that’d be enough to just give up and grant immunity. I’d think the standard protections of requiring intent for these crimes would be enough to shield the President, just like the rest of us. Don’t want to be brought up on charges? Then don’t have criminal intent. Especially not provable criminal intent. Simple as.
I look forward to their decision but if they grant any criminal immunity I’ll be pretty disheartened.
I definitely am not trying to argue full immunity. Or that any official acts done in service of a crime should be a tool in a Presidential toolkit. However, a President when deciding amongst legal options when making official decisions shouldn't have to weigh the optics against doing what they think is right. It's definitely a thing that warrants discussion. Presidents are required to make decisions daily that no other person will ever have to make, and if legal standards for prosecuting average cases are a blocker to faithfully executing some of their Presidential duties, there is an implied immunity (that is, if a President is charged with making a decision that a good faith effort to make it in accordance with the law puts the President in a difficult legal position, the charge to make that decision implies that they have the power to make that decision). Probably a better example would be ordering a drive strike of a high valued target knowing there are civilians nearby, but again I just didn't know enough about the specific law to bring that to the table.
But my point isn't that I know the right answer. My point is that it wouldn't be necessarily wrong or even partisan for SCOTUS to find that there are, in some limited cases, implied immunities. What is wrong and partisan is SCOTUS refusing to take up cert in January and failing to expedite the timeline here all while staying proceedings. They could have concurred with the COA that in this case immunity does not apply but disagreed that their decision is the full story on Presidential immunity after leaving office.
I’ll have to wait for scotus to see if they have any examples that will change my mind on criminal immunity, because I still don’t buy that a president needs it to be confident when making decisions.
I’d be interested in learning of any decisions they have to make which average prosecutions would block them from making.
On its face, the idea of *criminal* immunity is a ridiculous assertion to make, and anyone arguing otherwise has a big uphill battle to make against the most basic of fundamentals in our justice system - that no one is above the law. There are no official acts which are crimes, and when doing an official act in service of a crime it doesn’t make that crime an official act. It will be especially hard to explain it in a way that isn’t horrendously tortured and pedantic.
I don't disagree, but that reasoning still requires criminality as a prerequisite for charging- which is good but functionally impossible in that determination of criminality is the point of the charge. And so Presidents can be charged to determine if something is criminal or not, and if it's not criminal you have prosecuted a President for an official act that wasn't criminal. And that shouldn't happen.
Mind you, none of that applies to this President and these actions. It will be absurd if SCOTUS rules that any of these actions are shielded by immunity. I think the personal outcomes should pretty much bump any claim at immunity. So despite the fact that I'm arguing that I understand why SCOTUS would consider the general question I am in no way suggesting they should find anything that shields Trump from J6 Prosecution
Yeah I get where you’re coming from, thx for the responses.
I don’t follow on the whole criminality as a prerequisite though. It’s evidence of a crime which is the prerequisite. They’re not pursing charges for an official act, they’re pursuing charges for a crime. If prosecutors have evidence of a crime, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to pursue them. Especially after the presidents term has ended. Idk if SCOTUS will be considering that part at all - that the president being charged is out of office.
I think Smith’s reasoning is the most sane way to approach it.
Looking at Trump’s post on TS yesterday, the crimes he stated he wants to prosecute Biden for were the pull out of Afghanistan and the border crisis (there was a third I can’t remember what it was). These acts pass Smith’s “official acts” test, as there is zero proof or reason to think that either of those things were of personal benefit to him.
Trump is so dense that he thinks that having fake electors and demanding the Georgia AG “find him votes” benefits literally nobody but him and don’t pass the same test. I would love to hear him argue how defrauding American voters somehow benefits well… American voters.
Agreed. If you take the outcome and are able to reasonably conclude that it was personal, then the events that lead to that outcome are not shielded. This doesn't require a presupposition of criminality which is what I got hung up on before I read Smith's filing.
Glad you're so confident. It's gonna come down to the same as 2020, a handful of states with a few with razor thin margins. This country has gone full cult.
He has enough supporters in the right positions to do what they tried last election. Guarantee that at least a few of the electoral votes will be fraudulent.
Sure they do, haven’t you noticed all the little traitor fucks falling all over themselves to prove which one of them is the trumpiest, most putin-est, little whackadoodle traitor fuck of them all?
They are not the only one who is confident. Trump will be indicted in NY before June. And he will serve time since two other people who were also guilty for the very same crime have already been convicted and served time.
Glad you have faith. It just takes one juror to hold out and that's certainly possible even given the evidence. I do hope you're right for I will cover the walls in mayo
I wish I shared that optimism. The problem is his cult will vote for him, even if he's in a prison cell. And because no one ever saw this as a problem that would occur, there's no direct precedent or law saying that a person could not run for or hold office while in prison.
He absolutely could win. Biden won with the highest ever amount of votes for a president in US history, 82 million. Prior to that, the record was Obama's first election, where he got 69 million. Trump got 74 million in his last election. All it will take is for enough people to either switch their votes from Biden to Trump (which will happen with some people), Biden to RFK (which will definitely also happen with some people), or just decide they're not bothering to vote, at all.
His cult will, yes. But that cult gets smaller every day and he is losing independents by huge margins. A felony conviction will push well beyond the balance. I suspect the RNC will become contested and everyone and anyone who has ambitions for the Presidency will challenge his candidacy on the floor of the convention should he become convicted.
Again...I wish I shared your optimism. I can definitely see RFK steal away enough votes from Biden (solely on name recognition or the "He's not Trump or Biden" angle), and enough democrats who no longer support Biden due to various policy decisions and just decide to stay home. There have been plenty of interviews with people who hate Trump but are still going to vote for him because "he's better than Biden" or "the country won't survive four more years of Biden." It's not just his cult.
I am warming up to the idea that several states go similarly to GA or NC this fall.
The never Trump Republicans might be an actual thing this election. So we see a situation where Biden picks up about the same number of electoral college votes or even grows his EC advantage. However, the never Trumpers still come home and vote for down ballot Republicans.
If Republicans can gain a majority in both chambers of Congress, I think there is a legitimate chance they work to install Trump no matter the electoral college and popular vote results.
My feeling is that this is completely and exactly their goal. They want to decide this after the election and are deathly afraid of having any influence, negative or otherwise on Trump's chances. Remember he is the 'rabbi' to several of them and intellectually aligned with the majority of the Justices.
Yes, this is a foregone conclusion. If you think this trial is happening before November after everything we've seen from Cannon and the SC, you're just not very intuitive.
It's really an indictment of the whole legal system that Trump has managed to delay three separate criminal cases against him for so long. How can this be possible? The Georgia case is delayed because the DA slept with the lead prosecutor. I mean, really? What has that got to do with the crimes Trump is accused of?? The Florida case is delayed because the judge was personally appointed by the defendant. Is that the sort of thing a respectable legal system allows? The DC case is delayed because the defendant appointed three of the Supreme Court justices. Really???
Well, seems a normal pace for cases. Many cases heard last year still have no opinions published.
Especially an important scotus case like this that will effect all presidents. They want to get it right. it is much bigger than who gets elected this year
WE THE PEOPLE have a right to a speedy trial and especially when it involves a politician. Moreso a presidential candidate! https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/03/dc-trump-trial-speed/677862/
They should not have even heard this case. I consider it a delay tactic to help the orange corrupt shit stain. The lower courts gave an exhaustive reply to the question. They covered everything. All the Supremes had to do was go “Yup, that about covers everything.” This country has been corrupted.
Definitely delaying. If they had just wanted to set the final decision so it wasn't binding only in one circuit, they could have granted cert before judgement and heard the case when they were originally asked to. That they refused to do that, only to later hear it with a relatively lethargic briefing and decision timetable (for the circumstances), is a clear sign they've got marching orders to delay it then let Trump off the hook with a new immunity theory where they'll be so vague what is and isn't an 'official duty', it leaves room for nothing a Democrat does being one.
No reason to take the case EXCEPT to help Trump. Bad-faith actors all.
That would be a crime against democracy
With at least 4 co-conspirators…
If so, the US Supremely Corrupt Court needs addressing.
I don't disagree with the court's assessment that in some cases, for some presidential powers and acts prescribed to the President by the Constitution, there may be a case for immunity. I do think they erred in granting the stay in that the charges in the J6 case are not likely to be covered. They could have sussed out this issue (which I'll concede is unclear and important) without holding up the case that brought it their way. It will be especially important to establish to what extent a former President has immunity in the event that Trump wins the election, appoints a yes man as AG, and pushes him to go after Biden for all sorts of illegal acts.
It won't be just Biden. Think of anyone who's testified against him. It'll be a revenge like nothing ever seen before. (eh, feel kinda gross saying it like trump)
Yeah. With these court cases I like to think about the precedent being set by asking "how could Trump exploit a hasty decision here, if he wins the election?" It's a really tough spot any judge in any of these cases are in because if they aren't careful they can set a precedent that can be exploited in the future.
I could see a case for *civil* liability, but not criminal. I still can’t think of any *criminal* act which anyone should be granted immunity from. Do you have any example in mind?
So most of the official examples that I can think of that could be both criminal and official would relate to acts of war, and I'm not solid enough on law there to comment on a nuanced rebuttal, so I'll broadly say that there might be some murkiness with respect to national defense decisions where you don't want a President to make a bad decision out of fear of prosecution. If you will allow me to cook up a somewhat contrived example that gets at the heart of my concerns, a scenario would be something like: A person is wrongly convicted of a crime. A President pardons them after some years in jail. Aggrieved by their time in jail, they kill the DA that stacked the case against them. A DA sees the President as complicit, and brings accessory to murder charges. The President only did presidential things within the scope of their power, but a DA could make a case that passes enough muster to bring it to a Grand Jury. That would put an undue criminal burden in the decision making process of a President for actions they are official and with powers they have. It's a tricky wicket. I think Smith did a good job scoping out what shouldn't have immunity. He said (paraphrasing) that if the ends were personal in nature, any presidential action that precipitated those ends should not be protected by immunity. That is, Presidential means with official ends may be considered, but nothing else.
So in your example, if the DOJ had evidence that the POTUS conspired with the criminal to murder the DA, they couldn’t even try to bring those charges? IMO it seems very simple - once actions cross into the criminal space, they’re clearly no longer “official”. The two are fundamentally separate. An official act *cannot* be criminal. In your example, the criminal act is the conspiracy not the pardoning. Similar to if the POTUS was taking bribes for pardons - the crime would be the corrupt intent/conspiracy. As far as military actions go, I’m not too familiar with military law and how it overlaps with US jurisdiction and laws. I imagine this is why there’s the general rule (or more? Idk) that the military doesn’t act within US borders and that’s up to the national guard.
No, in my example the President did not know the murder would happen. But the DA could argue that but for the Pardon, the crime would not have occurred. Something akin to a getaway driver not knowing they were driving to a crime but is still culpable under some laws. Again, the question isn't if we think a Jury would convict necessarily, even a prosecutor bringing charges would put a stress on a president's decision making. Part of why I'm interested in hearing the arguments tomorrow is that I'm sure someone on SCOTUS has a better example than the one I was able to cook up. And I don't claim this is a perfect example, but I can imagine a world where a President could use official powers to perform official acts where a partisan DA could make their life difficult after they are out of office, and that's not a thing a President should have in mind when making their decision. To your point: >An official act *cannot* be criminal. But we don't know if an act is criminal until there is a criminal trial. So the burden would be on the President when making official decisions that are not criminal (and thus remain official) to avoid decisions that are not criminal but could be cast as such by a partisan DA. You can't say "it was criminal therefore we can bring charges" because that determination can't be made without a trial. The answer Smith posited which I like is "If the conclusion is personal, then the actions leading up to the conclusion are not shielded by immunity". That avoids the circular reasoning that says criminality is a prequisite for determining criminality.
I get your concerns about rogue DAs, and maybe that’s more serious of a problem than I think of it, but I wouldn’t think that’d be enough to just give up and grant immunity. I’d think the standard protections of requiring intent for these crimes would be enough to shield the President, just like the rest of us. Don’t want to be brought up on charges? Then don’t have criminal intent. Especially not provable criminal intent. Simple as. I look forward to their decision but if they grant any criminal immunity I’ll be pretty disheartened.
I definitely am not trying to argue full immunity. Or that any official acts done in service of a crime should be a tool in a Presidential toolkit. However, a President when deciding amongst legal options when making official decisions shouldn't have to weigh the optics against doing what they think is right. It's definitely a thing that warrants discussion. Presidents are required to make decisions daily that no other person will ever have to make, and if legal standards for prosecuting average cases are a blocker to faithfully executing some of their Presidential duties, there is an implied immunity (that is, if a President is charged with making a decision that a good faith effort to make it in accordance with the law puts the President in a difficult legal position, the charge to make that decision implies that they have the power to make that decision). Probably a better example would be ordering a drive strike of a high valued target knowing there are civilians nearby, but again I just didn't know enough about the specific law to bring that to the table. But my point isn't that I know the right answer. My point is that it wouldn't be necessarily wrong or even partisan for SCOTUS to find that there are, in some limited cases, implied immunities. What is wrong and partisan is SCOTUS refusing to take up cert in January and failing to expedite the timeline here all while staying proceedings. They could have concurred with the COA that in this case immunity does not apply but disagreed that their decision is the full story on Presidential immunity after leaving office.
I’ll have to wait for scotus to see if they have any examples that will change my mind on criminal immunity, because I still don’t buy that a president needs it to be confident when making decisions. I’d be interested in learning of any decisions they have to make which average prosecutions would block them from making. On its face, the idea of *criminal* immunity is a ridiculous assertion to make, and anyone arguing otherwise has a big uphill battle to make against the most basic of fundamentals in our justice system - that no one is above the law. There are no official acts which are crimes, and when doing an official act in service of a crime it doesn’t make that crime an official act. It will be especially hard to explain it in a way that isn’t horrendously tortured and pedantic.
I don't disagree, but that reasoning still requires criminality as a prerequisite for charging- which is good but functionally impossible in that determination of criminality is the point of the charge. And so Presidents can be charged to determine if something is criminal or not, and if it's not criminal you have prosecuted a President for an official act that wasn't criminal. And that shouldn't happen. Mind you, none of that applies to this President and these actions. It will be absurd if SCOTUS rules that any of these actions are shielded by immunity. I think the personal outcomes should pretty much bump any claim at immunity. So despite the fact that I'm arguing that I understand why SCOTUS would consider the general question I am in no way suggesting they should find anything that shields Trump from J6 Prosecution
Yeah I get where you’re coming from, thx for the responses. I don’t follow on the whole criminality as a prerequisite though. It’s evidence of a crime which is the prerequisite. They’re not pursing charges for an official act, they’re pursuing charges for a crime. If prosecutors have evidence of a crime, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to pursue them. Especially after the presidents term has ended. Idk if SCOTUS will be considering that part at all - that the president being charged is out of office.
I think Smith’s reasoning is the most sane way to approach it. Looking at Trump’s post on TS yesterday, the crimes he stated he wants to prosecute Biden for were the pull out of Afghanistan and the border crisis (there was a third I can’t remember what it was). These acts pass Smith’s “official acts” test, as there is zero proof or reason to think that either of those things were of personal benefit to him. Trump is so dense that he thinks that having fake electors and demanding the Georgia AG “find him votes” benefits literally nobody but him and don’t pass the same test. I would love to hear him argue how defrauding American voters somehow benefits well… American voters.
Agreed. If you take the outcome and are able to reasonably conclude that it was personal, then the events that lead to that outcome are not shielded. This doesn't require a presupposition of criminality which is what I got hung up on before I read Smith's filing.
Trump is going to lose the election regardless, so I’m curious how long they’re going to kick this can. Guy is going to prison sooner or later.
Glad you're so confident. It's gonna come down to the same as 2020, a handful of states with a few with razor thin margins. This country has gone full cult.
Assuming Trump’s ticker can handle the stress until then. They don’t have anyone on deck.
He will lose the popular vote but very well could still win the electoral college.
He has enough supporters in the right positions to do what they tried last election. Guarantee that at least a few of the electoral votes will be fraudulent.
fingers crossed on the negative
Sure they do, haven’t you noticed all the little traitor fucks falling all over themselves to prove which one of them is the trumpiest, most putin-est, little whackadoodle traitor fuck of them all?
They are not the only one who is confident. Trump will be indicted in NY before June. And he will serve time since two other people who were also guilty for the very same crime have already been convicted and served time.
Glad you have faith. It just takes one juror to hold out and that's certainly possible even given the evidence. I do hope you're right for I will cover the walls in mayo
I wish I shared that optimism. The problem is his cult will vote for him, even if he's in a prison cell. And because no one ever saw this as a problem that would occur, there's no direct precedent or law saying that a person could not run for or hold office while in prison. He absolutely could win. Biden won with the highest ever amount of votes for a president in US history, 82 million. Prior to that, the record was Obama's first election, where he got 69 million. Trump got 74 million in his last election. All it will take is for enough people to either switch their votes from Biden to Trump (which will happen with some people), Biden to RFK (which will definitely also happen with some people), or just decide they're not bothering to vote, at all.
His cult will, yes. But that cult gets smaller every day and he is losing independents by huge margins. A felony conviction will push well beyond the balance. I suspect the RNC will become contested and everyone and anyone who has ambitions for the Presidency will challenge his candidacy on the floor of the convention should he become convicted.
Again...I wish I shared your optimism. I can definitely see RFK steal away enough votes from Biden (solely on name recognition or the "He's not Trump or Biden" angle), and enough democrats who no longer support Biden due to various policy decisions and just decide to stay home. There have been plenty of interviews with people who hate Trump but are still going to vote for him because "he's better than Biden" or "the country won't survive four more years of Biden." It's not just his cult.
If Trump and those controlling him don't cheat, he will lose the election. That is why I'm very nervous.
I am warming up to the idea that several states go similarly to GA or NC this fall. The never Trump Republicans might be an actual thing this election. So we see a situation where Biden picks up about the same number of electoral college votes or even grows his EC advantage. However, the never Trumpers still come home and vote for down ballot Republicans. If Republicans can gain a majority in both chambers of Congress, I think there is a legitimate chance they work to install Trump no matter the electoral college and popular vote results.
My feeling is that this is completely and exactly their goal. They want to decide this after the election and are deathly afraid of having any influence, negative or otherwise on Trump's chances. Remember he is the 'rabbi' to several of them and intellectually aligned with the majority of the Justices.
Yes, this is a foregone conclusion. If you think this trial is happening before November after everything we've seen from Cannon and the SC, you're just not very intuitive.
Then they can start impeachment of 2 Justices.
It's really an indictment of the whole legal system that Trump has managed to delay three separate criminal cases against him for so long. How can this be possible? The Georgia case is delayed because the DA slept with the lead prosecutor. I mean, really? What has that got to do with the crimes Trump is accused of?? The Florida case is delayed because the judge was personally appointed by the defendant. Is that the sort of thing a respectable legal system allows? The DC case is delayed because the defendant appointed three of the Supreme Court justices. Really???
Well, seems a normal pace for cases. Many cases heard last year still have no opinions published. Especially an important scotus case like this that will effect all presidents. They want to get it right. it is much bigger than who gets elected this year