Trump immunity decision; about what you'd expect

C.J. Roberts draws a distinction between "official" and "unofficial" acts of the President. The former are either absolutely immune, the exercise of presidential power in the core functions of the office, or presumptively immune, actions by the President that may or may not be immune but which require careful fact finding and analysis. The latter are unofficial acts which are not connected with the exercise of Presidential powers in furtherance of the duties of the office.

Hard to see what else the Court could do.

This isn't the great victory Trump was hoping for; C.J. Roberts specifically questions whether Trump's schemes to pressure state officials to "find" votes and conspiracy to create slates of false electors may not be immune. These issues were remanded to the District Court for hearing.

I think there's a very strong hint here; interfering with the election isn't "official" and therefore isn't immune. Roberts didn't say that of course. He said the record wasn't sufficiently developed nor the issue properly addressed by the District Court for the Supreme Court to rule. But had it chosen to do so, the Court could have simply declared that enforcing election law is within the purview of the President and whatever he did therefore is immune. The Court specifically refused to do that. The indictments didn't all go away.

Finally, Roberts stated what should be obvious but isn't; the President isn't above the law and may be prosecuted for criminal acts he commits while in office.

Read the opinion.

 

The process will drag on as criminal matters do but it will be public and will serve as a constant reminder of who Trump is and what he did. No, this is no victory for MAGA.

EDIT One other important development. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that the President has to be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally charged. That's a big deal.

 

Biden must be lighting votive candles right now.

 

Are the cases against Trump falling apart?

 

I would suggest keeping him away from matches.

It was so cute when Dr. Jill Biden had him standing there with his mouth open looking proud as she told him he did a good job and answered all the questions. Like a mommy to a proud pre k.

In the few clips I have seen of her, she speaks well and I think in an alternative universe could have been Presidential material.

 

The folks at MSNBC are finally working through their initial knee jerk rage and seeing that this decision was no MAGA victory after all.

The key is to realize that interference with state election officials to throw an election isn't a core function of the President. Trump probably isn't immune.

 

The concern really isn't over his current criminal cases. The concern is for what he or any other president might do in the future.

 

MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell realized it.

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c

The case was dismissed.
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor’s appointment.

 

I'm still waiting for the explanation of why it's okay for a judge to preside over a case where the defendant is the person who appointed her to the bench.

 

That's why federal judges have lifetime tenure. Look, it's an issue but where do you stop? If you want to disqualify based on speculation, does that mean no Senator should ever appear before any Judge he voted to confirm? What about corporations in which the Senator owns 51% of the stock? Ten percent of the stock? His wife owns 25% of the stock?

So you need to show evidence of actual prejudice. Not usually easy to do. But if it's any comfort to you, most trial court decisions are reviewed on appeal by a panel of three Judges. If the decision is legally wrong, they will reverse it.

 

That is like asking why it is okay for President Trump to be prosecuted by a Democratic Party Prosecutor and the case overseen by a Democratic Party Judge and the cases being driven by the Democratic Party. The party and its operatives are going after him in a number of publicized cases around the and using the legal system and party surrogates to do it.

It is the way our system works.

 

I'm fine stopping right there: You can't preside over a case where the defendant hired you.

 

No, it's not like that. I didn't say he cannot have a judge who was appointed by a Republican. I said it's wrong for him to have a judge whom HE appointed. There's no need to apply a slippery slope argument here.

 

Presidents don't "hire" federal judges alone. Every appointee must be confirmed by the Senate. More to the point, a President cannot "fire" a federal judge.

 

Obviously, I was speaking colloquially when I said "hire." You're describing a distinction without a difference. No one could have put her on the bench besides the sitting president. And her confirmation almost certainly didn't include questions about what she would do if Trump was charged with felonies and the case came before her.

As for "firing," I didn't say anything about that.

 

No, you didn’t, but that matters. If you believe this Judge did what she did for some reason other than applying the law as she understands it to the facts as she found them, okay, it would not be the first time. But if that did happen, the appeals process should act as a check on her decision. Legally speaking, there is nothing disqualifying about Trump having appointed her.

 

It seems to me that Cannon is angling for a SCOTUS nomination should Trump win the election.