Jack Smith filed his brief on Saturday, Dec 30. Team Trump had until Tuesday, Jan 2 to file their response. The oral arguments are set for one week after that, Jan 9.
Save the date, with any luck, we might need cake after the oral arguments are over on Jan 9, or at least once they make their ruling
Dec 30
Either Jack Smith and his team are super good at writing these things in plain English so that those of us following along at home can understand it, or I am getting better at understanding what the hell they are saying.
So, the list court cases takes no less than 6.5 pages. Then we have two pages of “Other Authorities”. My favorite is Brett M. Kavanaugh, The President and the Independent Counsel, 86 Geo. L.J. 2133 (1998).
Some of my favorite excerpts follow.
Introduction
For the first time in our Nation’s history, a grand jury has charged a former President with committing crimes while in office to overturn an election that he lost. In response, the defendant claims that to protect the institution of the Presidency, he must be cloaked with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution unless the House impeached and the Senate convicted him for the same conduct. He is wrong. Separation-of- powers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former President may be prosecuted for criminal acts he committed while in office—including, most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election.
To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic.
Statement of the Case
The defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. Nonetheless, according to a later grand jury indictment, in the weeks following the election, he conspired to use knowingly false claims of election fraud with the goal of overturning the legitimate results of that election and disenfranchising millions of voters. The conspiracies culminated in an attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, when both Houses of Congress met to certify the Presidential election results, in accordance with procedures set out in the Constitution and federal law. A violent mob forced past police officers and into the Capitol building, causing Members of Congress and the Vice President to flee, delaying the certification, and leaving “multiple people dead, injur[ing] more than 140 people, and inflict[ing] millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
They spend 3 pages listing all the illegal stuff Trump did, or attempted to do.
The Argument (The argument is 40+ pages.)
The defendant argues that Presidential immunity and principles of double jeopardy warrant dismissal of the indictment. Those arguments lack support in the separation of powers, constitutional text, history, or precedent. Both arguments also threaten to undermine democracy. The defendant’s immunity claim implies that a President may use any means necessary to remain in power and evade federal criminal liability for his conduct unless first impeached and convicted. And his invocation of double-jeopardy principles implies that a Senate acquittal of a former President because he is no longer in office forever insulates him from criminal accountability. Those claims draw no support from our constitutional heritage and, if accepted, would damage bedrock principles of equality before the law. The Court should affirm.
The Defendant Has No Immunity from Federal Criminal Prosecution.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motions to dismiss on Presidential- immunity and double-jeopardy grounds.
For the reasons given in the Government’s motion to expedite appellate review, including the imperative public importance of a prompt resolution of this case, the Government respectfully requests the Court to issue the mandate five days after the entry of judgment. Such an approach would appropriately require any party seeking further review to do so promptly.
Issuing the mandate 5 days after the entry of judgment appears to be a big Joe Biden deal, as Trump would have to either request an en banc hearing or go to the Supreme Court within that 5 days.
It seems to me that that’s probably the whole ballgame there, because otherwise Trump could twiddle his thumbs for 44 days and only then request the en banc hearing or go to the Supreme Court, which would at least come close to running out the clock.
Not so fast! Since I wrote the paragraph just above on December 30, the landscape changed. A LOT. Now the new thing could be the whole ballgame.
It seems to me that the lay of the land has changed considerably. If you haven’t been keeping up (good luck with that, given how fast things are moving!), two landscape-changing Amicus curiae briefs have been submitted, and accepted. These are also known as “friends of the court” briefs.
First one: Judge Luttig and other respected conservatives from 5 republican administrations filed the first one. Guessing that everyone has heard about that one, so I won’t go into it.
Second one:
A nonprofit watchdog organizaion, American Oversight, filed an amicus brief arguing that the DC Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to take up Trump’s immunity appeal. Instead, the lawyers argue, the immunity question should be sent back to Judge Chutkan. The Special Counsel team and Trump’s team have been notified that they should be prepared to address the two amicus briefs in their oral arguments on Jan 9.
If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, Harry Litman explains the second amicus brief in 15 minutes in the YouTube video below.
But the bottom line is that if this one prevails, the case goes right back to Judge Chutkan and a March trial date could be back on, with potentially only a 2-3 week delay from the original trial date.
How fast could we potentially see a ruling after the oral arguments on Jan 9? Apparently each side gets only 20 minutes and then a little bit of followup time. I assume the judges can extend that time if they wish. Seems like with these two friends of the court briefs, there will be too much to cover in 20 minutes.
Open thread.
Annie
Good legal writing should be clear. Judges have plenty to read. They want a clear statement of what the attorney wants the court to do, or not do. The worst legal writing I’ve read in 30-plus years as a paralegal came from associate attorneys who had too little experience to write well, did not understand the case or law, or some combination of all 3.
this is aside from real estate law which is incredibly boring.
Ella in New Mexico
Ever since the day this bastard was elected, and certainly since he took office, we’ve all been holding our breaths, waiting for our legal and political system to hold him accountable and yet here he still is, still free, still ripping holes in our social and political fabric. So tired of court case delays and solid investigations being thrown in the trash and wimpy Republican Reps and Senators not doing their freaking jobs.
Please Dear Lord, let this finally be the beginning of his end. And I mean that in every possible sense.
Manyakitty
My head is spinning from all this.
Baud
@Annie:
Now you tell me.
bbleh
Just to add a little ray of sunshine (exploding lava can look like sunshine…), what happens when the cognitive dissonance between TIFG’s ever-more-delusional denials and the slow, sober judgments of the courts becomes too much for the already-straining minds of substantial fractions of the Cult?
I just can’t believe that they’ll succeed in getting everything put off until after, or close to, the election (absent 5 of the Supremes effectively staging a coup of their own, which I think is unlikely). And the noise and rancor of the campaigns are gonna get a lot louder and hotter. And the weather’s gonna start warming up…
Old School
Should be an interesting year.
E. Jean Carroll’s civil suit against Trump is scheduled to begin January 16th.
Another Scott
Repost from downstairs – it fits better here.
We’ve got to fight the monsters everywhere, every day.
Are we doing anything for the NY 3rd House special election? It’s to replace “Santos” – if that’s his real name. Tom Suozzi is the Democrat. The election is on February 13.
Cook’s PVI says it is D+2.
He’s trying to run as a moderate on things like the southern border. “Just win, baby” – NP.
There’s going to be one debate on February 8.
The federal CR(s) run out on January 19 and February 2.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
The NY trial of the NRA guy starts on Jan8. Oh, all this time when we’ve been saying the wheels of justice grind slowly… who knew it would be THIS slow??
Baud
lowtechcyclist
I’ve heard about it in the sense that I knew that amicus brief had been filed, but haven’t heard diddly about any implications it might have. My unlawyerly impression is that amicus briefs usually don’t mean all that much, so I shrugged and ignored it, figuring that if it did matter, I’d hear about it somewhere.
Now I’m hearing about it. So what does it mean?
Leto
OT but related overall: Rachel Maddow in Conversation with Kathleen Belew. I know Maddow isn’t everyone’s cup of tea (and she made fun of herself for that looong windup delivery in her recent Chris Hayes talk), but it’s a really good conversation with a leading authority on right-wing/white power terrorism.
Dr Kathleen Belew bio.
Ruckus
The wheels may grind slowly but that, as much as it often does not seem positive, it really, really is.
I’ve never been involved under those wheels but I do understand that while they grind slowly, they do grind the vast percentage of time, very, very well and properly. It’s that they grind slowly so that far fewer mistakes are made, it’s that they grind in the open that everyone can witness their operation, and see the process and the resolution that is one of the very good concepts of this country, you know, the one ShitForBrains wanted to overthrow for likely a rather few bucks and his “friends” in low places. I don’t call him ShitForBrains without good reason.
clay
This will be interesting to see if Trump, his lawyers, supporters, and all of the MAGA judges realize one important thing:
Any argument they make in defense of Trump’s actions and behaviors during the last election can also apply to Biden during the next one.
Are they really going to get on board with saying Biden has absolutely immunity to try to keep himself in office?
Another Scott
Meanwhile, … WhiteHouse.gov:
While the Gerald Ford recently left, there are lots of US ships in the area…:
Here’s hoping the Houthis dial it back a bit, but …
Cheers,
Scott.
Burnspbesq
The defendant-appellant’s reply brief was filed last night; there’s a link in Kyle Chaney’s Twitter feed.
It’s not going to change anybody’s mind.
Annie
@lowtechcyclist:
this is right, at least in my (limited) experience. The court reads them but in and of themselves amicus briefs don’t usually change anything.
SiubhanDuinne
My favorite six words in the filing:
bbleh
@Another Scott: concur, but I doubt they will — it’s not like they’re an established nation-state with much to win by playing nice diplomatically, or to lose by ignoring Sternly Worded Statements.
And not to seem unduly bloodthirsty, but presuming they keep it up, it seems kinda no-lose politically for the WH. Some brightly-colored video of bang-booms “in defense of Freedom of the Seas and of the international economy on which we all depend” or some such would be catnip for the networks.
Ruckus
@Ella in New Mexico:
SFB is 77 1/2 yrs old, in what might be described as not unreasonable health for his age, and has screwed himself pretty much right into the ground because he’s such a piece of shit. He is the kid that has never grown up, never done one thing worthwhile – even for himself. Which is a shame because he never thinks of anyone but himself – I’d guess that at best his personality could be described as dried dog shit. And he’s been that at least since he was a teen, possibly his entire, useless life. He’s the almost living proof that ill gotten money is the bane of human existence. It’s rather obvious that he’s not alone in being a shitty human, people did vote for his useless, educated, ignorant self.
Mousebumples
For postcarders, Postcards to Voters has (had?) addresses for this race.
My last few weeks have been crazy, so I haven’t done any yet. Maybe things will settle down in the next few days..
ETA – never mind. I don’t see that as an active campaign any longer.
Another Scott
@Mousebumples: Thanks for the update. I need to keep an eye on things like postcard efforts. I need to be doing a little more than sending money for my sanity…
Cheers,
Scott.
Lapassionara
@lowtechcyclist: Judge Luttig is highly regarded in conservative legal circles. The fact that he has taken such a public stand on Trump’s unfitness for office (per the 14th amendment) is one of the more heartening developments in this saga, to me. He is extremely intelligent and knows how to approach and convince Circuit Court judges because he was one at one time. So I view this Amicus brief as having weight, whereas others might not.
tony in san diego
they know Biden is a good guy, and woud never do any of the evil stuff Trump is planning.
WaterGirl
@lowtechcyclist: I can’t speak to how much impact amicus briefs normally have.
But both sides have been instructed by the appeals court to be prepared to make their case regarding the two amicus briefs – either in support or opposition – so I would say these particular amicus briefs have the potential to be game-changers.
If the argument in the second amicus brief wins the day – the one that says the appeals court doesn’t have jurisdiction because Trump isn’t entitled to an interlocutory appeal (before he goes to trial) – then the case goes right back to Judge Chutkan, likely with a March date. That would be a big fucking Joe Biden deal.
lowtechcyclist
@Lapassionara:
So that’s the argument he makes in his amicus brief – that Trump is properly disqualified from being President, on account of the 14th Amendment?
ETA: Grammar.
Mai Naem mobile
@Another Scott: got me thinking of ships named after US presidents. Maybe TFG can have a fake Russian ship that they use in US Naval Academy training named after him. A teeny tiny faux gold painted ship with white and confederate flags.
eversor
@clay:
Biden is not advancing Christianity so they will, and they should, simply Calvin Ball the rules if it comes up for Biden so they can get another pro Christian president and clamp down on the rest of us.
To criticize this is anti Christian bigotry and prevents Alito and Barr from passing down their faith. So changing the rules for theocracy is what religious liberty is for and not only should they do it, we should praise them for doing it.
Go Jesus.
lowtechcyclist
Mmmm…pastry!
WaterGirl
@Burnspbesq: Yeah, I was going to summarize that with a dismissive comment, but I got distracted. The Trump reply was pathetic; thanks for adding that info to the mix.
WaterGirl
@Lapassionara: The second one has also been brought by some very heavy-hitters, and it sure seems to have left the legal eagles on twitter somewhat breathless in anticipation. it’s a really big deal if it turns out that the court of appeals has no jurisdiction on the immunity question until AFTER the case has been tried.
Truly the potential for a game-changer.
WaterGirl
@lowtechcyclist: It’s more than that. As I understand it…
In this brief Judge Luttig basically says that even if the court holds the there IS presidential immunity in some criminal cases, that any presidential immunity that might exist simply CANNOT apply to this case, because of the part of the constitution that says Presidents have a term of 4 years and then they go back to being regular people. So if Trump’s attempts to stay in office after he lost were considered to have some immunity, that would be in direct contradiction with the constitution and therefore immunity could not apply there.
frosty
@tony in san diego: Biden might be a good guy but all bets are off for Dark Brandon.
Lapassionara
@lowtechcyclist: I don’t think so. He has been making that argument in op-eds and on tv. I have not seen any discussion of what he argues in his amicus, but I know two things: his argument supports the special counsel’s position; and his brief will have influence based on his reputation and intellect.
Timill
@lowtechcyclist:
Patisserie!
Xavier
@Annie: Jack Smith is writing for the court of public opinion as well as the formal courts.
Lapassionara
@WaterGirl: I am not sure how I feel about the “no jurisdiction” argument. I read somewhere that the court does have jurisdiction of the double jeopardy argument. If that is the case, then I don’t see what is gained by sending the “immunity” question back to the trial court. Trump will just appeal it later.
Chief Oshkosh
@clay:
I don’t think that this is helpful. It does not matter whether their arguments prevail to “save” a Republican. When a Democrat is the target, they will happily argue the exact opposite. Hell, they did that preemptively with Bush v Gore.
Anotherlurker
The pie filter is fun!
Chief Oshkosh
@Lapassionara: IANAL, but IMO, amicus briefs provide political cover in these sorts of cases. In that sense, they may allow a judge to make the decision that they know they should make, but that they are scared to make. I doubt that there’s anything in the briefs themselves that will further educate the judge or in some fashion fundamentally alter the judge’s assessment of the case.
bbleh
@Lapassionara: can’t they deal with various parts differently? Say, “naw man, questionable whether we even got jurisdiction over immunity and in any case it’s unripe, and yeah, we got the double jeopardy thing and omfg are you kidding us hahahahahadenied.”
WaterGirl
@Lapassionara:
What is gained but that is that Trump wouldn’t be able to appeal immunity until AFTER THE TRIAL, which means that Trump can’t eat up weeks and months – delaying the trial until it’s too close to November. That is a really big deal.
To put it another way, It’s not likely that Trump would win on Immunity – but it could delay the trial for 2-3 months or more. Since time is of the essence, that is a big deal.
But even more importantly, it appears that there is a clear delineation of what must be done in an interlocutory basis, and big deal amicus brief #2 (as I am referring to it) does not appear to fall under that clear delineation.
So regardless of whether you or I or anyone else likes the idea of it, it would appear that they have the law on their side. Or at least it appears that they do, and that will be fully debated one week from yesterday. With a Scalia supreme court ruling that was 9-0 providing the basis for their opinion that this should not be an interlocutory appeal.
EthylEster
This Littman dude is a poor explainer.
Based on this video, I would never want him speaking for me.
Disappointing.
coin operated
@Chief Oshkosh: IANAL, but I understand amicus briefs to be a way to introduce a point of law that has not entered the court yet.
The second amicus filed by American Oversight is right in line with this reasoning. They’re arguing a decision handed down by Scalia (he’s still dead…I checked) says that Trump cannot appeal the immunity judgement because 1) there isn’t specific constitutional or case law saying immunity is absolute and 2) appeals of this nature can only take place *after* conviction. It’s a well-written brief IMHO.
I know for the life of me I could never write a legal brief but, having read nearly every filing in Trump’s myriad of criminal activity since the 2020 election, my comprehension of legal briefs has gotten a lot better
ETA…Watergirl at #41 got there first
PaulWartenberg
Summations in the NY civil trial is supposed to be January 11th, and the judge expected to rule by the third or fourth week of January.
I hope it includes contempt findings for all the times trump used social media to attack the judge and his clerk.
Chief Oshkosh
@coin operated: Thanks, that’s education. I’d assumed that such points are understood already by the judge, but it makes sense to belts and suspender it and not assume so.
Lapassionara
@WaterGirl: I found the second amicus brief and now see that it handles both issues on appeal, instead of just the immunity issue. Evidently, double jeopardy is an exception to the final judgment rule, but Trump is not directly relying on the double jeopardy clause. Instead he is relying on the “impeachment judgment” clause, and a “negative inference” from that clause. This brief is very well done. It cites rulings by both Scalia and Gorsuch. So I agree, if it prevails, it is a very big deal. I tried to find the Luttig amicus, but could not.
Another Scott
@Chief Oshkosh: I think the usual way it’s supposed to work is that a judge is supposed to be a neutral party and rule based on the evidence presented in the case, and the law. So, if one of the parties doesn’t bring something up, the judge isn’t supposed to do their job for them. If a party wants to cover all the bases, they need to cover all the bases and not assume anything.
That’s part of what made Aileen Cannon’s rulings so infuriating in the TIFG documents case – she was basically writing briefs for his lawyers, and was rightly slapped down for it.
Of course, the RWNJs on the SCOTUS do this frequently, even taking cases from people who cannot show any injury…
IANAL either.
Cheers,
Scott.
Dangerman
I admit I have a History of hoping for too much. I play the lottery too often. I still hope for betrothal to a Playboy Playmate. Scratch golfer. Dunking a basketball again in my advanced years. You get the idea.
But I can’t get over thinking Trump gets DQ’d by the USSC over the 14th. They have a choice of, one, DQ’ing him and have the MAGA’s lose their shit, or two, Trump loses to Biden again and the MAGA’s lose their shit again. I just can’t see Trump winning again (see paragraph one).
I just think the safest outcome is DQ’ing him.
Yes, the Republican primary turns into some hybrid from hell of a Jerry Springer show and a WWE event. Big deal. It’s almost there now.
Yes, MAGA’s lose their shit. Been there, done that; go to jail or get shot. Don’t care. FAFO.
Someone has to clean up the mess of the last 60 or so years before it’s too late.
SiubhanDuinne
Just saw this Aaron Blake analysis of Trump’s appeal brief (gift link) at WaPo. And wow — even for TIFG and his stunningly incompetent legal team, this is all pretty jaw-dropping.
...now I try to be amused
@Dangerman:
Safest for the country, yes, but safest for the GOP? I expect that no Trump on the ballot would be a downticket disaster for them.
Dangerman
Oh, it would be a total ass whooping …
…but that falls under FAFO. They could have stopped this thing with Impeachment 2. Time to pay the piper.
Captain C
@Dangerman:
Except it’s whatever Dollar Store Springer is on channel 458 and some fifth rate regional wrestling league, since they can’t seem to attract any decent headliners.
coin operated
@SiubhanDuinne: Thank you for the link. I’m yet to read Trump’s reply but Aaron Blake is basically saying that Team Trump is not arguing immunity but rehashing debunked election fraud claims. Bet that goes over well with the judge.
...now I try to be amused
@Dangerman: Republicans have a pattern of trying to thread the needle regarding Trump. They wish he would magically disappear without any doing on their part while his fans keep voting Republican. Does that pattern extend to SCOTUS? We’ll see.
Brachiator
@Another Scott:
I had to look up who is backing the Houthi.
Reminds me of the Abbott and Costello routine, “Houthis on First?”
Barbara
@WaterGirl: @coin operated:
There is a distinction from immunity from suit and immunity from damages. If you are immune from suit (kind of what I assume he means by “absolute” immunity, though I am not sure) then the case would be more likely to be accepted for interlocutory appeal because even getting tried would be a kind of injury if you were entitled to immunity from suit.
I can’t remember the precise standards for interlocutory appeal, but they are high.
Uncle Cosmo
FTFY, Burnsie.
SiubhanDuinne
@coin operated:
For once, I also enjoyed scrolling through the comments. Apparently, WaPo readers have the same level of respect and affection for TIFG as we jackals do.
Gravenstone
@eversor: How the fuck did you climb out of pieville? Back you go…
Jackie
According to MSNBC, the Jan 9 hearing won’t be available to watch, but it WILL BE AVAILABLE ON AUDIO. MSNBC will cover it; I assume CNN will, also. 50/50 chance any RW outlets will. AFAIK, no time has been mentioned as of yet.
WaterGirl
@EthylEster: He’s usually really good, but I agree that one was not his best work! I think he was so excited he was all over the place.
I probably chose a bad time to link to him!
Yutsano
@eversor: Dude, you’re half-assing it at this point. Stop. Get help.
EDIT: may or may not have done this just for the pastry section…
WaterGirl
@coin operated: But yours had more detail!
WaterGirl
@Chief Oshkosh: That point had not been raised directly by Jack Smith or by any of the judges.
So it’s important that they accepted the amicus brief (which they are not required to do) because this does seem to be an important point.
Brachiator
@Dangerman:
I will note that I also think that Trump will bigly lose if he is the GOP nominee.
That said…
I can’t see the Supreme Court letting states drop Trump from the ballot. They are cautious and indirect about how they interfere with elections.
The worst possible outcome would be Trump being off so many ballots that he could not win 270 electoral votes. This would make the federal election an absurdity.
Of course, if the Republican Party had the gonads to rule Trump ineligible…
Gravenstone
Make it so.
WaterGirl
@Lapassionara:
Total agreement!
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: I think I called it pathetic, but it really is shockingly bad.
Fake Jack Smith described it as: “He lied about the election being stolen. He then made it his job to keep the lie alive.”
WaterGirl
@Jackie: I thought it would available by audio since one of the others for that court was, but it’s nice to see confirmation!
If it’s like the previous one, it won’t be just MSNBC or CNN – I believe the appellate court itself provided access last time
Roberto el oso
Regarding all those non-Google-able citations in the filing by Trump’s lawyers …. I wonder if there’s a team of flunkies somewhere, furiously feeding info into ChatGPT in order to make these fictions a reality?
RaflW
@Brachiator: “The worst possible outcome would be Trump being off so many ballots that he could not win 270 electoral votes. This would make the federal election an absurdity.”
I know the Court plays Calvinball with the law, so it is likely they’ll imagine a way to overturn CO’s state Supremes and their interpretation of (IIRC) Colorado law.
That said, if several states do manage to keep Trump off their ballots, it’s not the federal election that would be an absurdity. It would be the GOP ticket that is. And that isn’t (or, shouldn’t be) a constitutional problem. The Party has choices it can still make, and if it choses not to while knowing the risks of his possible exclusion from office, well … FAFO.
Another Scott
Teri’s very level headed about this legal stuff.
IANAL.
Cheers,
Scott.
Brachiator
@RaflW:
I noted that the GOP should have and still could deal with this.
Still, the DQ path could create all kinds of problems. And we already have people ready to tear up the Constitution.
Lapassionara
@WaterGirl: OMG, Trump is citing himself as a source of factual information about purported election “irregularities.” Talk about a circular argument! I once knew an attorney who would cite articles he had written himself as authority for points of law he wanted to make, when the weight of reputable authorities stood for the opposite points of law. Most judges view this tactic with disfavor. It is especially bad when being used to describe “facts” that are not even before the court for adjudication.
Subsole
@clay:
Yes. Because they will never apply their standard to themselves, no one will expect them to, and they have an entire series of fawning professionals, pundits, reporters and media owners to tell everyone that that state of affairs is both right and proper.
They will absolutely be hypocrites, because which of our current Beltway hacks is going to stand up to them?
Ruckus
@Gravenstone:
I just checked my filter off switch selections and it’s empty. It’s possible that the last redo of BJ redid the filter lists.
So I’m following your lead and reopening the bakery.
Ruckus
@RaflW:
“That said, if several states do manage to keep Trump off their ballots, it’s not the federal election that would be an absurdity. It would be the GOP ticket that is. And that isn’t (or, shouldn’t be) a constitutional problem. The Party has choices it can still make, and if it choses not to while knowing the risks of his possible exclusion from office, well … FAFO.”
I believe that needed to be repeated.
If SFB is not eligible for office then he shouldn’t be on the ballot. Of course he hasn’t been convicted for any of his felony charges so he is innocent until then. I do believe that he will be before November on at least some of them, but a jury may be difficult to impanel before then, there seems to be a line forming in this country that one side says he can do ANYTHING he desires as president, that the law does not apply to him and the other side that says Bull and Shit. I believe side #2 is correct.
WaterGirl
@Lapassionara: And then references to something that has no named author! Twice!
WaterGirl
@Ruckus: Those should only be gone of you have cleared your cookies. Or if you set them in incognito mode, in which case they wouldn’t be remembered.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T, it must be really weird and sad for Alicia Menendez to anchor a program on MSNBC literally just minutes after the host of the preceding show did a whole segment on the alleged misdeeds of her father, Sen. Bob Menendez. I’m sure she has recused herself from covering the story, but it must be very difficult for her.
Jackie
@SiubhanDuinne: She recused herself Day One. I’m glad MSNBC has her back; she’s been on-air a lot as Nicolle Wallace’s main surrogate while she’s on maternity leave.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
I agree, that is how it has been for a very long time.
But. I haven’t cleared cookies in some time that I remember.
OTOH that last word in the second line may be an issue……
OTOOH, I am getting up into the age grouping known as old fart, and there may be issues but it’s likely that I can’t remember what they are so can’t tell you…… I can remember the car my mom drove when I was very, very young, which is a very, very long time ago, a 1946 or 47 Ford sedan, olive drab in color – and drab every other measurable way as well. I believe it was WWII surplus, it sure looked like it.
jonas
As time goes on, my rage is increasingly directed not at Trump, who is so clownishly deranged, there’s really not much more to be said, but at the sniveling, cowardly Republicans who have enabled and protected him these past 7 years. Trump threatens our republic not because he’s a wackjob wannabe Hitler, but because several hundred Republican legislators are willing to coddle and enable him. Without them, he’d just be another idiot shitposter on Truth Social or whatever.
There are not enough tumbrels or rusty farm implements in the world for these people…
Redshift
@clay:
They’re relying on the correct assumption that no matter how much of a danger Trump is to our democracy, it’s not 100%, so Biden isn’t going to “destroy the country to save it.”
If TFG gets back in office, he’s declared his intention to gut the rule of law, so it wouldn’t matter what precedents get set now.
Sure Lurkalot
@WaterGirl:
The claim is that the stolen election was the insurrection and savior Trump was just doing his job as president, surely you can’t prosecute a president for honoring his oath and setting the country back on the path of righteousness?
Redshift
@…now I try to be amused:
They all want someone else to make him go away. Buncha cowards; makes their compulsive use of the word “patriot” to describe themselves even more of a mockery.
SiubhanDuinne
@Jackie:
I missed the day she recused herself. Yes, I miss seeing Nicolle, but I’m glad she’s taking time to bond with her new baby. And I do like Menendez — she strikes me as very professional. Not a hack (like Andrea Mitchell, frex. Lawd lawd lawd, why doesn’t she just retire already!?)
Sure Lurkalot
@SiubhanDuinne:
I feel no more sorry for her than the Trump spawn. Her father has betrayed his oath of office and sold out his country and constituents for money, cars and jewelry. Maybe she didn’t aid and abet like the lowlife Trumps but I find it difficult to believe she didn’t know her father was paid to play.
WaterGirl
@Sure Lurkalot: Perhaps in his deluded world, Trump thinks that’s true.
But not in the real world.
I simply cannot fathom why / how the lawyers he has who used to be decent can bear to work for Trump and produce this crap that would be humiliating to any attorney who was worth anything.
WaterGirl
@Sure Lurkalot: That’s pretty much where I’m at, too.
But I have never seen her and had no idea who she was except for what I have read here.
But, really, no one is dishonest and disloyal and selling themselves for profit IN JUST ONE AREA OF THEIR LIFE.
So I don’t see how she couldn’t have knows. Unless she didn’t want to know.
Jackie
@WaterGirl: I have no idea how close Alicia is with her dad and step mom. I give her the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise.
WaterGirl
@Jackie: Even if you weren’t “close” don’t you think a person knows whether their parent is a fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy person?
...now I try to be amused
@Redshift:
Yep. What’s really insidious is that it isn’t enough for them to stand by and let the process play out; they must be seen to be supporting Trump even as they fervently wish him gone.
In the first impeachment it was, “We must let the voters decide.” The voters decided. In the second impeachment it was, “We must let the justice system decide.” Now that the justice system is gearing up to decide, it’s “We must let the voters decide” again.
As jonas noted above, Trump would get nowhere without hundreds of Republican officials running interference for him.
cmorenc
I predict SCOTUS isn’t going to be remotely as hospitable to Trump as they are to the Federalist Society vision of what the laws and constitution are. A sufficient plurality of the RW 6 + the 3 D appointees will understand that Trump is an existential threat to their own institution and the rule of law, even as conservatives see it. If they ruled in his favor on immunity, it’s obvious a corollary to that is that it will be difficult to enforce any decision Trump is displeased with, and that he is inclined to run roughshod over anything standing in his way, including courts and even the federalist conservative vision of government.
jonas
@cmorenc: That’s my sense as well. Thomas and Alito would love to live in Trump’s America, but I’m not so sure about the other four R’s on the court. They want to live in the Koch Brothers America, and the Kochs hated Trump.
Jackie
@WaterGirl: And do we know how close their relationship is?
Alicia is definitely no Ivanka. Her coworkers seem to have her back – in fact MSNBC has given her a new show starting in two weeks.
SiubhanDuinne
@Sure Lurkalot:
What if she did know? It’s possible to be fully aware of a close relative’s indiscretions, misdeeds, and crimes — and to deplore those acts — without in any way diminishing your love for that person. But I don’t know what the situation is in the Menendez family, and I dare say nobody else on Balloon Juice does either.
TriassicSands
But, you are still missing the real problem, the one with the greatest staying power — the people who elected Trump and “the sniveling, cowardly Republicans who have enabled and protected him these past 7 years.”
The Republican politicians are just doing what they know will preserve their jobs. It is the voters who have made all this happen and while politicians can be voted out of office, the voters who have repeatedly elected them could have stopped this travesty years ago.
It isn’t the Republican politicians who have established Trump as the party’s next presidential nominee. They aren’t really afraid of Trump; they’re afraid of the voters.
SiubhanDuinne
@Jackie:
Likewise. I really hate this knee-jerk “sins of the father” crap with no evidence.
WaterGirl
@Jackie: As I said in my earlier reply, I have never seen her – wouldn’t know who she was if I saw her on the street. I am just speaking generally; I think most people know what kind of person their parent is.
On the other hand, if you thought your father was fundamentally dishonest and you wanted nothing to do with them, what would most of us do? Sever ties, or turn them in? Life is complicated.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne:
She may be smart and talented, and a wonderful person, but I would be completely shocked if her last name didn’t help her get where she is.
Not saying she is responsible for what he does, but it seems unlikely to me that she hasn’t benefited from his name. That’s where I’m coming from.
Ruckus
@Sure Lurkalot:
I’d bet that often family members are not told that the bread winner is actually cheating at the job, against the country, whatever. These are very often the young humans who have trusted you with their lives, their homes, their very existence. They often have to see systemic family issues and go along with them because they depend on the prior generation for almost everything for 18-20 yrs. Or more. And then sometimes they are waiting for the rewards of doing exactly that and not taking any chances. Or they run away because they have figured it out and try to be better. One most often never knows whats going on in the home. Being humans it can be very good or very bad. And anywhere inbetween.
japa21
@WaterGirl: And there is nothing wrong with benefiting from a family name as long as it does not involve doing things that are dishonest. As long as you are capable of handling what those benefits are.
Jackie
@WaterGirl: Just curious, if Chelsea Clinton decided to run for office would you support her or accuse her of running on her name? Yes, sometimes having connections helps, but a lot of time it hinders – you have to work three times as hard to prove you are worthy in your own right.
And what Japa21 said.
Roberto el oso
@Redshift: When SCOTUS tipped the balance in favor of Bush against Gore they fell all over themselves saying that the ruling should not be regarded as a precedent. So if they decide in favor of Trump I suspect we’ll see more of the same, which, if they were honest, would be a bristle of caveats which boiled down would be “this is a one-time-only thing and will never apply to Democratic presidents”.
TriassicSands
How will that ever change? I find it somewhat ridiculous when people act shocked that Biden’s son and brother tried to take advantage of their familial connection to make lots of money. Presidential relatives aren’t going to stop doing that because it is unseemly. What it says about Biden is pretty much nothing, but what it says about Hunter and his uncle is not good.
Remember Carter’s brother and Billy Beer. Clinton’s half-brother Roger was also a problem. (Apparently, his Secret Service code name was “Headache.”) Granted HRC worked hard as a senator and Secretary of State, but would she have been either if Bill weren’t her husband? That’s a different question than was she talented enough to earn those positions on her own. She was, but she didn’t have to. Her prominence came as a result of whom she married. That gave her the position and name recognition that others never have.
Anti-nepotism laws are a good thing, but there isn’t much else that can be done to prevent the relatives of prominent and powerful people from trying to benefit from their familial connections. I’m not at all familiar with Alicia Menendez, but once she has a position, the real question is how well she does it, not did she get it because of who her father is.
It is a fact of life in this country that people get advantages they don’t earn by simply being related to the “right” people.
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
Sorry, that’s doubtless true, but most of us use whatever advantages we may have to get a foot in the door; most of us also know not to lead with our connections or special privileges but to let them emerge naturally. I guess it’s possible that Alicia Menendez opened every job interview with “Hello, my father is the famous, powerful Senator Bob Menendez, and I’d like to come work for your outfit” (the Meghan McCain approach), but I kind of doubt it. But if an interviewer asked* “Why did you grow up partly in New Jersey and partly in D.C.?” I think it’s perfectly legit to explain that Daddy was/is a U.S. Senator. That, to me, is a far cry from trading on a famous name.
* I have no idea if Alicia grew up in both NJ and D.C. Just an example.
WaterGirl
@japa21: People here weren’t too happy that Luke Russert got all sorts of unearned roles simply because of his family’s name.
Not saying a thing about his daughter in particular here, because I have never seen her and I have no idea of her talent. But nepotism isn’t popular here, generally speaking. I imagine she must be good in her own right, and not another Luke Russert, because of all the people rising up to defend her.
WaterGirl
@Jackie: I was just speaking generally, and I seem to have stepped in a hornet’s nest, so I’m just gonna quit while I’m behind. This isn’t a fight worth having. I have never seen her; I have nothing against her. I have no particular dog in this fight.
TriassicSands
Lavishly babushkaed Henry will be glad to hear that.
TriassicSands
There is nothing dishonest or corrupt about it, but it can give someone a very real advantage over others that hasn’t been “earned.” So, it isn’t a question of right or wrong, but of fairness. That said, it is reality and there isn’t anything that can or will be done about it.
In a related question — how do you feel about legacy admissions to (an elite) college? Once again, that is taking advantage of a familial relationship that gives someone an unearned advantage over others. That, in turn, can potentially make a huge difference in both the accepted and rejected persons’ future lives.
Glidwrith
@Lapassionara: This kind of citation is rife in the wingnut books.
WaterGirl
@TriassicSands: Handsome devil!
Shalimar
@WaterGirl: I think Luke Russert might actually be good if he went back into the business now. He seemed to be a lot more mature when he went around on a book tour last year. Yes, he was given a national job way too early because of the people he knew through his father. No, his reporting wasn’t particularly good. But he should have been a consumer reporter for a local station in Topeka at that age. If you look at local stations, they’re even more full of people in their 20s than they were decades ago. And he would have been fine if he had started there.
TriassicSands
It’s good that you aren’t biased!
Did you get him as a puppy? (If you’ve written about his history, I missed it.) I’ll bet he was unbelievably cute as a puppy.
wjca
Plus, TIFG can’t appeal to the USSC if the appeals court said it cannot hear the appeal itself. Gotta have a decision in order to appeal it.
wjca
Somebody who is ready/eager to retire might decide that getting several millions (in advance!) might make a nice severance package. Even if it requires signing off on offal for a few months.
WaterGirl
@TriassicSands: I am, of course, biased!
I will hunt down some baby pictures for next time we are in need of an open thread and I don’t have anything put together.
WaterGirl
@wjca: Yes, that too!
RaflW
@cmorenc: Yeah, it is my hope that enough of the Justices grasp that an unleashed tRump will be as destructive to Court power as he would be to everything else.
If they got upset about sidewalk protests after Dobbs, imagine what fresh hell would confront them if they rule against him on something after he (ptuh ptuh feh) managed to slither back into the WH. Freedom to Decide protesters weren’t camo-freaks with semi-automatic weapons.
RaflW
@Roberto el oso: The Court took a hit in credibility the first time it tried that stunt. I know it is de rigueur now for many to say that the elite and institutions no longer care about legitimacy, but the Court relies on a host of people it has no direct control over to enforce the decisions it hands down.
Making up a “one time only” Calvinball string of bullshit to enable Trump is a possibility. But it contains the possible seeds of the Scotus’s own demise as anything but kangaroos.
There’s 2-3 kangaroos there now. I’m counting on (hoping for?) that to be the limit.