Trump 64: He's Finally In Front Of A Judge

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

If they're going to fly people in from Africa - couldn't they just fly straight in? I mean can't people just get a visitor visa? if African gov's are gonna spend a bunch of money to send people here.

I'm so tired. I don't share the optimism from the above posters. I don't see the SCOTUS doing anything helpful. They won't want to be the ones to set that precedent. I don't think he'll flee but very very happy to be proved wrong. And I don't think he'll have actually cause to flee. His trials are likely to be dragged on and on, unless he wins, at which point I think it will be moot. I'm sure he can stay out of jail through an appeals process that lasts the rest of his life.

I find it strange the news media and the supposed other rep candidates are continuing to act like it's business as usual win the GOP primaries. Ignoring the giant elephant in the room does not in fact make it disappear. 

[church_of_dog]

I know the age requirement to be president (35) is at least partially intended to ensure maturity, lacking a better way to measure that, but I hope there is a movement underway to also add a required basic level of understanding of the constitution and the workings and checks and balances of our government.  I can't imagine any honest politician objecting to that in principle.  Might be too late anyway, but it seems wise, if we survive this year, to make that change.

[Xan]

Trump's newest Hail Mary pass is some anonymous info that he got concerning Fani Willis.  He says that she's been having a relationship with a prosecutor that she hired, Nathan Wade.  He thinks this will, of course, change everything and get Willis indicted for racketeering.  (Something about Wade getting paid from Georgia taxpayers or something.)  I've looked around but there's nothing showing up anywhere that says there's any evidence of this.  And, honestly, I don't think interoffice dating would invalidate this case.

Even the Drudge Report doesn't show anything on this and Matt Drudge usually jumps on bad news for Democrats.  What is at the top of his page, though, are the claims about Trump being at Epstein's mansion.  Methinks that Donny is once again trying to divert attention.  Those Christians might be okay with him cheating on his wife but sex with underage girls is a bridge too far.  (I don't know that those claims are true but I'm sure he's worried that they're out there and someone might believe them.)

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Sadly, there seems to be quite a few people who sex with underage girls is perfectly acceptable. Considering what all these people accept from Trump, I doubt this is anything worth noting to them.

He loves to make shit up. It's a waste of anybody's time at this point to even look into his accusations.

[Ozlsn]

12 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I'm putting my money on the Colorado case.

Hm, just finished reading a legal blog article which was going into this. The short version is that it's not certain whether the states can refuse candidates permission to be on the ballot. There's a lot of back and forth in the article but the gist is that the 14th amendment may prevent people from holding office but not prevent them from running.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is unhinged. He’s freaking out about today’s hearing in DC. And, of course, every accusation is a confession.

 

[noseybutt]

7 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Hm, just finished reading a legal blog article which was going into this. The short version is that it's not certain whether the states can refuse candidates permission to be on the ballot. There's a lot of back and forth in the article but the gist is that the 14th amendment may prevent people from holding office but not prevent them from running.

This is exhibit A as to why originalism will be the death of us.

I suspect that blog writer is correct, the writers of the 14th amendment were concerned about insurrectionists taking office because this was post Civil War and the South had been sufficiently defeated that the Union could effectively keep elected officials out of office.

We are on the other side of civil unrest. That is, allowing elections and then refusing seat to elected officials will likely cause a level of unrest and anger and division as to push us closer to civil war.

[fraurosena]

Good grief.

 

[fraurosena]

The article:

Spoiler

Donald Trump's appeal of District Judge Tanya Chutkan's denial of his assertion of presidential immunity was heard today by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Three judges, one Republican and two Democratic appointees of three different presidents, heard the case today - Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs, and Florence Pan.

A sitting president generally has immunity from criminal prosecution for any actions taken during the course of his duties as president. Trump asserts that when he was attempting to subvert the 2020 election results, he was performing his duty as president by "exposing election fraud." Special Counsel Jack Smith asserts that the election was over, the courts had all denied dozens of his elections challenges, and that he was engaged in a criminal enterprise for his own personal benefit and not acting on behalf of the American people.

Judge Chutkan agreed with the government's position in denying Trump's request for immunity, and Trump appealed. Smith then sought to have to Supreme Court take the case directly to save time on an additional appeal, but they declined because they believed he did not clearly articulate his reasons why the extraordinary step of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court was necessary. The practical reality is that Trump is using the appellate process to attempt to delay his cases until after the election, but Smith chose not to bring politics into his argument by making that his reason for expedited review.

John Sauer argued the case for Trump. He was the same lawyer who lost the gag order appeal. James Pearce argued the case for the government. He was the attorney who argued for the government on the gag order issue.

Sauer began by arguing that any ruling by the court denying immunity could open a "Pandora's box" where George Bush could be prosecuted by misleading the public about WMDs in Iraq, or Barack Obama could be prosecuted for murder for drone strikes, or Biden prosecuted for lack of border enforcement. A judge then asked Sauer if a president could sell military secrets to a foreign government, sell pardons, or order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent, would he have immunity? Sauer repeatedly refused to answer that question directly, which frustrated the court. 

Sauer said that a president can only be prosecuted criminally if he has first been impeached and convicted by the Senate, even if the conduct was clearly an "official act." After a lengthy back and forth about that, a different judge asked Sauer to address the issue of whether Trump's charged conduct was "private acts" or "official duties." Sauer argued that the conduct Trump engaged in - speaking and meeting with members of Congress, DOJ and state elections officials - was part of his official duties as president. Sauer also argued that the court should not consider what Trump's motive was at the time - whether that was selfish or not - it only matters that it was being done as part of his normal duties as president.

One judge then said that the way she reviews case law like Marbury v. Madison and its progeny cases is that a distinction is drawn between "discretionary" official acts and "ministerial" official acts, the latter of which would not be given immunity. Sauer argued that those cases dealt with government officials who were not the president, and that the president is an exception to the holding of those cases.

The judge then argued that the president has a duty to ensure "that the laws be faithfully executed," and that Sauer is essentially arguing that a president can violate criminal laws with immunity as long as he claims he is faithfully executing his duties. Sauer argued that the courts have no constitutional authority to ever review whether the president violated criminal statutes while in office because of separation of powers. He conceded that the courts can review presidential actions to determine if they were legal, but only in the context of crimes being committed by subordinate officers, like the Secretary of Commerce, but not if the case involved an attempted prosecution of the president.

Sauer argued that if a president doesn't have absolute immunity, it may cause them to be "unduly cautious" in office because they "would have to look over their shoulder" every time they make a decision that they might be criminally prosecuted. The court said that doesn't necessarily mean that a president can do whatever they want since the duties of the executive branch also include the enforcement of criminal laws. The court seemed to want to draw a distinction here between the "Executive Branch" and the president himself.

James Pearce then began his argument by asserting that no president is completely above the law, and while they may have immunity while in office that doesn't continue after leaving office. He began by addressing the court's concerns about whether they even have jurisdiction to hear this appeal on an interlocutory (while the trial is still pending) basis. Pearce agreed with Sauer that the court has jurisdiction and should decide this case now on the merits even though the case law was vague on whether they had jurisdiction.

The court then asked Pearce to address the "Pandora's box" argument that any criminal prosecution of a president would be "inherently political." Pearce said that only applies if someone attempts to prosecute a sitting president, but not for a former president. Pearce then said there would be a greater political danger if immunity was granted in Trump's scenario, since any president in the future would believe that he could not be prosecuted if he used private individuals and the levers of power to subvert an election. This was probably the most effective part of his argument.

Pearce argued that under Trump's position, a president could order the US military to assassinate his political opponent, and as long as he resigned before he was impeached he could never be criminally prosecuted for it when leaving office because he has absolute immunity from prosecution unless he has been impeached first. He then asked the court "is that the world we want to live in?"

Pearce also argued that Sauer's position that the court could not consider Trump's motives or intent was nonsensical when reviewing whether his actions were taken as part of his official duties versus private conduct because the reason why he did something goes to the heart of whether he was doing it as part of his official duties or for himself. 

 

More interesting info from MuellerSheWrote: The Immunity Hearing

Spoiler

I just finished listening to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals arguments on Trump's immunity claim, and I have some top line takeaways.

The most standout moment for me was when the court pointed out that during Trump's impeachment trial, Trump's OWN LAWYERS argued that impeachment and conviction wasn't necessary because a president can be criminally prosecuted after he leaves office. The court thought that may have swayed some Senators to vote to acquit, because the check of criminal prosecution was always there. Trump's lawyer - Sauer - said he disagreed with the court's characterization of that argument. The court said "It's in the congressional record."

Also, the court brought up arguments made by Amici (briefs filed by non-parties), and they spent a long time on jurisdiction. Trump's lawyers argued that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals DOES have jurisdiction - contradicting what American Oversight argued in their Amicus Brief. But when the court asked DoJ about it, the DoJ said they were NOT arguing jurisdiction. The court seemed confused by that because if the court dismissed on jurisdiction and remanded the case back down to Judge Chutkan - that would mean the DoJ would win here.

But DoJ argued that while it might make this go faster, "we are doing justice, and that means getting the law right." DoJ wants a decision on the merits now, so that Trump can't come back later with the same immunity argument after a conviction. I LOVE THIS! Yes, I want this to go faster, but it also has to be right.

Plus, if the case goes back to Judge Chutkan, it could actually mean MORE delay because she may have to conduct more fact-finding.

The court also asked about the pro-Trump Amicus that challenged whether Jack Smith was appointed properly, and Trump's team said they are NOT making that argument. That was interesting.

Then the court brought up the Judge Luttig et al Amicus and the executive vesting clause that says the president must leave office after four years. Trump's lawyer could only argue that the court should "balance" the executive vesting clause with the president's need to be able to act without fear of reprisal. The court argued back saying that the Article II considerations (executive vesting clause) and the public interest in law enforcement actually countervail the idea that prosecuting Trump would somehow open a "pandora's box" of endless future prosecutions of presidents.

The court also brought up several times the hypotheticals the DoJ outlined in their briefs - what if a president orders the murder of a political rival? What if a president sells pardons? What if a president accepts bribes? After a lot of back and forth with Trump's lawyers refusing to answer the question, he finally admitted that a president could do all those things and be immune from criminal prosecution unless he was impeached and convicted for the same actions. That was just stunning.

Finally, and I'll discuss this with Andy on the next episode of Jack, Trump's attorney was a broken record when it came to repeating his cherry-picked line from Marbury v Madison - that no court can sit in judgment of a president. But the court reminds him over and over that Marbury goes on to say that a president is not immune from criminal prosecution.

There are a lot more details from the hour-plus-long hearing, but this did not go well for Trump. Andy and I will discuss all the details on the next episode of Jack.

 

[Alisamer]

17 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

There have long been rumblings in some non-Fundie Christan circles that he is actually the antichrist. Though I loathe him, I've always stayed away from such conjectures.  I can tell this is all getting to me because the other night I was actually wondering about the possibility.

Honestly he does fit a LOT of the descriptions, without very much stretching. 

If there is an antichrist, I could see him being the one. 

12 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

I know the age requirement to be president (35) is at least partially intended to ensure maturity, lacking a better way to measure that, but I hope there is a movement underway to also add a required basic level of understanding of the constitution and the workings and checks and balances of our government.  I can't imagine any honest politician objecting to that in principle.  Might be too late anyway, but it seems wise, if we survive this year, to make that change.

I agree, definitely. I think we are stuck a bit due to the fact the founding fathers couldn't imagine that anyone who didn't have a proper classical education and a working knowledge of how to govern (even if they had just been running a company or estate or plantation) would ever have the money, time, or initiative to run for office. They didn't really expect a world with high literacy, instant communication, and common working people having "free time" or extra money and the ability to look up anything about anything at any time. A subsistence farmer might take the time to vote, but he's not got time or money to campaign.

And probably there was a heavy element of classism, as well. It never would have occurred to them that anyone who wasn't the early American version of aristocracy would be uppity enough to think they should have a part in government beyond voting. Even beyond his criminality, they'd have side-eyed Trump... his grandfather was an immigrant who ran a brothel, right?

11 hours ago, Xan said:

What is at the top of his page, though, are the claims about Trump being at Epstein's mansion.  Methinks that Donny is once again trying to divert attention.  Those Christians might be okay with him cheating on his wife but sex with underage girls is a bridge too far.  (I don't know that those claims are true but I'm sure he's worried that they're out there and someone might believe them.)

There have been claims about Trump and underage girls for decades, I think, not helped by the way he acted around young Ivanka and teen pageant contestants. I'm not sure at this point that even the most prudish Christians might assume that either it's made up and they can't trust it - because they have been conditioned to only believe what Trump friendly media says, or that "God uses even the most flawed people" and that they'll be willing to overlook it because at least he's not a Democrat. (Anymore.)

I suspect there are SOME people associated with Epstein who are likely innocent - he donated use of the island and his jet for lots of charity auctions and such so there may have been times he wasn't even present, and he'd have had some innocent people around for plausible deniability. I mean, at a party that is taking place in a large mansion, someone hanging out in the billiards room might have no clue there are underage girls upstairs and people doing hard drugs in one of the bedrooms. They probably suspect the drugs (I mean I probably would suspect it...) but unless they come in contact with the girls they might have no clue. 

I don't think Trump is necessarily in that category, however. He's such an "I get what I want" person that if Epstein showed him a girl who looked like teen Ivanka he'd not have bothered to ask her age. He gets what he wants. I could see him saying he had no idea the girl was underage, and be telling the truth for once. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Good grief.

 

Judge Chutkin was also swatted. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Trump has already literally told us how he behaves around women. in his own words. there's no reason to doubt them. Because he's famous/rich, he can grab them by the pussy.  

These times he's caught on tape saying this stuff is not an anomaly. I think every day people like us are forgetting that he ran in a circle of people who were probably not all that different from himself. I truly truly doubt there wasn't common knowledge among that set of people and/or people who are running in a rich and famous circle about Epstein and his situation.  I wish I could give more credit to all these people but I think it's being extremely generous, even dangerously generous,  to say these associates didn't know or couldn't have suspected.  People look the other way, especially when money and power is involved. Think about weinstein. Everybody in hollywood knew. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

I would t pay a penny. Sadly, someone will probably spend a fortune on this crap. 

[SassyPants]

Imagine that you’re a Trump supporter. You voted for him X2 and hope to vote for him again. You keep hearing about this being a political witch hunt and you parrot that belief. How do you reconcile the fact that every court, in every jurisdiction, for every pending case and every appeal rules against Trump, your candidate and the person you believe can MAGA? How is it that EVERY court shoots down EVERY appeal? Can EVERY judiciary be WRONG or out to get Trump? At what point do these folks (or at least enough of them) wake up and accept the writing on the wall? 

[fraurosena]

Not that Judge Cannon will do anything about it. 

Nor do I think she will be swatted either...

[AnywhereButHere]

37 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I would t pay a penny. Sadly, someone will probably spend a fortune on this crap. 

Good god. I first read the price at $250 and thought that was complete idiocy (although after seeing what people will pay for used "collectible" sneakers - I should not be surprised about anything...). But $250,000??? That's some delusional thinking there! 

[fraurosena]

 

[Alisamer]

58 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Trump has already literally told us how he behaves around women. in his own words. there's no reason to doubt them. Because he's famous/rich, he can grab them by the pussy.  

These times he's caught on tape saying this stuff is not an anomaly. I think every day people like us are forgetting that he ran in a circle of people who were probably not all that different from himself. I truly truly doubt there wasn't common knowledge among that set of people and/or people who are running in a rich and famous circle about Epstein and his situation.  I wish I could give more credit to all these people but I think it's being extremely generous, even dangerously generous,  to say these associates didn't know or couldn't have suspected.  People look the other way, especially when money and power is involved. Think about weinstein. Everybody in hollywood knew. 

 

I think a lot of people knew about Epstein. I just think that if you made a list of every person ever to visit his island or travel on his jet there will be some - a few, and probably not necessarily people like Trump - who had no clue what was going on. People who weren't in his circle, but who thought they'd had the very lucky chance to go hobnob with the big deal people for once. People Epstein didn't trust yet, but who he might have been feeling out to see if they were willing to be in on his depravity. 

I think Trump could credibly claim he had no idea what age the girls were simply because he didn't care. At all. It made no difference to him whatsoever. They could have been 28 they could have been 14 and it would have made no difference in the world to him as long as they were attractive and available. Willing didn't matter, age didn't matter, just him getting what he wanted mattered. It wouldn't have occurred to him to ask their ages any more than it would have occurred to him to get consent before grabbing them. 

That doesn't absolve him of anything he did, of course. It's just interesting that with 99% of what he says being a lie, this is a situation where he could potentially be truthful. 

Honestly I'm kind of amazed tapes haven't come out of literally everyone. Many people in Epsteins situation would have had secret cameras everywhere recording everybody. Just in case some leverage was needed to keep someone's mouth shut.

[GreyhoundFan]

He just loves having adoring rubes.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Tanking the economy to own the libs.

 

[Ozlsn]

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

And probably there was a heavy element of classism, as well. It never would have occurred to them that anyone who wasn't the early American version of aristocracy would be uppity enough to think they should have a part in government beyond voting.

And even voting was a step too far if you were a woman. They set up a system that worked well enough for its time and particularly worked for them. Thinking about it that hasn't changed that much actually, the "them" might have broadened slightly beyond well off white men, but overall it's still a very small group.

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I suspect there are SOME people associated with Epstein who are likely innocent

Epstein traded on many fronts, one of which was access to power. It wouldn't surprise me that there are people who were entirely oblivious to what was going on because they were identified as not the type to participate, or (more of an issue) the type to blow the whistle. They were there because they had some form of connection or power which could used in the form of introductions to other people who would... not be so gauche as to pay, but who would certainly trade for it.

At least a few of them probably went to the island, but most likely were there when only adult staff were, so only saw the sun, sand and sea. 

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

Willing didn't matter, age didn't matter, just him getting what he wanted mattered. 

Pretty sure that goes for most of that inner circle  the main difference being that most had the intelligence to know that they would likely be in deep shit if it became public knowledge. 

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

Honestly I'm kind of amazed tapes haven't come out of literally everyone. Many people in Epsteins situation would have had secret cameras everywhere recording everybody. Just in case some leverage was needed to keep someone's mouth shut.

I'm not that surprised, any more than I am that Epstein died in prison. Money buys a lot of things.

[fraurosena]

For those of you who are interested in the whole hearing, here it is in full:

 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I think it's mildly interesting that the court asked dumb dumb's people if the pres could have seal team 6 assassinate somebody.  I think the more interesting question is how far do they perceive this immunity goes. Because it seems to me the logical conclusion is to ask " can the sitting president straight up shoot a political opponent because that opponent is holding up a bill the president is trying to support" or some variation there in. I think dumb dumb actually believes that he would be immune from that. Can the president shoot the opposing party's head senator or representative if they're stopping legislation that the president deems critical? Can the president run over a pedestrian with his motorcade cuz they needed to get somewhere fast?  This presidential immunity thing taken to it's various extremes becomes absurd. If the president in truly immune in emergencies what's to stop presidents from declaring states of emergencies in order to get away with huge crimes? 

 

And I think Kavanaugh should recuse himself from anything Trump related after Trump has basically made it public they expect his loyalty. How can he ever purport to be acting without undue influence at this point? When there's a very real threat from Trump's followers to him.

 

[GreyhoundFan]