Bill Besse’s Post

Of all the Supreme Court rulings being misinterpreted by the media and both sides of the political spectrum, the latest on Presidential immunity showcases the confusion. The Court delivered a conclusion of logical perfection: 1) The President has enumerated Constitutional Powers (legal authority). 2) The President is immune from prosecution when discharging his or her Constitutional duties in accordance with those powers. 3) The President is immune from prosecution when using legal authority. 4) The President is not immune from prosecution when exceeding Constitutional authority. The Trump administration is confused between the notion of immunity for illegal and legal acts. It believes illegal acts while holding office are legal. This is not true, and the Supreme Court decision does not extend any immunity that was not already there. Domestic assassinations and interfering with Congress and the electoral process are illegal even though Trump thinks they are legal. https://lnkd.in/eWTvYAAf

from USA TODAY: What does the immunity ruling mean for the election? The Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision on Monday granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for some of their official actions and a presumption of immunity for others. The ruling means the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee Donald Trump - already a convicted felon - will not be tried during the campaign on charges that he tried to steal the 2020 election from President Joe Biden. • Presidents are "Entitled to at least presumptive immunity". Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority that the only actions that can clearly be prosecuted are those taken outside of a president’s official duties. • Trump got "all the immunity he asked for": Legal issues will continue to dog the Trump campaign, but there won't be as many of them thanks to the Supreme Court. • A king or a president? Biden denounced the ruling saying it effectively ends the long-held principles in the United States that "there are no kings in America" and that "no one is above the law." https://lnkd.in/e_yrqB29

Sec 3 draws a sharp line btw law and politics. The first part is a legal command about who cannot hold office that doesn’t demand action by Congress. But the second allows “Congress by a vote of 2/3 of each House” to lift a disqualification. The framers gave Congress — not POTUS or SCOTUS — power to grant a Sec 3 waiver on policy grounds: https://lnkd.in/diFk4ahQ

Here is my statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v. U.S.:   The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the most extreme positions taken by former President Trump in his attempt to evade trial on election subversion charges. He advanced a dangerous legal theory of absolute immunity from prosecution for everything done and said as president, and said that no president could be prosecuted for violating the law unless first impeached and convicted. I had joined an amicus brief in the case explaining how Trump's legal argument would have "sweeping and absurd consequences."      The #SupremeCourt majority correctly found that Trump, and all presidents, are “not above the law,” and that he is not absolutely immune from prosecution for all acts during his presidency. The majority also found that Trump may be charged with criminal violations even though he was not convicted during his impeachment trial, an assertion he made before the Court.      However, the Court majority made a serious mistake in immunizing many forms of grossly illegal and harmful presidential conduct. It did that by immunizing all exercises of "core" presidential powers and by presumptively immunizing all official acts of Presidents, while also saying that in drawing these lines courts may not consider the President's motives for his actions. This set of rules bends over backwards to protect President Trump and it poses a long-term threat to the health of American democracy.     Read more about the brief I joined, along with former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers: https://lnkd.in/eQvgx8Qf

"This is a court that’s concerned with future presidents and the rules that guide their conduct as much as they are with Trump. In fact, the argument was oddly devoid of mention of the former president by name. Usually, an oral argument focuses on a defendant and his conduct. Not so here. This was all about future presidents and how they would execute their constitutional duties. The six conservative Justices left Donald Trump on the periphery for the most part, with the possible exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But make no mistake about it. The case is all about Donald Trump and whether he can be prosecuted for the most serious of his crimes against the American people, trying to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. It’s also about the legacy of the Roberts Court and whether history will view the already unpopular Justices as the Court that gave away democracy. A big question is why Clarence Thomas, whose wife was involved in January 6, decided it was appropriate for him to participate in this case and why no one intervened. His presence on the bench today was a blot on the Court and the rule of law. We are forced to set that one aside for the moment. There is a possibility he could be part of a 5-4 majority that gives the former president a reprieve from prosecution. After the dust cleared, it seemed that the three progressive Justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and to a lesser extent perhaps, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, were interested in finding a path forward that would clear the way for prosecution. Despite some early questions that suggested they weren’t buying absolute immunity, as the argument developed, it became increasingly clear that Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh were all willing to throw Trump a lifeline in some shape or form."

Lawfare: (v) The knowing and intentional weaponizing of the legal system with and for the purpose of targeting a political party or individual opponent and for the purpose of seeking political advantage, money, gratuities or favors from another political party. Websters, this is the definition I’d submit for next years newest word submissions.

Whuz the buzz at the News Café? The case Donald J. Trump v. United States ended with the United States losing. The US Supreme Court has overthrown the US Constitution’s (and the founders’) attempt to establish a country that would be independent of a king and with a balance of power between the three branches of government. The Roberts Court, which has repeatedly weighed decisions against what they believed to be the founders’ intentions, has invented three levels of scrutiny never contemplated by the founders, that provide a president with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his core constitutional powers; presumptive immunity for other “official acts” unless the government can prove that criminal charges would not intrude on the authority of the Executive Branch; and no immunity for unofficial acts, but leaving it up to the courts — and ultimately, the Supreme Court — to determine whether an act was unofficial. https://lnkd.in/exzdebNi

Nothing To See Here Supreme Court hears arguments about whether Trump can be on 2024 ballot in landmark case, NYP 2/8/2024 Colorado and Maine state courts have interpreted the United States Federal Constitution, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “No person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…[who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” to mean that Trump can be kept off their state ballots for an election to office of President of the all of the United States of America. These court systems desperately want to keep the residents of Colorado and Maine from having an opportunity to vote for Donald Trump. The fatal flaw in their "judicial logic" is that Trump has not been convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the United States in any court, despite the fact that the political opposition have had exclusive control of the United States Department of Justice for the past four years. The Colorado and Maine Court systems are asking SCOTUS to confirm that the non-litigated unproven allegation of rebellion against former President Trump should be treated as res judicata. To confirm Colorado and Maine court findings, SCOTUS must assume Trump's eventual conviction in federal court on charges of rebellion and SCOTUS's affirmation of Trump's guilt in an, as yet, undecided and and, as yet, non-appealed court case. It is too great a stretch even for Trump haters on the bench. There is quite literally nothing to see here. Per Curiam The judgements of the Colorado and Maine State Supreme Courts are hereby reversed. See Ripeness Doctrine. Ripeness concerns “the timing of judicial intervention,” and prevents federal courts “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements” by adjudicating disputes too early. ( “[N]o one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” ) (quoting McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 (1969 https://lnkd.in/eSMjJRic

Badlands Media Our Take: “The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fischer vs. US on Tuesday, and the petitioner is asking the court to find that the government erred in charging J6 defendants under 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2). If you missed Badlands Media’s coverage, including commentary by Brad Cologero Getz and yours truly, you can check it out here. The statute deals with Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and section (c) explicitly deals with evidence and other obstruction. The statute was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal, as a part of a broader attempt to restore public trust in US capital markets. Other sections of 1512 address killing or coercing witnesses, and legal analysts have long challenged the government’s use of 1512 to charge mostly peaceful protestors for a so-called riot. One of the most interesting parts of Brad and my discussion during our coverage was a big potential boomerang; that is, the J6 Committee actually destroyed records to obstruct incoming House GOP investigations. The Biden DOJ may have just accidentally made the case for the J6 committee members to be charged and tried under 18 USC § 1512(c) — both (1) and (2). Yikes. Let’s see what happens.” — Ashe in America

My column in yesterday's Sunday Independent. The Trump trial; what to expect and why does it matter? "An Irish man will have a leading role in the first criminal trial of a former US president. The New York Times-reading, Fox News-watching salesman will act as the foreman of the jury tasked with making a decision on the guilt or innocence of Donald Trump. It provides an Irish angle on one of the most important trials in US ­history. The trial relates to the $130,000 (€122,000) paid by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels to avoid her revealing, before the 2016 election, accusations of an affair with Trump. It’s been labelled the “hush money” trial. But it’s a misleading definition. The trial isn’t about the paying of the money, it’s about the reasons it was paid and then the subsequent cover-up. As the presiding judge at the trial is to tell the jury: “The allegations are in substance that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.” So the case hinges on the cover-up and the intention of the payment — and Trump’s knowledge of same. This trial matters — but will it harm or help America’s most controversial man? The spectacle of the trial itself is a political asset for Trump. His post-court media statements will become a box office pulpit, a megaphone to motivate his loyal base. We may roll our eyes when Trump refers to the court proceedings as the “first Biden trial” or as a “deep-state plot”, knowing it’s a ludicrous assertion. But his voters won’t do any eye-­rolling. They will believe him. On all this and more. Trump is the Republican messiah, their prophet. When he speaks, they believe. A recent YouGov poll highlights this. A total of 79pc of Republicans say they trust Trump as their information source on the war in Ukraine. If they believe Trump is the authority on the Russian invasion, they sure as hell will believe him when he says the Democrats are out to get him and, through him, the American ­people. And that belief will lead to anger. Anger will lead to turnout. Turnout will lead to votes. An acquittal, or a hung jury, would also play well for the Republican standard-bearer. The why here is obvious. He’ll be vindicated in the eyes of his party and in the eyes of many independent voters. But more than that, an acquittal also brings a risk of demoralising the Democratic base. Biden voters, who as this trial unfolds will start to believe that maybe this time Trump might pay for his crimes, would be left crestfallen. That leads to hopelessness, not ­turnout. An acquittal by way of a hung jury is the most likely result. Trump’s defence attorneys just need one juror to believe their case." Read the rest 👇 https://lnkd.in/eJ4CRs99