Litman: Will Trump be tried for Jan. 6? After Supreme Court arguments, it's more uncertain than everHarry Litman

KEK Thu, April 25, 20241/2

(PANIC from LA Times)

For those rightly concerned about the timing of Donald Trump's federal Jan. 6 trial, Thursday's oral arguments before theSupreme Court gave plenty of reasons for worry. Moreover, the court’s conservative majorityseemed inclined to define presidential immunityfrom prosecution in a way that could undermine some of the charges in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment.

Much of the court’s questioning went well beyond the immediate issue of Trump’s immunity for the criminal acts alleged. (That was always the request: immunity)

The court's conservatives focused almost exclusively on abstract questions of immunity for future presidents rather than the charges against the former president.

Even the more moderate members of the conservative majority seemed preoccupied with thedifficulty of drawing the line between official and unofficial acts, assuming that the former deserve extensive protection from prosecution.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett read a litany of acts from the indictment and asked Trump's lawyer whether they were official or not. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that theline between public and private presidential conduct is hard to draw, saying he was concerned that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals "did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about."

At best, the court's questioning augurs an opinion setting out general principles of immunity and necessitating a remand to the lower courts to apply the justices' guidance. As Justice Neil M. Gorsuch put it,"We're writing a rule for the ages." That would add further delay to a schedule that already seems to be putting a trial shortly before or beyond the November election.

And that wasn't even the most serious implication for Smith's case.

The conservative justices' questioning of Michael Dreeben, the special counsel’s well-regarded Supreme Court specialist, was sharp and fast. And their questions to both sides suggested they might conclude thatinquiring into a president’s motivesfor certain acts wouldviolate the constitutional separation of powers. That would point to a decision requiring the courts to set aside all evidence of a president’s malign intent. (He is not a well regarded atty, he and Smith lost 3 prior cases at the SC, and rebuked. Incompetent lefty)

If motive has to be disregarded= in determining whether the president's actions are official or not,it could undermine much of the case against Trump— including, for example, his brazen attempt to strong-arm the Department of Justice into falsely informing Georgia officials that the state's election results were flawed.

Such alimitation might even provide immunity in the hypothetical extremeproposed during arguments before the D.C. Circuit: a president ordering Navy Seals to assassinate a political opponent. The force of that example is that it shows how an official act could have a patently malign motive.

As Justice Elena Kagan interjected in reference to the implications of her colleagues' questions and Trump lawyer John Sauer's response: “You’re asking us to say that a president is entitled … for total personal gain, to use the trappings of his office.” Exactly right.

Gorsuch threw another lifeline to Trump’s lawyer, asking whether he would accept a definition of official acts like the one in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Blassingame vs. Trump, which concerned presidential immunity from civil suits. That case drew a distinction between Trump's acts as an officeholder and as an office-seeker.Applying it to the criminal case would likely immunize Trumpfor some of the conduct in the indictment, in particular his allegedly corrupt use of the Justice Department, though he would presumably remain on the hook for political conduct such as organizing false electors…

(https://www.yahoo.com/news/litman-trump-tried-jan-6-201915640.html

>>20781666

2/2

It got worse for the prosecution. More or less out of nowhere, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that one of the charges against Trump,conspiracy to defraud the United States, relies on a statute that is so broad andvague that it could be misused by future prosecutorsagainst future presidents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. jumped in to second the suggestion, taking up a criticism of the prosecution that Trump's lawyers hadn't even raised. (It was reported Dreeben was unprepared, offered bizarre interpretations of law, and said, “the government & DOJ can be trusted to not break the law”, trust me!)

Since the court just heard arguments in a separate casethat could invalidate two of the four chargesagainst Trump — those under a federal obstruction statute — an opinion invalidating another charge could force Smith to soldier on with only one remaining charge against Trump, conspiracy against rights. That charge relies on the electorate's right to have votes counted, which is a somewhat indirect approach to accountability for Trump’s pernicious post-election conduct.

That's not all. Kavanaugh also raised the Trump team's suggestion thatperhaps Congress should have to make a "clear statement" of intentto apply any criminal law to the president, a stratagem the court previously conjured to deal with separation-of-powers concerns. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that it would in effect excuse a president for violations of most of the federal code.

Dreeben hardly had time to make his points until the end of the nearly three-hour argument, when Kagan gave him some room to do so. Kagan also asked the special counsel's representative a friendly question getting at the possibility that the court could limit its decision to the charges against Trump to permit the trial to go forward expeditiously. But the odds that the court will take that guidance now look extremely slim.

Going into Thursday’s showdown, thecritical questionwaswhether the court’s opinion would permit the trialto go forward without further proceedings.

In the wake of the arguments, that seems more unlikely than ever. Indeed, the court's questions raised the additionalalarming prospect that it could confer the kind of expansive presidential immunitythat would further weaken the constitutional principle that a president is not a king.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/litman-trump-tried-jan-6-201915640.html

This whole article disregards that Smith himself asked the SC to define immunity and is Trump has it. And Trump’s lawyers submitted a brief when the Appellate court ruled corruptly, the President has no immunity, esp Trump. The author insinuates the court was supposed to judge Trump’s “corrupt acts”, and not solely define Presidential Immunity.

No wonder we have such a stupid public!

>>20781682

The SC has no charter to “confer” anything, their job is to define the question according to the Constitution and the law. The SC does not confer rights, at all

>>20781677

Or “sacrifice Justice to allow illegal actions on the part of the DOJ”

NYT Op-Ed: ‘I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake’…. 1/3

April 25, 2024 (a day ago)

If you glanced at the New York Times today, you might be shocked at the “real news” they featured. In a rare burst of honesty and clarity, the Old Gray Hag actually let a well-respected legal professor from Boston University publish an opinion piece. This piece didn’t just poke holes in Alvin Bragg’s sham “hush money” case—it blasted it into a pile of dust. The professor called it not only a legal embarrassment but a historic mistake. Ouch.

His name is Professor Shugerman, and while he was never onboard with Biden’s show trial, led by Fat Alvin Bragg, after what he’s seen unfold, he’s gone from being embarrassed for the entire US injustice system, to now believing this trial is a historic misstep that hinges on Monday’s opening arguments. Professor Shugerman had to pick his jaw up from the floor after listening to prosecutors lay out their case.

The New York Times:

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records, which are typically misdemeanor charges. To ramp this up to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team are throwing around potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They’re even pulling in state election law, but here’s the kicker: state definitions of “public office” will usually limit those rules to state and local races. What on earth is Bragg doing? This trial is a circus, and a desperate one at that.

Playing “Devil’s Advocate,” the professor attempted to sketch out a scenario that would make legal sense and give Alvin Bragg the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, he just wasn’t able to do it. The New York Times piece goes on:

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.

He explains that byframing this case as some grand “election fraud” conspiracy, which the prosecution will likely struggle to support,they’re setting the jury up for big expectations that will never be met. The discussion continues in the New York Times piece:

https://revolver.news/2024/04/new-york-times-bragg-case-against-trump-legal-embarrassment-historic-mistake/

>>20781785

2/3

Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as anallegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

In Monday’s opening argument, theprosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet

The professor points out three major red flags in this case and explains that Alvin Bragg is navigating uncharted, stormy legal waters. The New York Times piece continues:

The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.

Red flag 1:

First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime.

Red flag 2:

Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The Manhattan D.A. responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal and a single jury instruction do not count).

Red flag 3:

…no New York precedent has allowed an interpretation of defrauding the general public. Legal experts have noted that such a broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, and a conviction based on it may not survive a state appeal.

If you’d like to read the entire article, you can find it by clicking here

The truth is, Professor Shugerman isn’t the only one hanging his head in shame.As a matter of fact, all credible legal experts seem to agree that this case is a joke. One of those legal eagles is Professor Jonathan Turley, who also calls this sham case an “embarrassment.”

Breitbart:

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley said Monday on Fox News Channel’s “America Reports” that former President Donald Trump’s New York trial for allegedly falsifying business records is an “embarrassment.”

https://revolver.news/2024/04/new-york-times-bragg-case-against-trump-legal-embarrassment-historic-mistake/

>>20781794

3/3

Turley said, “What is clear is in this case, Trump is right this is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York court room leaves me in utter disbelief.”

He continued, “The arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out. This is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violations under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.”

Esteemed election law expert Richard Hasen, a hardcore Democrat, also thinks the case is a sham.

Newsweek:

“As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal,” Handelsman Shugerman wrote. “The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, ‘Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.'”

That is a reference to an April 14 opinion article in the Los Angeles Times by Richard Hasen, a University of California Los Angeles law professor, who wrote that the case demeans true election interference cases.

“Although the New York case gets packaged as election interference, failing to report a campaign payment is a small potatoes campaign-finance crime,” Hasen wrote. “Any voters who look beneath the surface are sure to be underwhelmed. Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

This is the result when activist judges and juries take the stage. Embarrassing cases and historic mistakes end up in our courts and dominate the news cycle. It’s all part of the uniparty’s scheme to cling to power and block an outsider from returning to the White House. They’re willing to make a complete mockery of our systems and even risk destroying our country, all to maintain their grip on power. This case has become such a sideshow that even legal experts, many of whom likely aren’t fans of President Trump, are anxious to call this trial out for what it is. They want to go on record to distance themselves from what amounts to a kangaroo court, in hopes of preserving some shred of their reputations as our judicial system circles the drain.

https://revolver.news/2024/04/new-york-times-bragg-case-against-trump-legal-embarrassment-historic-mistake/

Will Tanner

@Will_Tanner_1

Ron Paul utterly eviscerating members of Congress for waving foreign flags and Speaker Johnson over his foreign aid handout betrayal of the GOP base is one of the best things I've seen

"Speaker Johnson stiffed the Republican majority that elected him and pushed through a massive gift to the warfare state. Members waved Ukraine flags and chanted, ‘Ukraine!' While I find it disgusting, in some ways, it seemed fitting.”

Video from

@VigilantFox

Apr 23, 2024

https://x.com/Will_Tanner_1/status/1782931507339735141

RNC Research

@RNCResearch

Biden claimshe "got arrested standing on the porch with a Black family" during the civil rights movement.

That never happened.

April 26, 2024

https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1783877375328993575

Nothing he’s ever said happened, He’s lied so much all of life, “lies are true to a dementia patient”

>>20782044

Whenever he says, “true story” a whopper is coming out. Also “not kidding” and a number of other tells he repeats, he’s lying

Mike Davis Warns Democrats Orchestrating More and More Lawfare

15:15

https://rumble.com/embed/v4p8g2x/?pub=4

>>20782237

Complete Melt down on the left about the SC taking the immunity seriously, like the SC should do. The media said “oh this whole case will be over in a flash”, now they are pissed. Expect more attacks on SC