Look Who Is Attending the Lawfare Trial in New York City

April 26, 2024 | Sundance |

I’m catching up on perspectives from the talking head class about the ridiculous “hush money” legal case in New York City. As I watched the review by Jonathan Turley, I noticed the video caught someone on the livestream.

Serendipitous timing – SEE HERE

For those who do not know,the guy circled coming out of the courtroom is Norm Eisen, one of the primary architects of the Lawfare attack scheme. Eisen, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann construct the motions, briefings and legal strategies for the various state and federal prosecutions in DC, New York and Georgia.

Remember these specific names: Mary McCord, Norman Eisen and Andrew Weissmann. You will see them repeated in a pattern throughout the Trump attacks. Weissmann, Eisen and McCord have been enmeshed since 2016 and the original DOJ/FBI targeting effort against Donald Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

As we have noted for the past several years, it’s this same group of Lawfare ideologues, mostly former DOJ administrators and lawyers, who are behind every anti-Trump effort.

Politico outlines how Lawfare operative Norm Eisen organizes the weekly Lawfare meeting and lists the participants who also join in. Remember, Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann are the primary Lawfare agents.

Via POLITICO – […] Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.

The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts.

The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.

[…] The regular attendees on Eisen’s call include Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative commentator, and Laurence Tribe, the famed liberal constitutional law professor. John Dean, who was White House counsel under Richard Nixon before pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with Watergate, joins the calls, as does George Conway, a conservative lawyer and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. Andrew Weissmann, a longtime federal prosecutor who served as one of the senior prosecutors on Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation and is now a legal analyst for MSNBC, is another regular on the calls. Jeffrey Toobin, a pioneer in the field of cable news legal analysis, is also a member of the crew. The rest of the group includes recognizable names from the worlds of politics, law and media.

[…] You probably know some of the other regular participants on the call, which draws in some of the most recognizable names in the Anti-Trump Cinematic Universe.

They currently include Obama-era U.S. Attorneys Harry Litman, Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance. Litman is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a cable news regular and a podcast host. McQuade and Vance co-host a podcast and are under contract with MSNBC, as are two other regular attendees — Jennifer Rubin, an opinion writer for the Washington Post who often covers Trump’s legal affairs, and Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and high-ranking official in the Justice Department who co-hosts a podcast for MSNBC with Weissmann. Karen Agnifilo, a former senior prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and CNN commentator, is an occasional attendee, as is Elliot Williams, also a former federal prosecutor who provides commentary on CNN. (read more)

There are many people in media pretending to be surprised to see this article outlining all the participants in the anti-Trump effort, as it gives the appearance of an organized and collaborative effort between media and the Lawfare group. However, all of the surprise is just that – pretense.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/26/look-who-is-that-attending-the-lawfare-trial-in-new-york-city/

>>20784810

Look Who Is Attending the Lawfare Trial in New York City

April 26, 2024 | Sundance |

I’m catching up on perspectives from the talking head class about the ridiculous “hush money” legal case in New York City. As I watched the review by Jonathan Turley, I noticed the video caught someone on the livestream.

Serendipitous timing – SEE HERE

For those who do not know,the guy circled coming out of the courtroom is Norm Eisen, one of the primary architects of the Lawfare attack scheme. Eisen, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann construct the motions, briefings and legal strategies for the various state and federal prosecutions in DC, New York and Georgia.

Remember these specific names: Mary McCord, Norman Eisen and Andrew Weissmann. You will see them repeated in a pattern throughout the Trump attacks. Weissmann, Eisen and McCord have been enmeshed since 2016 and the original DOJ/FBI targeting effort against Donald Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

As we have noted for the past several years, it’s this same group of Lawfare ideologues, mostly former DOJ administrators and lawyers, who are behind every anti-Trump effort.

Politico outlines how Lawfare operative Norm Eisen organizes the weekly Lawfare meeting and lists the participants who also join in. Remember, Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann are the primary Lawfare agents.

Via POLITICO – […] Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.

The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts.

The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.

[…] The regular attendees on Eisen’s call include Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative commentator, and Laurence Tribe, the famed liberal constitutional law professor. John Dean, who was White House counsel under Richard Nixon before pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with Watergate, joins the calls, as does George Conway, a conservative lawyer and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. Andrew Weissmann, a longtime federal prosecutor who served as one of the senior prosecutors on Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation and is now a legal analyst for MSNBC, is another regular on the calls. Jeffrey Toobin, a pioneer in the field of cable news legal analysis, is also a member of the crew. The rest of the group includes recognizable names from the worlds of politics, law and media.

[…] You probably know some of the other regular participants on the call, which draws in some of the most recognizable names in the Anti-Trump Cinematic Universe.

They currently include Obama-era U.S. Attorneys Harry Litman, Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance. Litman is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a cable news regular and a podcast host. McQuade and Vance co-host a podcast and are under contract with MSNBC, as are two other regular attendees — Jennifer Rubin, an opinion writer for the Washington Post who often covers Trump’s legal affairs, and Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and high-ranking official in the Justice Department who co-hosts a podcast for MSNBC with Weissmann. Karen Agnifilo, a former senior prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and CNN commentator, is an occasional attendee, as is Elliot Williams, also a former federal prosecutor who provides commentary on CNN. (read more)

There are many people in media pretending to be surprised to see this article outlining all the participants in the anti-Trump effort, as it gives the appearance of an organized and collaborative effort between media and the Lawfare group. However, all of the surprise is just that – pretense.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/26/look-who-is-that-attending-the-lawfare-trial-in-new-york-city/

>>20784817

As I watched the review by Jonathan Turley, I noticed the video caught someone on the livestream.

Turley video. There’s actually two attorneys on the jury..

https://youtu.be/YIn43_qOYYM

FDA Says U.S Milk Supply Is Safe After Tests Reveal 20% of Samples Contain Avian Influenza Pathogen (Bird Flu)

April 26, 2024 | Sundance |

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) is a disease that is highly contagious and often deadly in poultry, caused by highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5) and A (H7) viruses; it is also known as bird or avian flu. The FDA has found that one in five samples of consumer milk contain inactive viral fragments of Bird Flu pathogens. Transmission origin unknown.

Most of the USA milk supply is pasteurized, a process which kills any pathogenic virus that might be present. So, the milk supply is safe. It is odd however, that Bird Flu is somehow being carried in dairy cows. Given the nature of how the FDA has previously handled Bovine Somatotrophin (BST), or growth hormone use in dairy cows, and given the nature of how the FDA botched the initial handling of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, Mad Cow), some people are concerned.

From my perspective, this recent FDA report seems to be targeting the growing trend of raw milk sales and usage.=

It has long been accepted that the=FDA doesn’t like people who avoid adulterating their body with genetically modified food productsfrom the friendship of Big Ag and Big Rx; it’s a financial issue. The FDA fully supports the genetic modification of food, the vaccine injections from Big Ag/Rx and the allowed use of animal growth hormones.

The food supply has long been considered an optimal pathway for vaccine delivery into the human body. Much like the fluoride addition to municipal water supplies, the opportunity to enhance food with vaccines or DNA modification targeting has long been a goal.

FDA REPORT, April 25, 2024 – Today, the FDA received some initial results from its nationally representative commercial milk sampling study. The agency continues to analyze this information; however, the initial results show about 1 in 5 of the retail samples tested are quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-positive for HPAI viral fragments, with a greater proportion of positive results coming from milk in areas with infected herds.

As previously noted and outlined in our summary below, qPCR-positive results do not necessarily represent actual virus that may be a risk to consumers. Additional testing is required to determine whether intact pathogen is still present and if it remains infectious, which would help inform a determination of whether there is any risk of illness associated with consuming the product.

The FDA is further assessing any positive findings through egg inoculation tests, a gold-standard for determining if infectious virus is present. Early work by NIH-funded investigators indicates an absence of infectious virus in their studies of retail milk. To date, the retail milk studies have shown no results that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe.

Epidemiological signals from our CDC partners continue to show no uptick of human cases of flu and no cases of H5N1, specifically, beyond the one known case related to direct contact with infected cattle. These important efforts are ongoing, and we are committed to sharing results from both the qPCR and egg inoculation tests as soon as possible. (read more)

There are all kinds of pathogenic viruses in animals and milk. That’s why we have been using heat and fire to cook and sanitize them since the days of hunter gatherers.

Don’t let the alarmism of others impact your peace of mind, but take as many prudent precautions as pragmatically possible to ensure your family food supply is as safe and wholesome as possible.

From my own experience, at the end of everyFDA announcement is an entity positioning to gain financially from the solution to the expressed opportunity. We still don’t plan to eat the bugs.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/26/fda-says-u-s-milk-supply-is-safe-after-tests-reveal-20-of-samples-contain-avian-influenza-pathogen-bird-flu/

>>20784866

EAT the BUGS testing:

The first test subject group should specifically be the Billionaire Oligarchs, including Bill Gates, that believe bugs are healthy for humans. Make the Scientists choose the WEF leaders and money people, trying to get others to eat bugs.

If the WEF Billionaire oligarchs refuse to participate as test subjects, then we have the answer, bugs should never be eaten by humans, and their toxic bodies are not healthy food.

Supreme Court Hears Immunity Arguments, Administrative State Smiling – SCOTUS Likely to Send Case Back to Lower Court

April 26, 2024 | Sundance |

The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.

As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.

The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution. Thespecial counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, orwhether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office. Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.

The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of thePresident is simply a figurehead within it.In essence, theDC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows. That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.

In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents. WATCH:

https://youtu.be/DIsDXQIfD_o

Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination. Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.

I also like the part where theDOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.” Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.

Gee,what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition? Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better. Good grief, can people not see where this ends.

That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.

[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING. Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity. Mike Davis is totally wrong.]

The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune”; the court simply hates that stuff.

This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents. Once they open that pandora’s box, there would be a bazillion appeals for a SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests. They ain’t going to touch it. Same applies here.

The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court, and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts vs “official” acts. This is the core of the originating issue.

Was President Trump ensuring the integrity of an election outcome he considered sketchy (official act), or was President Trump trying to overturn the election by ensuring election integrity (private interest act).

That’s the question that SCOTUS is going to tell the lower court to battle out, and then the SCOTUS will weigh in if needed. TheSupreme Court is going to send this case back down to the lower court for definitions of “official act” -vs- “private interest act” before they will touch the immunity issue.

Here’s the full oral argument hearing at the Supreme Court:

https://youtu.be/ex87haMPB5s

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/26/supreme-court-hears-immunity-arguments-administrative-state-smiling-scotus-likely-to-send-case-back-to-lower-court/

Dreeben is such a creepy liar. Even listening to his voice has a toxic effect, and the arrogance oozes out. Like the DOJ would never do anything illegal or wrong.

“We are the government, trust us” that statement flew the coop decades ago.

>>20784798

Its a two sided coin. Sundance doesn’t believe the SC will rule either way. Trump has enough dirt on Obama and Bidan when they were out of office to convict them for many more crimes. Thats one of the reasons the FBI and DOJ are desperate to find Trumps white binder he took with him. All agencies committed crimes during Trump’s term, he’s got the dirt on all of them. Hence another reason for all these criminal cases against Trump. Their last gasp and breath to cover their crimes.

If the SC rules on this they will have a multitude of cases on immunity going forward and with every president. The democrats should have left it alone.

Now that we all know what DEI is, I want to talk to the Right of Center about reclaiming the correct meaning of “equity.”

Equity is a legal word. It is contrasted with “law” in legal understanding.

The English common law developed the concept of “equity” as a means of avoiding the harsh and unjust outcomes that a strict application of “the law” sometimes produces.

This would be stuff like a lease where a couple made all payments except the last one was one day late because the husband died & the widow could not access to their account for a few days and the landlord would foreclose on the entire property. Technically allowed; still BS.

Or a person with a clearly meritorious claim would lose because their lawyer would file it under the wrong kind of technical form, or no available form (which were very strictly construed) would apply.

So the courts said that the law itself should not be an impediment to justice basically & they developed the concept of equity to deal with cases that rational & reasonable people could see were unjust because of overly formal legalisms.

Equity didn’t necessarily mean the other party would win though either.

Sometimes it just gave the judge power to use a remedy that was less harsh than a strict application of law. Like the landlord can foreclose on the widow, but does get interest for the late last payment.

To “get equity” though, you also had “to do equity.”For example, you couldn’t hold someone to a strict deadline on a contract & then ask the court to overlook your own tardiness in filing suit.

You couldn’t be a big asshole about something & then expect a judge to apply the more merciful principles to you. You had to have “clean hands.”

You also couldn’t demand strict application of the law from the judge if you persuaded or coerced someone into delaying taking action against you or deceived them in some way.

The concept of equity saved the law from being so draconian and rigid, and a tool for the assholes in the world to use against their neighbors, friends, & family. This was necessary because a system of justice that produces too many, in fact, unjust results will be overthrown.

So, properly understood and used, “equity” is not a dirty word, is not communism, & indeed is a necessary tool of just governance that all should approve.

We must, therefore, reclaim it from the Leftists who have distorted its meaning.

can NOT foreclose on the widow

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783922680275583264.html

SCOTUS Agrees Presidents Do Have Immunity From Criminal Prosecutions, But To What Degree? 1/2

LESLIE MCADOO GORDON. APR 26, 2024

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday morning in the case of Trump v. United States on the question of whether and to what extent a former president of the United States enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.

Most of the justices seemed dubious about both parties’ positionsin this complex and largely uncharted area of law. No statute, prior Supreme Court precedent, or provision of the Constitution speaks directly to this issue. In 1982, theSupreme Court, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ruled that presidents enjoy immunityfrom civil litigation based on their official acts. The court, in a 5-4 ruling, grounded the immunity in the constitutional separation of powers. It reasoned that it would be inappropriate for the judicial branch to inquire into the reasons for presidential decisions for purposes of holding the president personally liable for damages. The court emphasized the unique nature and responsibilities of the president in arriving at this conclusion.

In Trump’s case, the parties and the justices all agreed on certain points. First, that purely private conduct by the president, which is allegedly criminal, could be prosecuted. Trump’s lawyer also conceded that campaign conduct, acting like an “office seeker” rather than an “office holder,” was private, rather than official, conduct.

Second, that the president has some constitutional powers that are exclusive to the presidency, such as the power to grant pardons, and therefore acts carrying out those powers simply cannot be criminalized by Congress or prosecuted by prosecutors. These were referred to as “core” areas of presidential power throughout the argument. Beyond these two points,the parties and the justices wildly diverged in their views, from the applicable nomenclature to the scope of any immunity, to the procedural mechanisms for implementing it in the courts.

Technically, the question before the court is:Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, urged the justices to find that former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution in the same way that the earlier Fitzgerald case applied in civil cases. That ruling would preclude criminal prosecution for any act that came within the “outer perimeter” of the scope of a president’s official acts, regardless of the reason, motive, intent, purpose, etc. for taking those acts. Sauer argued that an objective analysis should be used by the courts to determine if the conduct was or was not within the scope of the official responsibilities of the president. In other words, theanalysis depends on whether the president’s actions could conceivably have been within the scope of his authority and not on what the president actually had in mind.

By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s lawyer,Michael Dreeben, argued that the Constitution does not provide any criminal immunity for the president, unlike the immunity for “speech and debate” provided for Congress. He argued that, instead, a former president can raise a case-by-case “challenge” to any indictment against him on the grounds that the specific acts alleged cannot be the basis for criminal charges under the Constitution. Dreeben told the high court he was speaking for the Department of Justice, not just the special counsel’s office, in taking this position.

In an unusual move, Trump’s counsel did not offer any rebuttal argument, apparently deciding that, after two and a half hours of argument, further discussion would not affect the views of any justice.

The leftist block of the court expressed concerns that Sauer’s position rendered a president “above the law” and would remove any restraints a serving president might feel to abide by the law while in office to avoid criminal prosecution later. By contrast, most of theconservative justicesappeared to be more worriedabout setting a precedent that former presidents can be put on trial for prior official actions, thereby incentivizing political prosecutions.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/26/scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree-is-unclear/

>>20785319

2/2

Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, analogized the situation to the politicization that occurred under the now-expired independent counsel statute and roiled the administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. Justice Barrett expressed concern aboutsuch cases being brought in state courts, where many of the structural safeguards that Dreeben claimed would tend to prevent such cases would not exist.

The justices probed both lawyers abouthow their respective positions would apply in a practical sense. For example, what procedures would be used, when in the criminal process could their respective proposals be used, and whether there would be appellate review immediately or only after conviction, etc. Justices Barrett and Sotomayor particularly were interested in these technical issues. Along with Justice Jackson, they alsofocused on the statutory “clear statement” principle, which is often invoked by the DOJand its Office of Legal Counsel to limit the effect of generally applicable criminal statutes to the presidency out of a concern for not impeding the legitimate functions of the office. While not directly addressing the question of whether immunity exists, these technical and application concerns sought to flesh out each party’s proposed conclusion on the immunity issue.

There were some notable fireworks in the questioning. For example, Chief Justice Robertsgot the questioning of the special counsel off with a bang by stating thathe did not agree with the D.C. Circuit’s reasoningthat any criminal charge brought by a prosecutor against a former president is necessarily legal. Evidently aghast at the lower court’s conclusion, he demanded to know why the court should not issue an opinion that simply reversed that “tautological” conclusion.

Justice Gorsuch, as he has in past arguments, formulated a hypothetical about “mostly peaceful protests.” He demanded to know if a president leading such a protest that delayed the vote on a piece of legislation could be charged under the federal obstruction statute after leaving office since such activities would lie outside the “core actions” Dreeben conceded were non-prosecutable.Gorsuch also scoffed at Dreeben’s suggestion that former presidents did not enjoy “immunity,”but could instead raise an “as applied Article II challenge” to say their conduct was sufficiently official and not subject to prosecution. He expressed the view that by whatever name, the concept at issue is “immunity” of some form.

In general,it appears the court as a wholeis prepared toagree with former President Trump that there is at least some form of immunity for former presidents from criminal prosecution, regardless of the label the justices put on it. At the same time, it is clear the justices have very different ideas about the scope of this “immunity,” how it should actually apply at the trial level, and whether a trial court decision adverse to the former president can be appealed before trial.

Thus, themost likely result in this caseappears to be a decision rendered with a long opinion and many concurrences and dissents, in whole or in part.

As to when that decision will be forthcoming, it is unclear when the justices will rule. Ordinarily, absent extenuating circumstances, they would do so by the end of their current term, which closes June 30.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/26/scotus-agrees-presidents-do-have-immunity-from-criminal-prosecutions-but-to-what-degree-is-unclear/

(I think the left is regretting challenging Trump’s immunity, if not they should be, because it has opened the door to the current residentand future presidents, being challenged on Immunity. It’s never going to be a completely clear cut definition, so it’s possible that Bidan will be charged with multiple crimes that betrayed his actual duties as Resident. He should not be immune from allowing an invasion of illegals, and all the crimes associated with them and Bidan’s agency heads.)

COURTApril 26, 2024

The Constitutional Abyss: Justices Signal a Desire to Avoid Both Cliffs on Presidential Immunity. 1/2

Below is my column in the New York Post on yesterday’s oral arguments on presidential immunity. As expected, with the exception of the three liberal justices,the Court appears to be struggling to find a more nuanced approach that would avoid the extreme positions of both parties. Rather than take a header off either cliff, the justices seem interested in a controlled descent into the depths of Article II.

Here is the column:

Writer Ray Bradbury once said, “Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.”

In Thursday’s case before the Supreme Court on the immunity of former President Donald Trump, nine justices appear to be feverishly working with feathers and glue on a plunge into a constitutional abyss.

It has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

The court held ex-President Richard Nixon had such immunity for acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Yet in 1974’s United States v. Nixon, the court ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.

Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.

There are cliffs on both sides of this case. If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency.

It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.

If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.

The first cliff is made obvious by the lower-court opinion. While the media have largely focused on extreme examples of president-ordered assassinations and coups,the justices are clearly as concerned with the sweeping implications of the DC Circuit opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the DC Circuit failed to make any “focused” analysis of the underlying acts, instead offering little more than a judicial shrug.

Roberts read its statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws” and noted itsounds like “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”

The other cliff is more than obvious from the other proceedings occuring as these arguments were made. Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

If the justices want insight into the implications of denying any immunity, they just need to look north to New York City.

The ongoing prosecution of Trump is legally absurd but has resulted in the leading presidential candidate not only being gagged but prevented from campaigning.Alvin Bragg is the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid.

With cliffs to the left and the right, the justices are looking at a free-fall dive into the scope of constitutional and criminal law as they apply to presidential conduct.

They may be looking not for a foothold as much as a shorter drop.

Some of the justices are likely to be seeking a third option where a president has some immunity under a more limited and less tautological standard than the one the DC Circuit offered.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/26/free-fall-or-controlled-descent-justices-signal-a-desire-to-avoid-both-cliffs-on-presidential-immunity

>>20785442

2/2

The problem for the courtis presidential privilege and immunity decisions are meant to give presidents breathing room by laying out bright lines within which they can operate.

Ambiguity defeats the purpose of such immunity. So does a test that turns on the motivation of an official act.

The special counsel insists, for example, Trump was acting for his personal interest in challenging certification and raising electoral fraud since he was the other candidate.

But what if he wasn’t on the ballot — would it have been an official function to raise such concerns for other candidates?

When pressed on theline between official and nonofficial conduct, the special counsel just dismissed such concerns andsaid Trump was clearly acting as an office-seeker not an officeholder.

Likewise, the special counsel argued the protection forpresidents must rest with the good motivations and judgment of prosecutors.

It was effectively a “Trust us, we’re the government” assurance. Justice Samuel Alito and others questioned whether such reliance is well placed after decades of prosecutors’ proven abuses.

Finally,if there is no immunity, could President Barack Obama be prosecuted for ordering the killing of a citizen by drone attack and then killing his son in a second drone attack?

The government insisted there is an exception for such acts from the murder statute.

In the end, neither party offers a particularly inviting path.No immunity or complete immunity each holds obvious dangers.

I have long opposed sweeping arguments of immunity from criminal charges for presidents. The devil is in the details, and many justices are struggling with how to define official versus nonofficial conduct.

The line-drawing proved maddening for the justices in the oral argument. The most they could say is similar to the story of the man who jumped off a building. As he passes an office window halfway down, another man calls out to ask how he’s doing. The jumper responds, “So far so good.”

As the justices work on a new set of legal wings, anything is possible as the nation waits for the court to hit ground zero in the middle of the 2024 presidential election.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/26/free-fall-or-controlled-descent-justices-signal-a-desire-to-avoid-both-cliffs-on-presidential-immunity/

>>20785448

It’s interesting that Smith and Chutkan pushed the President has no immunity. Then the Circuit courts did the same thing.The left plans years in advance, so they could use the SC decision to try to convict future republican presidents. They knew their arguments would require the SC opinion.

Trump’s attorneys were basing their “complete immunity” statement based on the prior 4-5 presidents did egregious in war and peace, because none of them were charged with a crime.

Anons why do you think the left intentionally challenged immunity, it wasn’t just for Trump. Did the courts want more weapons for the future?