"My judges"

 To the justices of the Supreme Court:

UPDATE 02:38 pm:

What'sa matter, Amy?

Kavanaugh looks kinda disappointed, too.

Democrats hold immunity hearing

As I explain in my testimony, my concern is that the majority’s opinion in Trump v. United States capaciously defines core constitutional powers—for which the President is absolutely immune—to extend far beyond the pardon power, the veto power, and the power to recognize foreign governments. Concluding that the investigation and prosecution of crimes is a “quintessentially executive function,” the majority holds that the former President is absolutely immune for “alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” That means the President’s authority in this domain vis-à-vis the executive branch is “conclusive and preclusive”: Congress cannot act upon it, and the courts cannot review it.

[...]

Is Congress now disabled from tying the appropriation of funds to certain areas of law enforcement? From enacting legislation that governs Justice Department organization and functions? From requesting records and testimony from Department and FBI leadership?

Could the President direct the FBI to engage in unlawful surveillance of Americans? Or to target individuals or groups based on race or religion?

If the President were to bring a civil suit against the Department of Justice, as the former President has provided notice he intends to do, could he order the Department to settle the case for millions of dollars even if the suit itself were baseless?

To make matters worse, the rationale of the majority’s decision would appear to apply to all executive departments and agencies.

  Mary McCord @ Just Security

Stream the hearing here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Presidential immunity/Supreme Court "abomination"

And this reminds me - I didn't know Judge Michael Luttig had a sense of humor.  Here he talks with Harry Litman about the Supreme Court decision Judge Luttig calls an "abomination":

Democrat hearing on presidential immunity decision

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Monday announced his panel will hold a hearing [September 24] to highlight what Democrats say could be the far-reaching consequences of the [Supreme Court presidential immunity] ruling, announcing a hearing date of Sept. 24.

  The Hill

I don't know what that will accomplish.  I only hope it's a preliminary to SCOTUS reform.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09/24/2024:  Mary McCord testimony

Jack Smith regroups

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment in his case indicting former President Trump for his actions seeking to subvert the 2020 election, retaining the same charges but striking some elements of the case in the wake of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

The Tuesday filing comes after Smith presented the case against the former president to a second grand jury, which had not previously heard the matter. It likewise concluded charges were warranted against the president.

  The Hill

I was wondering how that would work. A whole new GJ.  I wonder when they convened. *

The superseding indictment is an effort by the special counsel to respond to a ruling earlier this summer by the Supreme Court, which held that Trump and other former executives retain broad immunity for core actions they took as president and are presumptively immune for other actions taken while in office.

While the indictment retains the original charges – a sign of Smith’s confidence in the evidence underpinning the case – it makes significant cuts.

[...]

The filing removes former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark as an unnamed, unindicted co-conspirator in the case, a reflection of specific instructions from the Supreme Court that said Trump’s conversations with Justice Department officials were protected from prosecution.

[...]

The filing also bumps up by a day the date that prosecutors argue Trump’s conspiracy to remain in office began — Nov. 13, 2020.

Hmmm?

[T]he new filing takes pains to distinguish various elements of Trump’s efforts to unwind the election as actions taken purely in a private capacity – and thus conduct that can be prosecuted.

The indictment retains its focus on Trump’s knowledge that he was spreading false claims about his loss in the election.

But it includes new efforts to indicate Trump’s false statements about the election were spread in a campaign capacity, not through his role as chief executive.

I guess I assumed that was the case in the original indictment.

It discusses his once-abundant activity on Twitter, now known as X, noting that he regularly used the account “for personal purposes–including to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud, exhort his supporters to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6” as well as pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results and to “leverage the events at the Capitol on January 6 to unlawfully retain power.”

[...]

[I]t shifts its descriptions of others in the case, describing them as “private” attorneys and a “private” political consultant. Though unnamed in the document, the descriptions leave the group identifiable as Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Cheeseboro – all attorneys who aided Trump in the plot – as well as advisor Boris Epshteyn.

[...]

Smith reframed the allegations against Trump to zero in on Trump’s desire to remain in the White House — not dropping the underlying acts altogether, as the special counsel did in other sections that could run afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

[...]

Smith removed references to certain conversations Trump had with the House minority leader and officials in Trump’s White House and Justice Department.

[...]

It will be up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine whether Trump’s attempts to sway Pence to certify alternate slates of electors stand up to the Supreme Court’s new tests, though the issue could still be appealed back to the Supreme Court.

    source

UPDATE 08/28/2024:

The same four charges are still in the indictment, and Donald Trump continues to be the only defendant.

[...]

There is no more reference to the 45th President of the United States. The indictment is now about Donald Trump, a candidate for president in 2020 who lost. In other words, following the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, the prosecution is signaling that it has abandoned claims about official presidential conduct and is only moving forward with claims about candidate Trump.

[...]

The Special Counsel has removed allegations about Trump’s efforts to use DOJ in furtherance of the crimes he’s charged with. The Supreme Court ruled that was official conduct, and it’s now out. But the allegations about the pressure campaign to keep Vice President Mike Pence from certifying the election remain in, as do some allegations about interactions with state officials, like the call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger begging him to find him the votes he needed to win.

Trump’s lawyers will want to remove much more from the indictment. That’s the fight that begins when Judge Chutkan holds a status conference on Friday.

[...]

Trump will need to be arraigned on the new indictment before anything further can happen in the case, but prosecutors have already said they will waive Trump’s personal appearance in court for that proceeding.

[...]

Unless—and this is highly unlikely—both Trump and the government agree with Chutkan’s decisions, the case is almost certain to go on appeal one more time, as we’ve previously discussed. The Supreme Court will have the final say over what conduct can remain in the indictment and what is protected by presidential immunity.

  Joyce Vance

And I think we can count on them to find that most of the conduct is protected.

The indictment

*UPDATE 08/28/2024:

I think yes

He's taking a risk putting it off until September, because November is when Biden may well lose the White House and drag down the Senate and House with him.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

New laws for Trump control

Will that be retroactive to before the Supreme Court's immunity decision?

With Trump in the Oval, count on it

Also, it's not even a crime if they pay him after he does it.  That would be a "gratuity".  Although they might have to reduce the amount.  So, never mind.  Trump would go with the bribe.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Trump trial hearings on the docket soon

We vehemently disagree with the majority decision to extend any immunity to aspects of Trump’s 2020 election interference. But the court’s opinion also makes clear that this ruling is not a death knell for Smith’s case.

  CNN

Yet.

[T]he opinion calls on District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to initiate the next best thing: an evidentiary hearing — a kind of mini-trial — that will thoroughly ventilate the facts in this case. She should do so quickly.

And I expect she will.

The trial, which was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, has instead been stayed since December 2023. That is when Trump appealed an order refusing to dismiss the case on immunity grounds — and the Supreme Court first declined to review the case, beginning its unconscionable slow-roll that finally ended almost seven months later with this new decision.

[...]

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that a president enjoyed civil immunity for all “official acts.” Now, in Trump v. United States, the court grappled with which “official” acts should also receive criminal immunity.

Which on its face is insane. Criminal immunity. WTF? Why have laws at all?

Given that ruling, the next logical question is: Which of the alleged actions taken by Trump, charged in the indictment, are protected official acts and which aren’t?

First, the court has ruled that all of the allegations concerning Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department — and his attempt to get them to interfere in the election — were official. Therefore, all of that conduct is protected by immunity and cannot be presented at trial.

But the court also held that there are two allegations for which Trump has presumptive immunity, yet this presumption can be overcome: the allegations surrounding his interactions with former Vice President Mike Pence, and his public communications. However, the court did not specify what it would take for that presumption to be overcome. Again, that is for resolution by Chutkan in the mini-trial.

Hearing.

Finally, the court stated that there is one category of alleged conduct that requires a “fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations”: all of Trump’s interactions with “persons outside the Executive Branch,” including state officials and private parties. More grist for Chutkan’s courtroom.

[...]

The Supreme Court has explicitly directed Chutkan to determine whether Trump’s interactions with state officials and private parties were official — and left open the door for her to hold hearings over allegations that involved Pence, too. Chutkan can give both parties the opportunity to develop facts supporting their competing positions and then make her ruling on immunity, ensuring that Trump continues to receive due process throughout.

And I presume that will be appealable. So, justice delayed, folks.

Beyond the procedural considerations, the mini-trial would also serve a vital function for the public — allowing voters to learn more details about Trump’s alleged election interference.

And just who will be paying attention?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Experts wanted?

Who's listening?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Surprise, surprise

And he wasn't yet president when he committed those crimes.  But he'll get the delay while it works its way up to "his judges".

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 07/02/2024:

Biden addresses the nation at a time of peril

Biden's address on the Supreme Court's decision ending our basic foundation in the rule of law was weak sauce indeed.

And a whole 5 minutes.

And, apparently he doesn't think the American public deserves any explanation of that debate. We're being treated like Republican voters - gaslight 'em.

And, speaking of Republicans - not just Trump, but any future president - particularly Republicans, of course - will do anything they want.  The law will not be a deterrence.  Nixon is in Hell asking for a do-over.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

King it is

In Hell, Nixon is demanding a do over.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06:25 pm:

UPDATE 08:05 pm:  A clear explainer of what the ruling says and how it affects Jack Smith's case.

UPDATE 07/02/2024:

If we'd had voting reform, we wouldn't need court reform so badly

Also Elie...

Consistency being the hobgoblin, etc.

He bent precedent to arrive at that decision.  I'm sure he can bend back again.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

No immunity decision today - again

Yes, so what happens?  Maybe the difference will be in "stay" versus "enter".

UPDATE 03:25 pm:

UPDATE 06/22/2024: