I overslept and then had to hop into my car for my first radiation treatment. So I'm a little late to the news. On the bright side, I'm now 1/28th of the way to a healthy prostate.
And now the news. The big news, obviously, is that the Supreme Court finally roused itself to rule on Donald Trump's immunity from federal prosecution for his actions related to January 6. To recap things, there are four charges against Trump:
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
- Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
- Conspiracy against rights.
#2 and #3 are based on violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which the Court already tossed out on Friday when it ruled that Sarbanes-Oxley couldn't be used to prosecute the January 6 rioters.
#1 and #4 are more complicated. The Court ruled that some aspects of the indictment are subject to immunity and some aren't:
- Trump is absolutely immune against charges of talking with the Attorney General or other members of the Justice Department.
- Trump is probably immune against charges of trying to pressure the vice president.
- He is also probably immune against charges related to tweets or other forms of public communication.
- Trump might be immune against charges of conspiring with state officials to change the official vote count.
However, because this is a unique case, the Court didn't rule on the questionable immunity charges. Instead, it remanded them back to the district court for further fact finding and consideration. After that, of course, it will get appealed to a circuit court and then finally land back in the lap of the Supreme Court.
This will delay things a very long time. Long enough that if Trump wins in November he'll have ample time to kill the prosecution entirely. If he doesn't, though, how are these things likely to go?
My read of the opinion is that the only part of the indictment that will remain standing is the charge of conspiring to influence state legislatures to investigate election fraud. The three liberals on the Court are on board with that, and so is Amy Coney Barrett:
The indictment alleges that the President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing” about election fraud claims. The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power.
I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the other conservative justices agreed with this. That would leave prosecutor Jack Smith with a very stripped down case aimed solely at Trump's actions with regard to state officials. That might be enough and it might not.
This ruling essentially creates the unitary executive that republicans like
Bill Barr have wanted for decades. It completely eliminates the DOJ as an independent agency. The only positive from this ruling is that now Biden is the unitary executive, who can make official orders to all his agencies and can't be prosecuted for it.
President Biden has now been given the power to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president. He must use this new power for the good of our country. President Biden has also been given the power to remove the 6 justices who voted for this ruling. He must also use this new power to do so for the good of our country.
Yeah I was gonna ask: doesn't this complicate Trump's plan to prosecute Biden, if his crime is/was opening the border and whatnot? Sounds pretty official to me...
A very large part of me was dreaming tonight that Biden would announce his official determination that the court majority's action made them a fundamental danger to the nation's security and to Constitutional government and under his authority as Commander in Chief had this afternoon issued orders that they be removed and held in military custody in Guantanamo.
It would be a perfectly lawful exercise of a core constitutional function of the presidency. And a deserved one. And one they'd already agreed with.
So basically anything Biden or Harris do between now and election day to fuck with the election and transfer of power should Trump win is nice and legal?
Roger that!
Sometimes it is unfortunate that Biden is a decent person and would not do that.
Their whole slow moving coup depends on it.
+10
They've as bad as Cannon.
They seemingly created a confusing overlay of (a) communications with administration officials with (b) the distinction between official versus personal actions.
By simplistically linking the act of communicating with other administration officials as providing immunity, rather the intent of said actions, they've rendered intent moot and the distinction between the two types (official and personal) of actions.
Frankly, I think the Court meant "divining". Putting that aside, the Court just granted Biden absolute power to order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. Good for them for giving Biden the green light to...oh fuck, he's too good of a person to do such an evil thing. I mean, he's not even going to contemplate having the 6 conservative justices arrested ostensibly for Treason.
Trump's going to go on a murder spree in 2025. Good luck to us all.
I think you're too optimistic. To me, it looks like the Court has made the President a King.
1) anything in his presumptive duties has absolute immunity
2) any official act has presumed immunity
3) only unofficial acts can be prosecuted. Maybe.
These are power George III would have envied.
Yeah this seems like the must batshit crazy ruling yet. They are counting on the fact that Biden won't take advantage of the ruling and Trump will. I think D_Ohrk_E1 has the best idea. If only Biden could arrest a few conservative Supreme Court justices. There are ample reasons to arrest Thomas and Alito. And then nominate replacements.
But of course Trump won't do that.
So now it's nice and legal for a VP to have the president murdered and then pardon himself and all of his co-conspirators after the fact.
This very much. I'm not even sure Roberts knows what he's authorized.
Alas, from the OP it appears Americans will sleepwalk through it, and perhaps have a rude awakening after several of their friends and family are "disappeared" or taken away to camps or shot dead for saying bad things about the President.
I dunno, maybe Americans, unfortunately including our host, are ok with a new Reich. But ok or not, they're gonna get it if TCFG gets back into power. And unfortunately, so are the rest of us.
Oh, I think Roberts knows full well exactly what he's authorized here.
There was a plot to install Washington as king right at the end of the Revolutionary War. From that time until this morning we didn't have an openly monarchical movement in this country. But in recent years there's been a hidden and well-financed and well-organized faction gnawing away like termites inside our legal apparatus. Today it surfaced and showed us its true colors.
What happened to the whole "inciting a riot" thing, did his lawyers successfully arrange for that to be First Amendment protected?
Yeah but he did it from the Oval Office so it's "official." Waddaya waddaya?
I think Kevin is wrong about 2&3 because the "otherwise" definition in that decision was explained to also mean creating fraudulent documents for use in obstructing a proceeding is covered. So the fake elector certificates would be covered under those definitions.
The inevitable delay confirms my worst fears about this corrupt court. They have made the law into an Ass. Are there any bright spots?
Well, we don't have to worry about a hung jury before the election, since there will be no trial before the election. Also, it frees up Democrats to make this decision AND Jan 6 a political issue. Have a trial in the Court of Public Opinion.
Still, my low expectations of what the Democratic Party is willing to do, and its inability to play the political game effectively (their pitch always comes down to "give us more money"), does not inspire optimism.
That, plus Republican corruption, signals a dark period in the affairs of the Republic. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
Sure. Biden can have them arrested and they can't question his motives.
This is not just a joke. Biden now has the power to, say, have the FBI raid the RNC offices and confiscate all their fundraising files because it's suspected that they are receiving funds from Russian sources, which is not just illegal but arguably affects national security, an obvious Core Presidential Responsibility. Hell, now he can interrogate, and perhaps even detain, Moscow Mitch about RSCC funding from Russian sources, not to mention his contacts with PRC government officials via his wife, because of the national security implications.
He's too responsible to do shit like that. Trump would do it in a heartbeat. That's the real problem with this ruling.
Well, you know in May, Trump campaign received transfers of $74M, even while his campaign had under $1M in direct donations.
IDK where that money's coming from, but it is suspicious.
"Are there any bright spots?"
It may make it easier to convince undecided voters that Trump will really become a dictator if he wins.
Some people above are suggesting that Biden should go scorched earth, and that that will never happen, because he's not that kind of guy. But he doesn't need to go scorched earth; he just has to fire up enough voters. So, issue an XO declaring abortion legal in all jurisdictions, to be enforced by the FBI, along with declaration of the Hyde Amendment null and void, etc. Do a few broadly popular things like that, and couple them with a loud reminder that it all goes away if Trump is elected.
New York Times Pitchbot:
"Analysis | The blame for today’s Supreme Court ruling granting presidents king-like powers falls squarely on Jack Smith—who made no known efforts to offer luxury travel to either Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, nor to buy real estate from Neil Gorsuch at above-market rate."
+1
After thinking about this all day, here's my 2 cents:
SCOTUS is approaching this as though we live in a normal world. We don't. Trump has distorted everything. In a normal world it would NEVER be okay to try to stay in office after losing the election, and there would be no acts toward that end that would be considered okay. SCOTUS is trying to make a distinction between "allowable" acts and "prohibited" acts, when all are directed toward a corrupt end. They're quibbling about which trees are allowed and which are not, and completely missed the forest.
This is very generous to them and holds if you're willing to start with the idea that the majority was putting this together in good faith. Once upon a time I might have been, but that was before the 2021-2022 session. Now, no. Just no. This was not done in good faith.
How odd that one uses such a bloodless, ho-hum way of describing the Supreme Court deciding that Presidents may rule as as god-kings so long as they're plausible liars, whereas one has no trouble accurately describing the homeless ruling.
Yeah, it is odd. Hard to imagine Kevin won't snap out of it and make a reality-based post about this ruling in the next few hours or days.
I read about the decision at Vox, then looked at the headline here and figured it was written before the ruling came out or something, but no.
In retrospect, the narrow-ness of the ruling should have been anticipated
It does NOT stop the Mar a Lago case of hidden documents(most of which took place after DJT left the white house) and it does NOT eliminate the financial fraud charges that Trump has been found guilty of already. It does give him time to get re-elected - THEN HE could weaponize the Justice department to do his bidding which is exactly what the "normal" republicans do NOT want.
So, in any state that has or is considering charges they would have do delineate between official and un-official acts..
Was Monica Lewinski's BJ of Clinton an official act? It happened while he was president? Is Biden off the hook for Hunters acts?
I get the distinct feeling that in this particular ruling the aftermath may be far far worse than many believe right now.
"Normal" Republicans? Seen any lately? Rumor has it that they still exist, but they're so marginalized to be irrelevant. For all practical purposes, the Republican party no longer exists. It's the Trump party now.
Yeah, I have seen some normal republicans lately believe it or not.
And I don't believe they are marginalized to the point of being irrelevant.
If they WERE I don't think Manchin would have left the DEM party
DJT and party of MAGA are still making some of the wall policy statements that are basically saying screw the old guard.
Is it Trumps party?
Considering his age and the off the wall policies he's promoting I have to wonder
rob portman.
Why in the fuck would Joe ever be on the hook for Hunter's actions?!?
This is pretty much as opposite of a "narrow ruling" as imaginable.
It does NOT stop the Mar a Lago case of hidden documents(most of which took place after DJT left the white house) . . .
Your imagination is insufficiently creative. Now, when Trump claims that he declassified the documents before he left office, that's an official act.
. . . it does NOT eliminate the financial fraud charges that Trump has been found guilty of already.
It does not eliminate the charges, but it does mean that any evidence from Trump's actions as president should have been ruled inadmissible.
If they were declassified then there was no reason to conceal there whereabouts - correct? De-classification is an official act that requires a record be kept of such action. Just because Trump said (after the fact) that he declassified them no one in his administration is admitting to having submitted any form, or directive to do so to the appropriate agencies,
The charges against Trump in NY are state charges NOT federal charges and these charges (including over valuing the properties goes back to well before the Trump presidency
We're left with only one remedy. And I'm not that guy.
OTOH Biden could order Seal Team Six to do it and it would be ok, thank you John Roberts.
I guess I will have to go read the lower court decision, because it cannot be "new" that any government official, including, sadly Trump, has qualified immunity for acts during time in office.
I don't have the actual definition of qualified immunity on hand, but its not the same, as so "sovereign immunity" or, say the type of immunity Ambassadors to other countries have, which I believe is total immunity.
What I think is different about this case is the court actually mused on some of the actions Trump took and whether those actions fall under qualified immunity.
The Court did, I note, reject Trump's truly batshit argument that the only remedy was impeachment. So there is that.
FYI, its kind of amazing to me that neither the majority, the concurrence or two dissenting opinions mentioned any other type of existing immunity for actions taken by a government official.
I now wonder whether I am imagining them. It does appear that this is like the third case against an actual President, after a dude that was going to sue Nixon for firing him and the Clinton Paula Jones civil case.
One thing stands out crystal clear, even though none of the opinions mention it: (1) the majority do not think Trump interfered in the election criminally, (2) the dissenters think he did, and (3) the majority are completely convinced that this ruling sheilds Biden from an absolutely inevitable, inevitable, charge from a future Trump Justice Department. That part of the opinion goes on for pages.
It is far from the first or only "qualified immunity case." Not surprisingly, over the past 40 years if you are a cop its good times in terms of having an immunity defense to accidentally, say, killing someone.
But dickhead Trump has also managed to be the first President to actually have a case where he needed to assert an immunity defense. This is why none of the opinions mention it.
If it was a case of one of the family members of the police who were injured on Jan 6 sued Trump there would be tons of precedent.
I think that you have a point here with #3. One possible motivation for at least some of the justices might have been that they do not want ex-Presidents charged for crimes. Not Trump and not Biden if Trump wins. That is something that we never really faced before until Trump shattered norms (F you Trump yet again).
Jesus fuck, Kevin...
Every Other Left-of-Center Pundit in America: The Supremes have just declared the President above the law
Kevin Drum: The Supremes didn't actually say anything at all.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs... you're probably doing a face-first colonoscopy on yourself.
... a face-first colonoscopy. Very nice.
The SOX prosecution doesn't go away at all. Forging elector documents fits even section 1 prohibition of interrupting an official proceeding by faking evidence
if anyone is inclined to welcome a humorous take on this decision:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/01/supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling-monarchy-satire/
I can usually find something in Alexandra Petri's columns that brings a laugh, but am hsrd-pressed to even smile today
It would be irresponsible not to speculate, so — Conservatives putting all their thumbs on the scale to help the candidate who will stop any investigation of their corruption. Not only delaying his trials to help his campaign, but if he regains office, he can jail investigative reporters, threaten publishers, prosecute whistle blowers, and it’s all good.
Pingback: Donald Trump still can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue – Kevin Drum
OK, we all know Biden isn’t going to have Seal Team 6 dispatch TFG. But aren’t there still some sensitive documents unaccounted for? Let’s just have the Felon held in custody, incommunicado, to insure he doesn’t transmit any more government secrets to unauthorized parties.