Sounds like the Minnesota Supreme Court does not think it has the authority to prevent Trump from being on the ballot.
Of note: while the 14th Amendment prevents anyone who has been involved in an insurrection against the United States, of all the 99 charges against Trump, there is no charge that he participated in an insurrection.
Looks like Michigan is also considering whether Trump should be barred from the ballot based on the 14th.
Meanwhile, in the New York Civil Fraud trial, both Don Jr and Eric have testified. Both denied they knew anything about the artificial inflation of Trump propertyIvanka is still fighting her subpeona
The Washington Post reports Trump has a five point plan he wants to impose should he be re-elected to the presidential office.
Basically he would want to use the Justice Department to get back at all his political enemies, including those who have turned against him since his leaving offices. He would also use the Insurrection Act to put down all demonstrations against him.
He wants to install people who are loyal to him in as many offices as possible. All civil service workers would have to sign a loyalty oath to him. He wants to hire lawyers who will be more conservative then the Federalist Society Lawyers like what he put on the Supreme Court.
He wants to consolidate all the semi independent commissions under his office. Any new rules have to be preapproved by him.
He has promised to pardon nearly all the people who where convicted of their involvement in the January 6th insurrection.
And he wants to impose more restrictions on migration into the US including imposing a new ban on Muslims, stop the settlement of refugees in the US and begin the mass deportation of undocumented people.
Special Counsel Jack Smith decides to cut to the chase and directly petitioned the Supreme Court [PDF] to rule on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.
The strategy seems to be to answer this question quickly to preserve the March 4, 2024 trial date. For those who don't want to read an entire 81 page legal finding, a journalistic summary can be found here. It will be most interesting to see how quickly the Supreme Court picks this up (assuming they do) and which direction the Trump appointees will jump.
Former Trump attorney Rudolph Giuliani P01135780 has been found liable for defaming election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman. This was a given, since he'd already suffered a default judgment for not cooperating with discovery. The only real question was how much he'd be penalized. Now we know. It took a jury less than two full days of deliberation to set the penalty at $148 million ($33 million for direct damages, $40 million for emotional harm, and $75 million in punitive damages).
Just watched on Auntie. Hoo-Rah! They very mainly filmed him gaslighting outside the courthouse with the sound off whilst analysing his pathetic situation.
Just watched on Auntie. Hoo-Rah! They very mainly filmed him gaslighting outside the courthouse with the sound off whilst analysing his pathetic situation.
Lor'! He's trying to hawk the suit he wore for a mug shot!
CNN reported yesterday that a binder on Russian interference in the 2020 election has gone missing. It disappeared in the last hours of the Trump administration. Did Mark Meadows take it home with him? He denies it.
Now, Mary Trump, the estranged sister of Donald, is speculating Mr Trump may have sold the binder to the Russians.
If so,
Give me a T!
Give me a R!
Give me an E!
Give me an A!
Give me a S!
Give me an O!
Give me a N!
What does it spell?
Trump is so nice, he deserves another term in office.
Now, Mary Trump, the estranged sister of Donald, is speculating Mr Trump may have sold the binder to the Russians.
Mary Trump is Donald Trump’s niece, not his sister.
And she didn’t exactly speculate that Trump may have sold the documents to Russia. On her blog, she said:
With the missing Russia documents, there are really only three possibilities:
They were destroyed. If the government has proof Donald Trump was the last person to possess the documents, and there was some evidence they were destroyed, he would potentially face new criminal charges under several different laws including 18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 2071 which could lead to even more prison time.
They were lost (or kept). Whether the documents were purposely kept in a safe or lost, either could lead to stiff penalties including charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793 and the Federal Records Act 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2906. Even when classified information is inadvertently lost, it could be considered “retention” if there wasn’t a good faith effort to produce it.
They were sold or given to Russia. This is the most serious possibility of all. And if, indeed, this is the case, a number of charges, including 18 U.S.C. § 793 as it relates to knowingly delivering national defense information to an unauthorized foreign agent, could be brought. The maximum penalty for violating the Espionage Act is life imprisonment. Such theft and dissemination could also rise to the level of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage and 18 U.S.C. § 798: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Information.
As for treason, I’m not sure the relationship between the US and Russia is such as would qualify Russia as an enemy of the US within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, much of the US’s approach to the war in Ukraine seems to have been designed to avoid open hostility with Russia.
Now, Mary Trump, the estranged sister of Donald, is speculating Mr Trump may have sold the binder to the Russians.
Mary Trump is Donald Trump’s niece, not his sister.
And she didn’t exactly speculate that Trump may have sold the documents to Russia. On her blog, she said:
With the missing Russia documents, there are really only three possibilities:
They were destroyed. If the government has proof Donald Trump was the last person to possess the documents, and there was some evidence they were destroyed, he would potentially face new criminal charges under several different laws including 18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 2071 which could lead to even more prison time.
They were lost (or kept). Whether the documents were purposely kept in a safe or lost, either could lead to stiff penalties including charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793 and the Federal Records Act 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2906. Even when classified information is inadvertently lost, it could be considered “retention” if there wasn’t a good faith effort to produce it.
They were sold or given to Russia. This is the most serious possibility of all. And if, indeed, this is the case, a number of charges, including 18 U.S.C. § 793 as it relates to knowingly delivering national defense information to an unauthorized foreign agent, could be brought. The maximum penalty for violating the Espionage Act is life imprisonment. Such theft and dissemination could also rise to the level of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage and 18 U.S.C. § 798: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Information.
As for treason, I’m not sure the relationship between the US and Russia is such as would qualify Russia as an enemy of the US within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, much of the US’s approach to the war in Ukraine seems to have been designed to avoid open hostility with Russia.
Yeah, the US constitution defines treason pretty damn narrowly for good reason.
Now, Mary Trump, the estranged sister of Donald, is speculating Mr Trump may have sold the binder to the Russians.
Mary Trump is Donald Trump’s niece, not his sister.
And she didn’t exactly speculate that Trump may have sold the documents to Russia. On her blog, she said:
With the missing Russia documents, there are really only three possibilities:
They were destroyed. If the government has proof Donald Trump was the last person to possess the documents, and there was some evidence they were destroyed, he would potentially face new criminal charges under several different laws including 18 U.S.C. § 793 and 18 U.S.C. § 2071 which could lead to even more prison time.
They were lost (or kept). Whether the documents were purposely kept in a safe or lost, either could lead to stiff penalties including charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793 and the Federal Records Act 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2906. Even when classified information is inadvertently lost, it could be considered “retention” if there wasn’t a good faith effort to produce it.
They were sold or given to Russia. This is the most serious possibility of all. And if, indeed, this is the case, a number of charges, including 18 U.S.C. § 793 as it relates to knowingly delivering national defense information to an unauthorized foreign agent, could be brought. The maximum penalty for violating the Espionage Act is life imprisonment. Such theft and dissemination could also rise to the level of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage and 18 U.S.C. § 798: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Information.
As for treason, I’m not sure the relationship between the US and Russia is such as would qualify Russia as an enemy of the US within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, much of the US’s approach to the war in Ukraine seems to have been designed to avoid open hostility with Russia.
Yeah, the US constitution defines treason pretty damn narrowly for good reason.
If it were an act of Espionage by Trump or someone within the administration, I bet they could find two or more witnesses that could testify to that.
I don’t think comments made by the Russian ambassador are going to answer the question of whether Russia is the enemy of the US within the meaning of the US Constitution. We are not in a state of open war with Russia, and that’s pretty much what the Constitution means by “enemy.” See this article for more discussion about what “enemy” means in the context of the Treason Clause.
Russia has been openly and actively hostile to the United States since at least Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference. Of course that's "hostile" in the wider vernacular sense, not the narrow etymological sense as a near synonym for "enemy". At any rate, if it could be demonstrated that Trump passed classified intelligence along to Russia he might be held liable under the Espionage Act, ironically the same act Trump mentor Roy Cohn used to convict Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Mary Trump is a mental-health professional who goes on TV and gives negative diagnoses of a man she was involved in a financial lawsuit against. How she is taken seriously by anyone is beyond me.
Mary Trump is a mental-health professional who goes on TV and gives negative diagnoses of a man she was involved in a financial lawsuit against. How she is taken seriously by anyone is beyond me.
Umm--could it be the Trump name?
The Trump clan is quite closed. She is the only one who has given any hint what might be going on with her uncle.
She also has a PhD in psychology which does lend some credibility.
Mary Trump is a mental-health professional who goes on TV and gives negative diagnoses of a man she was involved in a financial lawsuit against. How she is taken seriously by anyone is beyond me.
And those are reasonable grounds on which to question or attack her credibility.
On the other hand, unlike lots of people who’ve opined on Trump, at least she knows and has observed for decades the person she’s giving opinions about. And her opinions are consistent with what anyone watching Trump can observe. So that’s in her favor credibility-wise.
Personally, I keep in mind reasons she might be biased, but weighing it all, I tend to find her opinions of her uncle generally credible.
And in the case of the cited blog post, I didn’t see anything that obviously lacked credibility. YMMV.
Judge Howell has ruled that Rudolph Giuliani P01135780 must immediately pay the $148 million penalty owed to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, bypassing the usual thirty day period for appeals.
District Judge Beryl Howell ruled Wednesday that Giuliani must immediately pay the sum an eight-person jury awarded last week. A few days before that, the women sued Giuliani again, asking the the courts to permanently ban him from speaking about them.
Giuliani accused Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, of toying with ballots at an absentee ballot counting facility in Fulton County, Georgia, in 2020. He claimed they were scanning ballots for President Joe Biden multiple times.
Typically, those ordered to pay damages have 30 days before it is enforced. But in a motion filed Monday, the women's lawyers asked that the pause be waived for Giuliani. They argue he may be inclined to use the time to conceal his assets.
This all seems to go back to Giuliani P01135780's defiance of discovery. From Judge Howell's ruling (p. 9).
Giuliani feebly counters concerns about him hiding assets, stating that “there is no evidence in the record of any attempt by [him] to dissipate assets.” Def.’s Opp’n at 2. This statement simply ignores the ample record in this case of Giuliani’s efforts to conceal or hide his assets by failing to comply with discovery requests, including “plaintiffs’ requests for financial information.”
In other words, Giuliani P01135780's history of concealing his assets from the court leads the court to believe that he's the kind of person who would conceal his assets from the court.
Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.
On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.
"We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."
McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."
To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."
Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.
The moves from Palmer, Hartmann and Trump, had they been successful, threatened to throw the statewide certification of Michigan's 2020 election into doubt.
For those of you unfamiliar with Michigan geography, Wayne county is where Detroit is located.
Some have noted that the promise of attorneys is especially problematic. One former federal prosecutor notes that the conversation as described (the actual audio has not been released to the best of my knowledge) would seem to violate Michigan's bribery laws.
Offering an official something of value (services of a lawyer) in exchange for withholding official action (certifying the Wayne County vote) sounds like a classic case of bribery under Michigan State law.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.117 Public officer; bribery.
Sec. 117.
Bribery of public officer — Any person who shall corruptly give, offer or promise to any public officer, agent, servant or employe, after the election or appointment of such public officer, agent, servant or employe and either before or after such public officer, agent, servant or employe shall have been qualified or shall take his seat, any gift, gratuity, money, property or other valuable thing, the intent or purpose of which is to influence the act, vote, opinion, decision or judgment of such public officer, agent, servant or employe, or his action on any matter, question, cause or proceeding, which may be pending or may by law be brought before him in his public capacity, or the purpose and intent of which is to influence any act or omission relating to any public duty of such officer, agent, servant or employe, shall be guilty of a felony.
Both the Trump campaign and McDaniel have offered misleading justifications for their actions, claiming that they wanted an audit of the results. But what they're demanding in the phone call (as described) isn't an audit. They want to throw out every vote cast in Wayne county.
Naw, he did not tamper with elections, did he? Says something about how desperate he became, the supposed great leader having to beg county canvassers to not sign the certification, and then throw in a little incentive.
Special Counsel Jack Smith decides to cut to the chase and directly petitioned the Supreme Court [PDF] to rule on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.
The strategy seems to be to answer this question quickly to preserve the March 4, 2024 trial date. For those who don't want to read an entire 81 page legal finding, a journalistic summary can be found here. It will be most interesting to see how quickly the Supreme Court picks this up (assuming they do) and which direction the Trump appointees will jump.
The Supremes declined the special request without comment. I can't say that I am surprised. While there are certain rare cases where original jurisdiction is in the Supremes, traditionally they prefer to have input from the lower court opinions.
I suppose one could float a conspiracy theory that the conservatives on the Court are in cahoots to delay Trump's trial until after the election, and so they deliberately are forcing the slower path rather than taking up the issue right now (the MAGA Rules Theory). Or that, regardless of political ideology, they all figure that if they can delay ruling on the scope of presidential immunity until after the election and if Trump should win, he would order the Feds to drop the case against him and moot the issue, saving them the trouble of ruling on the issue (the Spineless Jellyfish Theory).
But even if they were staying impartial and not letting the forthcoming election influence them one bit (i.e., being neutral) the same result would have happened: the Court would decline to leapfrog over the intermediate courts and rule on the issue, preferring to let the procedure follow the traditional path of District Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme.
I suppose one could float a conspiracy theory that the conservatives on the Court are in cahoots to delay Trump's trial until after the election, and so they deliberately are forcing the slower path rather than taking up the issue right now (the MAGA Rules Theory). Or that, regardless of political ideology, they all figure that if they can delay ruling on the scope of presidential immunity until after the election and if Trump should win, he would order the Feds to drop the case against him and moot the issue, saving them the trouble of ruling on the issue (the Spineless Jellyfish Theory).
Almost all courts have treated these cases as something they'd rather someone else dealt with. The Colorado Supreme Court is the exception rather than the rule. SCOTUS seems to be following the majority here.
But even if they were staying impartial and not letting the forthcoming election influence them one bit (i.e., being neutral) the same result would have happened: the Court would decline to leapfrog over the intermediate courts and rule on the issue, preferring to let the procedure follow the traditional path of District Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme.
Is that the traditional path for cases involving claims of presidential immunity and allegations of abuse of presidential powers? I seem to recall that United States v. Nixon skipped the appellate step. This case seems to involve similar issues.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So, due to the actions of the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Republican Party, has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado ruling.
The way I see it. SCOTUS is in a damnable position. No matter which way it rules, at least a third of the country will disagree with it. There will be a third of the country that really won't care.
Seems like SCOTUS could
Live up to its cred with five strict constructionists on the board and rule in the Colorado court's favor.
Rule for the Republican party (and Trump camp) saying the amendment does not apply to the president.
Refer the case to the US Court of Appeals--as a delay tactic.
or slow walk this appeal until after the general election, when it would say the whole case is moot.
Personally, I would rather SCOTUS uphold the Colorado Supreme Court Ruling. SCOTUS declined to hear Trump's challenges to the election. It also ordered Trump to turn over records related to January 6 to the congressional investigation committee. And it declined to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago investigation.
There is also Justice Gorsuch's previous ruling that states have a right to disqualify candidates on constitutional grounds.
On the other hand, the Court may rule that Trump has yet to have due process. He has not been formally convicted of insurrection or anything related to the January 6 riot.
Still, the Court may send the decision back to Colorado for further clarification or can they send it to a Court of Appeals as a delay tactic. SCOTUS recently sent the question of Trump's claim of presidential immunity to the appellate court.
Seems like the best option for SCOTUS to slow walk this in hopes that it will go away.
I think SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favour, it will be a horrible legal decision almost will be lambasted as the ruling overturning Roe v Wade. But I predict SCOTUS will give Trump based on a few technicalities.
1) Whether the President is an 'officer' of the United States. The Amendment does not explicitly say that insurrection bars you from the presidency, it mentions senators, congresspeople and 'officers of the United States.' I think the spirit of the amendment would cover the President, it is almost nonsensical to imagine the writers of the amendment who wanted to prevent people who commit insurrection from government office to entertain the possibility of allowing such people access to the highest office in the land. But strictly speaking the letter does not explicitly mention the President.
2) "Shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" Trump I understand has not technically been convicted of insurrection, so is the determination based on being criminally convicted or is it based on the balance of probabilities standard. I think it is the latter, but the Court may rule that because the consequence is removal of a candidate from a ballot, that such a consequence warrants a higher standard than balance of probabilities.
Right, that's that dealt with. Reading and listening to expert commentators on The Court, I have come to view it as completely out with its constitution role. So much that could be said but I'll stick with one observation.
The SCOTUS recently seems to decide what outcome it wants and then shoehorns any facts or legal arguments to achieve that aim. This is constitutional vandalism.
Anyway, therefore I predict they'll find in Trump's favour then make up some nonsense reason.
I think it could go either way - I suspect the conservatives on the court largely hold Trump in contempt. They're not MAGA cultists and it may suit them to demonstrate "independence" by punting him off the political stage. Their interests lie in prompting corporate interests and regressive social policy, and they've got those seats secure for years if not decades.
Ah hah! So, do they calculate that Hayley or Christie or a ham samwich is even more likely to beat Biden? Are are they happy with side-bet Biden as he can't affect their interests?
Historically, once the justices are on the highest court in the land, they do not have to show loyalty to the person(s) that nominated them. I pointed out three times the court did not rule in favor of Trump. To me, this the pentacle of their independence from the Don.
Do you think Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any decision on the 14th because his wife had encouraged Trump to challenge the election results? She definitely identifies as a MAGA.
If he does, that would guarantee a ruling against Trump.
Remember. Trump named only three people to the SCOTUS bench. Thomas is not one of them. That puts his people in the minority as it is.
Has anything you've seen over the last few years led you to believe that Clarence Thomas has any grasp of ethics, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest?
1) The President is an Officer of the United States, this question was asked of and answered by the drafters and they answered in the affirmative. This may be found in the Congressional record.
2) Strict constructionists are in a bind. Courts don't like that there is no formal charging process for the Fourteenth Amendment, but all actions of Congress regarding the use of this Amendment after the Civil War indicate that a formal charge is not necessary. It is a political disability only.
3) I don't think that SCOTUS will uphold the Colorado decision just 'cause, but it will clearly be just 'cause, not some principled argument.
I think the chance that SCOTUS will rule against Trump is near-zero, even though the Colorado court is on pretty unassailable constitutional ground. The precedents are very clear: conviction for insurrection is not required; due process is not required, since being barred from holding office is not a criminal penalty (the constitution only requires due process when life, liberty or property are in jeopardy); and Section 3 is by design self-enforcing--most amendments add a clause authorizing Congress to pass legislation to enforce them, but Section 3 doesn't bother.
I can just barely imagine Roberts and Gorsuch having the intellectual integrity to rule for Colorado (Alito and Thomas have clearly committed themselves to an agenda of concocting whatever legal rationale will advance the right-wing agenda, and Barrett has shown a tendency to go along, even if she is less deeply committed to it).
I can also imagine some of the liberals being reluctant, for fear of seeming nakedly partisan (though that should have been shot to hell by Bush v. Gore), and finding an out--the most likely one being that the presidency was not explicitly included in Section 3.
I can just barely imagine Roberts and Gorsuch having the intellectual integrity to rule for Colorado (Alito and Thomas have clearly committed themselves to an agenda of concocting whatever legal rationale will advance the right-wing agenda, and Barrett has shown a tendency to go along, even if she is less deeply committed to it).
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
Roberts is often the swing vote in a divided court. I do not think he has any loyalty to Trump. His loyalty is to the Constitution.
I can just barely imagine Roberts and Gorsuch having the intellectual integrity to rule for Colorado (Alito and Thomas have clearly committed themselves to an agenda of concocting whatever legal rationale will advance the right-wing agenda, and Barrett has shown a tendency to go along, even if she is less deeply committed to it).
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
Roberts is often the swing vote in a divided court. I do not think he has any loyalty to Trump. His loyalty is to the Constitution.
My read is that Roberts' loyalty is to his own reputation and that of the court. He'll twist the constitution like a pretzel if he thinks he can get away with it e.g. Columbia v Heller.
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
But even Justice Gorsuch would probably agree that there are limits: it cannot be that a State has unilateral power to decide to keep somebody off the ballot. Otherwise, a Texas election official would simply declare that Joe Biden's name is not allowed to appear on the ballot for President during the next election. There must be some rules and those rules must be subject to some sort of judicial review.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
It really does. But I agree with you, that's a very credible prediction of how the Court might find.
Comments
Of note: while the 14th Amendment prevents anyone who has been involved in an insurrection against the United States, of all the 99 charges against Trump, there is no charge that he participated in an insurrection.
Looks like Michigan is also considering whether Trump should be barred from the ballot based on the 14th.
Meanwhile, in the New York Civil Fraud trial, both Don Jr and Eric have testified. Both denied they knew anything about the artificial inflation of Trump propertyIvanka is still fighting her subpeona
Basically he would want to use the Justice Department to get back at all his political enemies, including those who have turned against him since his leaving offices. He would also use the Insurrection Act to put down all demonstrations against him.
He wants to install people who are loyal to him in as many offices as possible. All civil service workers would have to sign a loyalty oath to him. He wants to hire lawyers who will be more conservative then the Federalist Society Lawyers like what he put on the Supreme Court.
He wants to consolidate all the semi independent commissions under his office. Any new rules have to be preapproved by him.
He has promised to pardon nearly all the people who where convicted of their involvement in the January 6th insurrection.
And he wants to impose more restrictions on migration into the US including imposing a new ban on Muslims, stop the settlement of refugees in the US and begin the mass deportation of undocumented people.
Full report here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/07/5-ways-trump-allies-plan-more-authoritarian-second-term/
Can anyone remember the old German salute to the man with the funny mustache?
Heaven help us.
The strategy seems to be to answer this question quickly to preserve the March 4, 2024 trial date. For those who don't want to read an entire 81 page legal finding, a journalistic summary can be found here. It will be most interesting to see how quickly the Supreme Court picks this up (assuming they do) and which direction the Trump appointees will jump.
Breaking out the popcorn and taking bets.
Lor'! He's trying to hawk the suit he wore for a mug shot!
CNN reported yesterday that a binder on Russian interference in the 2020 election has gone missing. It disappeared in the last hours of the Trump administration. Did Mark Meadows take it home with him? He denies it.
Now, Mary Trump, the estranged sister of Donald, is speculating Mr Trump may have sold the binder to the Russians.
If so,
Give me a T!
Give me a R!
Give me an E!
Give me an A!
Give me a S!
Give me an O!
Give me a N!
What does it spell?
Trump is so nice, he deserves another term in office.
And she didn’t exactly speculate that Trump may have sold the documents to Russia. On her blog, she said:
As for treason, I’m not sure the relationship between the US and Russia is such as would qualify Russia as an enemy of the US within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, much of the US’s approach to the war in Ukraine seems to have been designed to avoid open hostility with Russia.
Yeah, the US constitution defines treason pretty damn narrowly for good reason.
If it were an act of Espionage by Trump or someone within the administration, I bet they could find two or more witnesses that could testify to that.
And, that technical part of whether Russia is an enemy of rhe United States? They claim they became an enemy of us over a decade ago. See https://www.newsweek.com/russia-kremlin-anatoly-antonov-ukraine-nord-stream-2-1611748
Umm--could it be the Trump name?
The Trump clan is quite closed. She is the only one who has given any hint what might be going on with her uncle.
She also has a PhD in psychology which does lend some credibility.
On the other hand, unlike lots of people who’ve opined on Trump, at least she knows and has observed for decades the person she’s giving opinions about. And her opinions are consistent with what anyone watching Trump can observe. So that’s in her favor credibility-wise.
Personally, I keep in mind reasons she might be biased, but weighing it all, I tend to find her opinions of her uncle generally credible.
And in the case of the cited blog post, I didn’t see anything that obviously lacked credibility. YMMV.
This all seems to go back to Giuliani P01135780's defiance of discovery. From Judge Howell's ruling (p. 9).
In other words, Giuliani P01135780's history of concealing his assets from the court leads the court to believe that he's the kind of person who would conceal his assets from the court.
For those of you unfamiliar with Michigan geography, Wayne county is where Detroit is located.
Some have noted that the promise of attorneys is especially problematic. One former federal prosecutor notes that the conversation as described (the actual audio has not been released to the best of my knowledge) would seem to violate Michigan's bribery laws.
Both the Trump campaign and McDaniel have offered misleading justifications for their actions, claiming that they wanted an audit of the results. But what they're demanding in the phone call (as described) isn't an audit. They want to throw out every vote cast in Wayne county.
The Supremes declined the special request without comment. I can't say that I am surprised. While there are certain rare cases where original jurisdiction is in the Supremes, traditionally they prefer to have input from the lower court opinions.
I suppose one could float a conspiracy theory that the conservatives on the Court are in cahoots to delay Trump's trial until after the election, and so they deliberately are forcing the slower path rather than taking up the issue right now (the MAGA Rules Theory). Or that, regardless of political ideology, they all figure that if they can delay ruling on the scope of presidential immunity until after the election and if Trump should win, he would order the Feds to drop the case against him and moot the issue, saving them the trouble of ruling on the issue (the Spineless Jellyfish Theory).
But even if they were staying impartial and not letting the forthcoming election influence them one bit (i.e., being neutral) the same result would have happened: the Court would decline to leapfrog over the intermediate courts and rule on the issue, preferring to let the procedure follow the traditional path of District Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme.
Almost all courts have treated these cases as something they'd rather someone else dealt with. The Colorado Supreme Court is the exception rather than the rule. SCOTUS seems to be following the majority here.
Is that the traditional path for cases involving claims of presidential immunity and allegations of abuse of presidential powers? I seem to recall that United States v. Nixon skipped the appellate step. This case seems to involve similar issues.
So, due to the actions of the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Republican Party, has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado ruling.
The way I see it. SCOTUS is in a damnable position. No matter which way it rules, at least a third of the country will disagree with it. There will be a third of the country that really won't care.
Seems like SCOTUS could
Personally, I would rather SCOTUS uphold the Colorado Supreme Court Ruling. SCOTUS declined to hear Trump's challenges to the election. It also ordered Trump to turn over records related to January 6 to the congressional investigation committee. And it declined to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago investigation.
There is also Justice Gorsuch's previous ruling that states have a right to disqualify candidates on constitutional grounds.
On the other hand, the Court may rule that Trump has yet to have due process. He has not been formally convicted of insurrection or anything related to the January 6 riot.
Still, the Court may send the decision back to Colorado for further clarification or can they send it to a Court of Appeals as a delay tactic. SCOTUS recently sent the question of Trump's claim of presidential immunity to the appellate court.
Seems like the best option for SCOTUS to slow walk this in hopes that it will go away.
I admit this is pure speculation on my part.
How do others think SCOTUS will decide?
1) Whether the President is an 'officer' of the United States. The Amendment does not explicitly say that insurrection bars you from the presidency, it mentions senators, congresspeople and 'officers of the United States.' I think the spirit of the amendment would cover the President, it is almost nonsensical to imagine the writers of the amendment who wanted to prevent people who commit insurrection from government office to entertain the possibility of allowing such people access to the highest office in the land. But strictly speaking the letter does not explicitly mention the President.
2) "Shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" Trump I understand has not technically been convicted of insurrection, so is the determination based on being criminally convicted or is it based on the balance of probabilities standard. I think it is the latter, but the Court may rule that because the consequence is removal of a candidate from a ballot, that such a consequence warrants a higher standard than balance of probabilities.
Right, that's that dealt with. Reading and listening to expert commentators on The Court, I have come to view it as completely out with its constitution role. So much that could be said but I'll stick with one observation.
The SCOTUS recently seems to decide what outcome it wants and then shoehorns any facts or legal arguments to achieve that aim. This is constitutional vandalism.
Anyway, therefore I predict they'll find in Trump's favour then make up some nonsense reason.
AFZ
If he does, that would guarantee a ruling against Trump.
Remember. Trump named only three people to the SCOTUS bench. Thomas is not one of them. That puts his people in the minority as it is.
2) Strict constructionists are in a bind. Courts don't like that there is no formal charging process for the Fourteenth Amendment, but all actions of Congress regarding the use of this Amendment after the Civil War indicate that a formal charge is not necessary. It is a political disability only.
3) I don't think that SCOTUS will uphold the Colorado decision just 'cause, but it will clearly be just 'cause, not some principled argument.
I can just barely imagine Roberts and Gorsuch having the intellectual integrity to rule for Colorado (Alito and Thomas have clearly committed themselves to an agenda of concocting whatever legal rationale will advance the right-wing agenda, and Barrett has shown a tendency to go along, even if she is less deeply committed to it).
I can also imagine some of the liberals being reluctant, for fear of seeming nakedly partisan (though that should have been shot to hell by Bush v. Gore), and finding an out--the most likely one being that the presidency was not explicitly included in Section 3.
I also thought there was a play of words: "just 'cause " and "just cause".
There is one slight problem with your assumption. Justice Gorsuch had previously written an opinion while on the Court of Appeals that states have the right to determine who is eligible to appear on their ballots. See Hassan v Colorado I do not think he will rule against what he had previously written
Roberts is often the swing vote in a divided court. I do not think he has any loyalty to Trump. His loyalty is to the Constitution.
My read is that Roberts' loyalty is to his own reputation and that of the court. He'll twist the constitution like a pretzel if he thinks he can get away with it e.g. Columbia v Heller.
Obviously, but in this context?
I'm glad it is for you.
And, yeah, okay, the precedents for the 14th Amendment disqualification did not require conviction....but the Court is not bound by precedent. If it were, Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land. And, frankly, for the 14th Am issue, I think some form of formal conviction should be required. To declare somebody to be an insurrectionist under the 14th Am such as to prevent that person from being on the ballot should have some reasonable form of review that can determine whether the person in question is, in fact, guilty of "insurrection."
Again, suppose that a Texas official decides that Biden cannot appear on the presidential ballot because he is "guilty" of "insurrection" against the US because of his failure to sufficiently fortify the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration. Would we say: "Darn! The official found that Biden is guilty of insurrection and, shrug, there is nothing we can do about it because Gorsuch says the states have the right to decide who is eligible to be on the ballots?" Or would we say: "Hey, appeal that to a court on the basis that the conduct charged does not amount to 'insurrection'?" Obviously, the latter. The disqualification must be based on facts and those facts must be subject to judicial review.
So, the Supremes could quite easily review the Colorado decision (and other similar types) and say, yes, states can decide who is eligible, and yes, a formal finding of guilt is not needed under the 14th Am, BUT what you have identified as the so-called insurrection by Trump does not qualify as "insurrection" as that term was intended by the drafters of the 14th Am.
It really does. But I agree with you, that's a very credible prediction of how the Court might find.