@Martin54 posting one-liners like that which make no contribution to the discussion is not conducive to a good quality of debate, and quickly starts to look as though it has an entirely different motivation which does not belong in Purgatory.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered Trump ally Steve Bannon to report to prison by July 1, granting the Justice Department's request that Bannon serve out his four-month prison sentence while he pursues an appeal of his conviction.
Issuing his ruling from the bench on Thursday, Judge Carl Nichols revoked Bannon's bail and said he could "no longer conclude that [Bannon's] appeal raises substantial question of law," after a three-judge appeals court panel upheld the jury's conviction of Bannon on contempt of Congress charges.
Bannon 05635-509 plans to keep appealing, but we'll see if further review will come with further leniency in enforcing his sentence. For reference, he was convicted about two years ago.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered Trump ally Steve Bannon to report to prison by July 1, granting the Justice Department's request that Bannon serve out his four-month prison sentence while he pursues an appeal of his conviction.
Issuing his ruling from the bench on Thursday, Judge Carl Nichols revoked Bannon's bail and said he could "no longer conclude that [Bannon's] appeal raises substantial question of law," after a three-judge appeals court panel upheld the jury's conviction of Bannon on contempt of Congress charges.
Bannon 05635-509 plans to keep appealing, but we'll see if further review will come with further leniency in enforcing his sentence. For reference, he was convicted about two years ago.
I haven't had a chance to look over many of the slides, but this strikes me as a good thing. It's not going to convince any hard-core Trumpers, but I hope it will help create enough doubt with people who think they can hold their noses and vote for him, because they think Biden is just old and boring.
I'm not crazy about the old part, but I'll take a boring president over crazy and/or convict any day.
The expected SCOTUS judgment. And not good news. What’s to stop a President declaring any act an official act? I think any POTUS is pretty much a king.
Is there any considered analysis of how fucked the US is in practical terms by this, compared with the pre-existing situation of a convicted felon being the likely next president?
Woops sorry I started a new thread on this without realising it was already being discussed here. Maybe that's a good thing though? My view is that it is a fundamentally horrendous decision striking at the heart of the rule of law and the Lockean tradition of the US in favour of a Hobbsean absolutism where the sovereign is above the law rather than vice-versa. I can't believe they've done it!
This seems extremely serious, much worse in some sense than a Trump presidency. It would appear that Nixon was right after all - "it's not illegal if the President does it". Am I misinterpreting? The minority report would suggest not!
I'll close the other one to keep the discussion in one place.
For those who are interested in the Supreme Court's ruling it can be read here.
I haven't been able to get through all 119 pages of it yet, but what I've read seems very bad, both in terms of consequences and in terms of being the kind of shoddy hack work we've come to expect from the conservative majority of the Roberts court. The upshit* is that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any their "official acts". What distinguishes an official act from an unofficial one? Well, only the courts can decide that so there's going to be a lot of wrangling and delays over which of Trump's January 6th related actions count as "official". Which I guess was the point, to delay as long as possible any moment of accountability.
*This was originally a typo but I decided to let it stand uncorrected.
As I understand it, the question will be what constitutes an official act? Article 2 of the constitution lists the official acts the President is permitted to do. Is there more? Here, the court has punted the whole ball of wax back to the district court.
When AG Barr resigned from the Department of Justice, Trump appointed a new AG which was not confirmed by the Senate. He tells the Acting AG to announce that the General Election is flawed, then Trump and the party hacks will take care of the rest.
94 courts said the General Election had no significant flaws.
Now, is Trump telling the Acting AG to commit perjury an official act, or not?
But forget Trump for a moment! It gives presidents of the future carte blanche surely? How about an executive order to torture some political opponents, or selling access to nuclear weapons? The precedent will stand and I don't see how it can easily be reversed, certainly not in the next couple of decades!
As I understand it, the question will be what constitutes an official act? Article 2 of the constitution lists the official acts the President is permitted to do. Is there more?
Any power duly designated by Congress to the executive branch under its own Constitutional authority would presumably also be included.
But forget Trump for a moment! It gives presidents of the future carte blanche surely? How about an executive order to torture some political opponents, or selling access to nuclear weapons? The precedent will stand and I don't see how it can easily be reversed, certainly not in the next couple of decades!
Has it not been a de facto precedent for decades, whether we think of Iran-Contra under Reagan, bombing pharmaceutical factories under Clinton, torture or crimes against peace under Bush, or drone strikes under Obama? The difference is that because Trump's crimes were partisan there is an appetite for prosecution which hasn't been their previously. One might hope that, given this ruling, the lower courts can chart a course that puts nakedly self-interested crimes on the "unofficial" side.
As I understand it, the question will be what constitutes an official act? Article 2 of the constitution lists the official acts the President is permitted to do. Is there more? Here, the court has punted the whole ball of wax back to the district court.
When AG Barr resigned from the Department of Justice, Trump appointed a new AG which was not confirmed by the Senate. He tells the Acting AG to announce that the General Election is flawed, then Trump and the party hacks will take care of the rest.
94 courts said the General Election had no significant flaws.
Now, is Trump telling the Acting AG to commit perjury an official act, or not?
That is the question.
Footnote 5 of Justice Jackson's dissent (p. 107 of the previously linked opinion):
5 To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President’s responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” prerogatives: “ ‘[t]he President’s power to remove . . . those who wield executive power on his behalf.’ ” Ante, at 8 (quoting Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020)). While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death. Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.
But forget Trump for a moment! It gives presidents of the future carte blanche surely? How about an executive order to torture some political opponents, or selling access to nuclear weapons? The precedent will stand and I don't see how it can easily be reversed, certainly not in the next couple of decades!
Has it not been a de facto precedent for decades, whether we think of Iran-Contra under Reagan, bombing pharmaceutical factories under Clinton, torture or crimes against peace under Bush, or drone strikes under Obama? The difference is that because Trump's crimes were partisan there is an appetite for prosecution which hasn't been their previously. One might hope that, given this ruling, the lower courts can chart a course that puts nakedly self-interested crimes on the "unofficial" side.
It is a big mistake to think like this IMO. You might as well say that since there is de facto racial discrimination anyway, therefore it is not that big of a deal if a new law explicitly permitting racial discrimination is passed.
But forget Trump for a moment! It gives presidents of the future carte blanche surely? How about an executive order to torture some political opponents, or selling access to nuclear weapons? The precedent will stand and I don't see how it can easily be reversed, certainly not in the next couple of decades!
Has it not been a de facto precedent for decades, whether we think of Iran-Contra under Reagan, bombing pharmaceutical factories under Clinton, torture or crimes against peace under Bush, or drone strikes under Obama? The difference is that because Trump's crimes were partisan there is an appetite for prosecution which hasn't been their previously. One might hope that, given this ruling, the lower courts can chart a course that puts nakedly self-interested crimes on the "unofficial" side.
It is a big mistake to think like this IMO. You might as well say that since there is de facto racial discrimination anyway, therefore it is not that big of a deal if a new law explicitly permitting racial discrimination is passed.
That's a fair point, but isn't this more a case of the law being ignored and then a court merely rubber stamping that it's ok to ignore it?
Barb McQuabe is one of the US legal commentators I trust.
She Tweeted the following:
Some good news in SCOTUS opinion:
1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify;
2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table.
3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Of course the Supreme Court should have laughed at this case rather than heard it. Of course. And anyone paying attention is deeply shocked and not remotely surprised.
However, if McQuabe's analysis is correct this is not the win for Trump many are saying it is. It is a different win for Trump and a horrendously anti-constitutional position that the Supreme Court has constructed for itself.
I'll take those in turn. Trump's appeal here was meant to stop his criminal trials. The judgement makes for some work for Jack Smith's team but they've got very good arguments that the acts charged are non-official. And if official, not immune acts. There's also an added bonus reported by some that the DC Circuit Court will have to have a hearing with lots of the evidence coming into the public domain some time around September.
The win for Trump is that the SC could have made this ruling in December. Smith asked them to take it directly. They declined but then granted the right to appeal after the DC circuit had found the only possible finding that criminal immunity does not exist. This case could easily have gone to trial in March but now it won't be before the end of the year. The appeal goes back to the DC Circuit to decide if tthese acts of Trump are chargeable - which they will so decide. Trump will appeal that back to SCOTUS. They could easily have added a year to the timetable today.
The last part is the legal abomination. The Court has found that some official acts of the president might be immune from criminal liability, with minimal specification. Hence, any charges brought against a former president may or may not be valid and only the SC could decide. Effectively they are giving themselves the pardon power.
What offends me most about Roberts' Court is the fundamental disrespect for law. Prescedent means nothing to them, they do not believe in settled law. For a Court of Appeal to behave this way is an unbelievable threat to democracy. Again shocked but not surprised.
It sucks, but "official acts" is probably not as elastic a term as any of Trump's people wish it could be. As somebody or another pointed out, it is in no way an official presidential act to obstruct Congress, to try to overthrow an election, to bribe, attack, or otherwise interfere with officials doing their duty, and so on and so forth. Those are not acts of the office. Just because the president does them does not make them official acts in that sense.
As I understand it, the question will be what constitutes an official act? Article 2 of the constitution lists the official acts the President is permitted to do. Is there more? Here, the court has punted the whole ball of wax back to the district court.
When AG Barr resigned from the Department of Justice, Trump appointed a new AG which was not confirmed by the Senate. He tells the Acting AG to announce that the General Election is flawed, then Trump and the party hacks will take care of the rest.
94 courts said the General Election had no significant flaws.
Now, is Trump telling the Acting AG to commit perjury an official act, or not?
That is the question.
Footnote 5 of Justice Jackson's dissent (p. 107 of the previously linked opinion):
5 To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President’s responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” prerogatives: “ ‘[t]he President’s power to remove . . . those who wield executive power on his behalf.’ ” Ante, at 8 (quoting Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020)). While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death. Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.
Italics from the original. Bold added by me.
Er... what did they conclude about the President being allowed to poison people???
Footnote 5 of Justice Jackson's dissent (p. 107 of the previously linked opinion):
5 To fully appreciate the oddity of making the criminal immunity determination turn on the character of the President’s responsibilities, consider what the majority says is one of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” prerogatives: “ ‘[t]he President’s power to remove . . . those who wield executive power on his behalf.’ ” Ante, at 8 (quoting Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020)). While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death. Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.
Italics from the original. Bold added by me.
Er... what did they conclude about the President being allowed to poison people???
Unfortunately Justice Jackson was writing in the dissent, so the majority held that since removing cabinet officials is part of the president's "core constitutional powers" criminal statutes against murder do not apply if that is the method by which he chooses to remove them. The absurdity of this position is more or less Justice Jackson's point.
Even taking them at their own words, they're saying: "We don't want the President to have to worry about whether their official actions are legal or not! They should be able to act without considering that!"
"Absurd" is one word for it! How about "appalling"?
Well, it certainly gives lie to claims of adherence to textualism from the conservative justices.
Indeed. One does not have to be a scholar of American history to know--and I mean KNOW, with certainty as an actual fact--that the Framers of the Constitution never intended for the President to wield such authority or powers. The whole intent of the system was to NOT have so much power vested in any single person.
"Absurd" is one word for it! How about "appalling"?
Well, it certainly gives lie to claims of adherence to textualism from the conservative justices.
Indeed. One does not have to be a scholar of American history to know--and I mean KNOW, with certainty as an actual fact--that the Framers of the Constitution never intended for the President to wield such authority or powers. The whole intent of the system was to NOT have so much power vested in any single person.
Would the framers not also have expected the electoral college to keep the likes of Trump from office in the first place, and the impeachment power to swiftly remove him if unhappy chance put him there?
I seem to remember that in "The Federalist Papers" Hamilton & co. consider a large, widely-spread electorate a good thing, because even if the voters in (say) Massachussetts go wild for a demagogue or a particular fad, it's unlikely that the voters in (say) Virginia will do the same thing at the same time. Unfortunately 20th/21st century mass media tends to overwhelm this safeguard.
Former President Donald Trump’s social media fortune is shrinking.
The value of Trump’s stake in the corporate owner of Truth Social has dropped by $900 million since Vice President Kamala Harris entered the race for the White House on July 21. Trump Media & Technology Group’s share price has tumbled by about 23% since then, including another sharp drop on Thursday amid a broader market selloff.
The value of Trump’s dominant stake in the conservative social media company stood at just over $4 billion as of July 19, the final trading day before President Joe Biden exited the race and endorsed Harris. It has since dropped to about $3.1 billion.
To be clear here, the wild over-valuation of Trump Media & Technology Group (the owner of Truth Social) has long been known. It has the revenues of a moderately successful franchise restaurant and the costs/expenses of about forty franchise restaurants, so the question of why "the market" considers it so valuable has always puzzled those who refuse to consider non-market explanations.
To what degree is it reasonable to conclude that the direct link between the market value of TM&TG and Trump's electoral fortunes indicates that the former is little more than a conduit for bribes? The value attached to being able to put money into Donald Trump's pocket has declined, so the value of TM&TG has similarly declined.
On further reflection, isn't this a Crime Against Humanity?
I am not an international lawyer and I suspect it would be difficult to make the case legally, but it is unquestionably a form of biological warfare. Albeit, one where they're aiding the spread of a natural agent rather than creating one, but as my legal friends like to say, to me, that's a distinction without a difference...
And now there is a report that the Egyptian government allegedly lined Mr. Trump's coffers with $10 million a few days before he first became president. The FBI and CIA saw the money being taken out of an Egyptian Bank, but when prosecutors and the FBI sought Trump's records to see if, in fact, Trump did receive it, they were blocked by Trump appointed Attorney General William Barr.
By law, no American candidate for office can receive funds from a foreign government.
Former New Jersey William Menendez was recently convicted of receiving funds from Egypt--from the same account, so I hear. He was convicted of being a formal agent of a foreign government.
It's possibly horrible of me, but I'm really looking forward to seeing Harris win, and a year of All Will Be Revealed. O please, Lord...
I think this sounds more truth and justice-focused than revenge-focused, though in a case like this, I think some schadenfreude (German for "happiness at the misfortune of others") is acceptable, if it's for someone's lies to be revealed as such, and legal (not vigilante) justice for secret unjust/illegal actions to be done. I don't want cruel and unusual punishment for Trump (though humorous things like a pie in the face would be pleasant). And if he had genuine remorse and repentance and redemption, I'd be glad.
Comments
Well, someone over the age of 64 cannot join the military, but they can still become the commander in chief.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Bannon 05635-509 plans to keep appealing, but we'll see if further review will come with further leniency in enforcing his sentence. For reference, he was convicted about two years ago.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Bannon has to report to prison by 1 July, I hear.
I haven't had a chance to look over many of the slides, but this strikes me as a good thing. It's not going to convince any hard-core Trumpers, but I hope it will help create enough doubt with people who think they can hold their noses and vote for him, because they think Biden is just old and boring.
I'm not crazy about the old part, but I'll take a boring president over crazy and/or convict any day.
He argues all presidents need to have immunity on their decisions regardless of whether they are legal or not.
The Special Prosecutor argues no one is above the law.
Bets are being taken on how the court will rule.
This will be one day before the Great Debate.
I'll close the other one to keep the discussion in one place.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I haven't been able to get through all 119 pages of it yet, but what I've read seems very bad, both in terms of consequences and in terms of being the kind of shoddy hack work we've come to expect from the conservative majority of the Roberts court. The upshit* is that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any their "official acts". What distinguishes an official act from an unofficial one? Well, only the courts can decide that so there's going to be a lot of wrangling and delays over which of Trump's January 6th related actions count as "official". Which I guess was the point, to delay as long as possible any moment of accountability.
*This was originally a typo but I decided to let it stand uncorrected.
When AG Barr resigned from the Department of Justice, Trump appointed a new AG which was not confirmed by the Senate. He tells the Acting AG to announce that the General Election is flawed, then Trump and the party hacks will take care of the rest.
94 courts said the General Election had no significant flaws.
Now, is Trump telling the Acting AG to commit perjury an official act, or not?
That is the question.
Any power duly designated by Congress to the executive branch under its own Constitutional authority would presumably also be included.
Has it not been a de facto precedent for decades, whether we think of Iran-Contra under Reagan, bombing pharmaceutical factories under Clinton, torture or crimes against peace under Bush, or drone strikes under Obama? The difference is that because Trump's crimes were partisan there is an appetite for prosecution which hasn't been their previously. One might hope that, given this ruling, the lower courts can chart a course that puts nakedly self-interested crimes on the "unofficial" side.
Italics from the original. Bold added by me.
It is a big mistake to think like this IMO. You might as well say that since there is de facto racial discrimination anyway, therefore it is not that big of a deal if a new law explicitly permitting racial discrimination is passed.
That's a fair point, but isn't this more a case of the law being ignored and then a court merely rubber stamping that it's ok to ignore it?
She Tweeted the following:
https://x.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1807803513843376337?s=19
Of course the Supreme Court should have laughed at this case rather than heard it. Of course. And anyone paying attention is deeply shocked and not remotely surprised.
However, if McQuabe's analysis is correct this is not the win for Trump many are saying it is. It is a different win for Trump and a horrendously anti-constitutional position that the Supreme Court has constructed for itself.
I'll take those in turn. Trump's appeal here was meant to stop his criminal trials. The judgement makes for some work for Jack Smith's team but they've got very good arguments that the acts charged are non-official. And if official, not immune acts. There's also an added bonus reported by some that the DC Circuit Court will have to have a hearing with lots of the evidence coming into the public domain some time around September.
The win for Trump is that the SC could have made this ruling in December. Smith asked them to take it directly. They declined but then granted the right to appeal after the DC circuit had found the only possible finding that criminal immunity does not exist. This case could easily have gone to trial in March but now it won't be before the end of the year. The appeal goes back to the DC Circuit to decide if tthese acts of Trump are chargeable - which they will so decide. Trump will appeal that back to SCOTUS. They could easily have added a year to the timetable today.
The last part is the legal abomination. The Court has found that some official acts of the president might be immune from criminal liability, with minimal specification. Hence, any charges brought against a former president may or may not be valid and only the SC could decide. Effectively they are giving themselves the pardon power.
What offends me most about Roberts' Court is the fundamental disrespect for law. Prescedent means nothing to them, they do not believe in settled law. For a Court of Appeal to behave this way is an unbelievable threat to democracy. Again shocked but not surprised.
AFZ
Er... what did they conclude about the President being allowed to poison people???
Unfortunately Justice Jackson was writing in the dissent, so the majority held that since removing cabinet officials is part of the president's "core constitutional powers" criminal statutes against murder do not apply if that is the method by which he chooses to remove them. The absurdity of this position is more or less Justice Jackson's point.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=65c9ef484a-nature-briefing-daily-20240702&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b27a691814-65c9ef484a-51109188
To our prayers!
Would the framers not also have expected the electoral college to keep the likes of Trump from office in the first place, and the impeachment power to swiftly remove him if unhappy chance put him there?
To be clear here, the wild over-valuation of Trump Media & Technology Group (the owner of Truth Social) has long been known. It has the revenues of a moderately successful franchise restaurant and the costs/expenses of about forty franchise restaurants, so the question of why "the market" considers it so valuable has always puzzled those who refuse to consider non-market explanations.
To what degree is it reasonable to conclude that the direct link between the market value of TM&TG and Trump's electoral fortunes indicates that the former is little more than a conduit for bribes? The value attached to being able to put money into Donald Trump's pocket has declined, so the value of TM&TG has similarly declined.
Amen!!
🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯
Evil.
I am not an international lawyer and I suspect it would be difficult to make the case legally, but it is unquestionably a form of biological warfare. Albeit, one where they're aiding the spread of a natural agent rather than creating one, but as my legal friends like to say, to me, that's a distinction without a difference...
AFZ
By law, no American candidate for office can receive funds from a foreign government.
Former New Jersey William Menendez was recently convicted of receiving funds from Egypt--from the same account, so I hear. He was convicted of being a formal agent of a foreign government.
The fun just never stops.
I think this sounds more truth and justice-focused than revenge-focused, though in a case like this, I think some schadenfreude (German for "happiness at the misfortune of others") is acceptable, if it's for someone's lies to be revealed as such, and legal (not vigilante) justice for secret unjust/illegal actions to be done. I don't want cruel and unusual punishment for Trump (though humorous things like a pie in the face would be pleasant). And if he had genuine remorse and repentance and redemption, I'd be glad.