I don’t believe anyone even on the Trump legal team thinks this was a valid position. This is all just a an effort to cause a delay and try and run out the clock. I think Trump’s attorneys making this argument should be subject to disciplinary proceedings for making such a patently obvious bad faith argument.
There are NO merits in tRump's appeals, everyone and his dog knows that, including his lawyers...of course it's al about abusing the appellate process to keep gaining time and out of a courtroom.
Trump’s whole strategy is to delay in hopes he gets re-elected when he can then order the DOJ to drop all their cases against him. His whole strategy depends on him being re-elected.
What the courts decide on his immunity or eligibility to run is largely moot if we make sure he loses the election.
The Bulwark posted a letter composed and signed by multiple former Republican legislators, urging the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) to move forward as quickly as possible to hold Trump accountable for his crimes, and to decide his ballot eligibility and immunity issues. It is a very powerful piece of writing, in my opinion.
Thanks for posting the link. Reading the letter buoys my faith that there are indeed clear minded conservatives who have not bent the knee to the festering mass that is the MAGA cancer.
There certainly are a few of these conservatives, but clearly not enough of them. Aside from the few people currently in Congress who are resigning at the end of this year, or who’ve already left due to Trump, almost all of these people who speak up today are from administrations that go back at least 10 years, if not decades.
His was not Rudy-level jiberish, nor yet so momentous (let's face it – twas nothing but bloviating in a courtroom, not exciting folks to disassemble the republic by force of violence.) But the name John Sauer will go down in infamy or something like it.
I’m reminded of a meme after TFG met with the queen of England, which didn’t go very well. The queen is looking rather dower, walking beside 007 Daniel Craig, and her voice ballon says “make it look like an accident” 😆
That's the thing with arguments of this sort - what's good for the goose...
Should the Courts go along with these ridiculous arguments, Biden could (he won't but he COULD) immediately transport TFG to Gitmo for an indefinite time (but no less than, say, 6 years). And increase the sentences of ALL J6 convicts (CONVICTS, not hostages). And declare all MAGA candidates for office as ineligible due to support of insurrection.
I find the Pandora’s Box argument very telling, because in Greek mythology when the box was opened and everything else flew out they were left with Hope, something Trump and the MAGA crowd don’t want the rest of us to have.
I tend to think that a President with complete immunity would be the Pandora's box we don't want opened, not one that holds the President accountable. After all, we don't have a King for a reason...
There are arguments that since the box was a prison for the evils, keeping them from humankind, that hope staying in it is also a keeping of it from humanity.
Nice. Apparently I was not paying attention in school. I thought the box was simply a container and not relevant after the furies (or whoever; I really wasn’t attentive, was I?) escaped.
There was some chatter about Judge Henderson and "open the floodgates" peg, but surely a decision can be crafted that signals the acute uniqueness of tRump's "immunity" claim and that can do away with hypotheticals such as "any current or former president can be prosecuted for no good reason" arguments. He's toast, and the three-judge panel should issue the mandate to return tRump's case to the trial judge pronto...and enough with "stays" already!
TFG’s “legal team” is spitballing and hoping one judge is asleep, inept, corrupt or inattentive enough to muddy the waters. Hoping none of the judges involved with his cases fits those criteria.
Yeah - she's gonna get some comeuppance at some point. And as BFD as that case is, it actually can wait while the rest of this stuff is adjudicated. Get him A) disqualified from office; B) convicted of state RICO charges in Georgia; and C) convicted of ALL the insanity Mr. Smith has charged him with. After that, which several of my friends are convinced will not land him in the clink for so much as a day, attention will be turned to the actual treason of mishandling of state secrets, the destruction of intelligence networks, etc. that should definitely land him behind bars for whatever useless life he has remaining. And Aileen will get bitch-slapped by the rest of her circuit for being a dumbass, and possibly be forced to resign in disgrace. Or be impeached, should control of the House be returned to sane people.
Corrupt is what they're after. He's counting on the loyalty of his appointees. Of course, since they have lifetime appointments, they have no further use for him - as long as he doesn't become dictator-for-life. Which, as it turns out, they have the power to prevent.
Trumps lawyer leaves one very important fact out, if a president ordered seal team 6 to assassinate a political opponent and they carried that order out; no one even bringing impeachment articles to the house floor would be safe from a similar fate.
They actually even discussed the hypothetical of a president using his powers to take out senators who opposed him. No Senate conviction! Problem solved.
They understandably didn't extend this hypothetical to the point of a president having Judges he disagreed with assassinated, but I'm guessing it was in the back of their minds . . . This gets especially nasty when the criminal president then gets to name the replacements for the newly open judgeships . . . .
Would have been interesting to see his attorney try to answer that though. "...or a judge that doesn't rule his way, correct? What about a prosecutor or special counsel, or even private attorney?" I wonder how his attorney would argue in favor of that.
Especially since some judges and prosecutors that are not exactly sympathetic to him have had their lives threatened already. And would his own lawyers, should they not secure a verdict to his liking be safe? Hahahahahahaha... no.
That is the trouble with fascist dictators. Say or do one thing that El Presidente, His Royal Highness, The Leader or Mob Boss does not like, he will say "It sure would be sad if something happened to that person."
Witness the persons in Russia who have fallen out windows, fell down the stairs, tea that did not agree with them, exploding planes, all expense paid vacations to Siberia and ...
Patience, grasshopper. All things in their proper time.
First break and convict the mango. Then re-elect the President. Then convince certain justices that their service is sufficient, and they should go enjoy their private jet vacations and quarter-million-dollar motor coaches in comfy retirement.
“A good judge will pose hypotheticals that, taken to their logical conclusion, will produce absurd results, indicating that the reasoning or the premise of the argument is faulty.” I remember this technique (tactic) well from law school. Professors would regularly pose hypothetical after hypothetical until the students was forced to realize the absurdity of their conclusion.
When discussing this sort of legal maneuvering, I always remember a line from Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" - Jubal Harshaw says, "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a required course in law school." I was 20 years old, very high, and had never taken a law course in school (later rectified), but I understood that immediately.
How about the argument that: If it Acts like a Terrorist, Sounds like a Terrorist, issues Terroristic threats, then it must be a Terrorist? P1135809 is a Stochastic Terrorist at the very LEAST and should not be out inciting violence, promising retribution while channeling his mobs toward criminal support for his position. And, as a terrorist who has publicly declared his intention NOT TO UPHOLD the laws of this nation or its Constitution, he has NO business appearing on any ballot, whatsoever. Then there’s the issue of those lawyers--
It’s time the legal community enforced ethical standards of practice. And, WTF did Diapered Don find these imbecilic attorneys? OMG! How did they even qualify for law school, let alone pass a bar exam?
Such a helpful explanation-I too believe Trumps lawyers are grasping desperately at anything...delay is the tactic. And Trumps threat of violence after the session if it doesn’t go his way is chilling. Geeze, I hate him. 🙄
I can't recall all the details of the 2d impeachment arguments, but was the whole thing before DOJ unearthed all the conspiracy about false electors stuff? If it was just based on the idea of insurrection--something Smith has NOT charged him with (18 USC §2383. Rebellion or insurrection) then isn't the lack of conviction on that grounds irrelevant to what he HAS been charged with?
Smith didn't charge trump under Section 2383 because that could raise issues that would complicate the trial (in that case, First Amendment). I rather hope the Court here punts on the "interlocutory order" issue, because that just adds a further issue that would delay decision by the Extremes even further. DOJ seems to agree.
It’s a good question. It’s all a bit hazy. I think they would argue that he wasn’t convicted of insurrection by the Senate, and was not impeached on any other grounds, which is why he retains absolute presidential immunity. It’s bogus, but that’s what they’d say.
I'm sure they would say it. I trust their doing so will show up on your Saturday giggle fest. It was more at the argument of "double jeopardy" that this point is aimed, though it appears they have dropped that.
It wouldn't be allowed. That requires that he not be able to understand that his actions are wrong, and the consequences thereof. He damn well knows what he does is wrong, and illegal, and he not only does not care, he is actively trying to make it so he never sees any consequence for his actions.
Of which, if he should somehow get elected again, he would make absolutely certain.
"That Sauer wound up in this untenable position and had to defend the right of the president to assassinate his political rivals, as long as it was part of an official order, was rather embarrassing. But it also reveals how Trump viewed his own presidential powers..."
Trump: "LOVE IT! MAKE IT SO! Eh, can I knock off Melania, too? She's always giving me dirty looks."
Nobody on the other side seems to have ever diagramed a sentence. The only new information in that clause is:"You can't go to jail just for being impeached, even if convicted. But, being convicted in an impeachment doesn't stop you from being criminally prosecuted." It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheetolini's lawyer seemed desperate and pretty lost in many of his arguments. It was rather amusing to watch (and I'm REALLY glad video is available).
I'd like to see the decision come down quickly, squashing all the arguments and lifting the stay after a very short time so the case can proceed. Then the full circuit needs to deny an appeal (nothing to see here, so no need to re-hash this embarrassment), which would then give the weenies in the majority of the Robert's Kangaroo Court an easy out to simply deny an appeal since it's clearly settled.
I don’t believe anyone even on the Trump legal team thinks this was a valid position. This is all just a an effort to cause a delay and try and run out the clock. I think Trump’s attorneys making this argument should be subject to disciplinary proceedings for making such a patently obvious bad faith argument.
There are NO merits in tRump's appeals, everyone and his dog knows that, including his lawyers...of course it's al about abusing the appellate process to keep gaining time and out of a courtroom.
This is why it’s up to US, the voters.
Trump’s whole strategy is to delay in hopes he gets re-elected when he can then order the DOJ to drop all their cases against him. His whole strategy depends on him being re-elected.
What the courts decide on his immunity or eligibility to run is largely moot if we make sure he loses the election.
The Bulwark posted a letter composed and signed by multiple former Republican legislators, urging the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) to move forward as quickly as possible to hold Trump accountable for his crimes, and to decide his ballot eligibility and immunity issues. It is a very powerful piece of writing, in my opinion.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/republican-former-members-of-congress-trump-case?r=2vk1c6&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks for posting the link. Reading the letter buoys my faith that there are indeed clear minded conservatives who have not bent the knee to the festering mass that is the MAGA cancer.
There certainly are a few of these conservatives, but clearly not enough of them. Aside from the few people currently in Congress who are resigning at the end of this year, or who’ve already left due to Trump, almost all of these people who speak up today are from administrations that go back at least 10 years, if not decades.
I was just ranting that this Sauer lawyer should be sanctioned.
His was not Rudy-level jiberish, nor yet so momentous (let's face it – twas nothing but bloviating in a courtroom, not exciting folks to disassemble the republic by force of violence.) But the name John Sauer will go down in infamy or something like it.
Oh, but can’t Biden call Seal Team 6? I have a target in mind. And I wouldn’t lose a tear or any sleep.
I’m reminded of a meme after TFG met with the queen of England, which didn’t go very well. The queen is looking rather dower, walking beside 007 Daniel Craig, and her voice ballon says “make it look like an accident” 😆
I think we need to call on the House of Shinanju (movie - Remo Williams)!
If Trump does win the immunity clause then it's a go...
I’m in!!
That's the thing with arguments of this sort - what's good for the goose...
Should the Courts go along with these ridiculous arguments, Biden could (he won't but he COULD) immediately transport TFG to Gitmo for an indefinite time (but no less than, say, 6 years). And increase the sentences of ALL J6 convicts (CONVICTS, not hostages). And declare all MAGA candidates for office as ineligible due to support of insurrection.
See how stupid works?
"I like this plan. I am excited about this plan." - Dr. Peter Venkman, Ghostbusters
I find the Pandora’s Box argument very telling, because in Greek mythology when the box was opened and everything else flew out they were left with Hope, something Trump and the MAGA crowd don’t want the rest of us to have.
I tend to think that a President with complete immunity would be the Pandora's box we don't want opened, not one that holds the President accountable. After all, we don't have a King for a reason...
There are arguments that since the box was a prison for the evils, keeping them from humankind, that hope staying in it is also a keeping of it from humanity.
Nice. Apparently I was not paying attention in school. I thought the box was simply a container and not relevant after the furies (or whoever; I really wasn’t attentive, was I?) escaped.
They only pick the BEST cherries...
There was some chatter about Judge Henderson and "open the floodgates" peg, but surely a decision can be crafted that signals the acute uniqueness of tRump's "immunity" claim and that can do away with hypotheticals such as "any current or former president can be prosecuted for no good reason" arguments. He's toast, and the three-judge panel should issue the mandate to return tRump's case to the trial judge pronto...and enough with "stays" already!
TFG’s “legal team” is spitballing and hoping one judge is asleep, inept, corrupt or inattentive enough to muddy the waters. Hoping none of the judges involved with his cases fits those criteria.
Maybe one in Florida.
As Jeff Tiedrich wrote yesterday, she is busily writing Mrs. Aileen Trump over and over, drawing little hearts to dot the i.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jefftiedrich/p/what-kind-of-shithole-country-lets?r=garu1&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Yeah - she's gonna get some comeuppance at some point. And as BFD as that case is, it actually can wait while the rest of this stuff is adjudicated. Get him A) disqualified from office; B) convicted of state RICO charges in Georgia; and C) convicted of ALL the insanity Mr. Smith has charged him with. After that, which several of my friends are convinced will not land him in the clink for so much as a day, attention will be turned to the actual treason of mishandling of state secrets, the destruction of intelligence networks, etc. that should definitely land him behind bars for whatever useless life he has remaining. And Aileen will get bitch-slapped by the rest of her circuit for being a dumbass, and possibly be forced to resign in disgrace. Or be impeached, should control of the House be returned to sane people.
What the 11th Court of Appeals should do is hire a retired Judge who knows what and how to do this kind of trial and instruct Aileen. A mentor.
Yup. Agreed!
Corrupt is what they're after. He's counting on the loyalty of his appointees. Of course, since they have lifetime appointments, they have no further use for him - as long as he doesn't become dictator-for-life. Which, as it turns out, they have the power to prevent.
"they have LIFETIME appointments." They need to remember that.
Love the a-cat-can-be-a-pet logic, explained as to 12-yr-olds...
Our advanced math prof used to pause when the class didn't recognize the clear answer, and say slowly, "Come on people, What color is the red mitten?"
I had one that would go "OK, so you have a duckie...". His nickname among the students: Dr. Duckie. He was fantastic.
Trumps lawyer leaves one very important fact out, if a president ordered seal team 6 to assassinate a political opponent and they carried that order out; no one even bringing impeachment articles to the house floor would be safe from a similar fate.
They actually even discussed the hypothetical of a president using his powers to take out senators who opposed him. No Senate conviction! Problem solved.
They understandably didn't extend this hypothetical to the point of a president having Judges he disagreed with assassinated, but I'm guessing it was in the back of their minds . . . This gets especially nasty when the criminal president then gets to name the replacements for the newly open judgeships . . . .
Would have been interesting to see his attorney try to answer that though. "...or a judge that doesn't rule his way, correct? What about a prosecutor or special counsel, or even private attorney?" I wonder how his attorney would argue in favor of that.
Especially since some judges and prosecutors that are not exactly sympathetic to him have had their lives threatened already. And would his own lawyers, should they not secure a verdict to his liking be safe? Hahahahahahaha... no.
That is the trouble with fascist dictators. Say or do one thing that El Presidente, His Royal Highness, The Leader or Mob Boss does not like, he will say "It sure would be sad if something happened to that person."
Witness the persons in Russia who have fallen out windows, fell down the stairs, tea that did not agree with them, exploding planes, all expense paid vacations to Siberia and ...
Jay, I was thinking that about Judge Pan too last night. Let’s get this judge on the Supremes.
Patience, grasshopper. All things in their proper time.
First break and convict the mango. Then re-elect the President. Then convince certain justices that their service is sufficient, and they should go enjoy their private jet vacations and quarter-million-dollar motor coaches in comfy retirement.
Oh cool plan!
“A good judge will pose hypotheticals that, taken to their logical conclusion, will produce absurd results, indicating that the reasoning or the premise of the argument is faulty.” I remember this technique (tactic) well from law school. Professors would regularly pose hypothetical after hypothetical until the students was forced to realize the absurdity of their conclusion.
The professors will be using this as a case in point.
Or -- like me -- simply be struck dumb.
When discussing this sort of legal maneuvering, I always remember a line from Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" - Jubal Harshaw says, "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a required course in law school." I was 20 years old, very high, and had never taken a law course in school (later rectified), but I understood that immediately.
How about the argument that: If it Acts like a Terrorist, Sounds like a Terrorist, issues Terroristic threats, then it must be a Terrorist? P1135809 is a Stochastic Terrorist at the very LEAST and should not be out inciting violence, promising retribution while channeling his mobs toward criminal support for his position. And, as a terrorist who has publicly declared his intention NOT TO UPHOLD the laws of this nation or its Constitution, he has NO business appearing on any ballot, whatsoever. Then there’s the issue of those lawyers--
It’s time the legal community enforced ethical standards of practice. And, WTF did Diapered Don find these imbecilic attorneys? OMG! How did they even qualify for law school, let alone pass a bar exam?
Such a helpful explanation-I too believe Trumps lawyers are grasping desperately at anything...delay is the tactic. And Trumps threat of violence after the session if it doesn’t go his way is chilling. Geeze, I hate him. 🙄
I can't recall all the details of the 2d impeachment arguments, but was the whole thing before DOJ unearthed all the conspiracy about false electors stuff? If it was just based on the idea of insurrection--something Smith has NOT charged him with (18 USC §2383. Rebellion or insurrection) then isn't the lack of conviction on that grounds irrelevant to what he HAS been charged with?
Smith didn't charge trump under Section 2383 because that could raise issues that would complicate the trial (in that case, First Amendment). I rather hope the Court here punts on the "interlocutory order" issue, because that just adds a further issue that would delay decision by the Extremes even further. DOJ seems to agree.
It’s a good question. It’s all a bit hazy. I think they would argue that he wasn’t convicted of insurrection by the Senate, and was not impeached on any other grounds, which is why he retains absolute presidential immunity. It’s bogus, but that’s what they’d say.
I'm sure they would say it. I trust their doing so will show up on your Saturday giggle fest. It was more at the argument of "double jeopardy" that this point is aimed, though it appears they have dropped that.
Time for Trump to pull out the insanity defense.
I heart this seriously. He is a sick, twisted person. He's broken. That's why I do not hate him. He loves it when people hate him.
He gets a heap of my pity (which, it is to be hoped, would frost him more than any hate I had).
It wouldn't be allowed. That requires that he not be able to understand that his actions are wrong, and the consequences thereof. He damn well knows what he does is wrong, and illegal, and he not only does not care, he is actively trying to make it so he never sees any consequence for his actions.
Of which, if he should somehow get elected again, he would make absolutely certain.
"That Sauer wound up in this untenable position and had to defend the right of the president to assassinate his political rivals, as long as it was part of an official order, was rather embarrassing. But it also reveals how Trump viewed his own presidential powers..."
Trump: "LOVE IT! MAKE IT SO! Eh, can I knock off Melania, too? She's always giving me dirty looks."
Nobody on the other side seems to have ever diagramed a sentence. The only new information in that clause is:"You can't go to jail just for being impeached, even if convicted. But, being convicted in an impeachment doesn't stop you from being criminally prosecuted." It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheetolini's lawyer seemed desperate and pretty lost in many of his arguments. It was rather amusing to watch (and I'm REALLY glad video is available).
I'd like to see the decision come down quickly, squashing all the arguments and lifting the stay after a very short time so the case can proceed. Then the full circuit needs to deny an appeal (nothing to see here, so no need to re-hash this embarrassment), which would then give the weenies in the majority of the Robert's Kangaroo Court an easy out to simply deny an appeal since it's clearly settled.