Interesting case; seems right on topic to me. Even the same state and same statute (I think). And Gorsuch cites to a 1986 Supreme Court case that was 7-2 for same idea that states can regulate qualifications.
SCOTUS has tough decisions here. They can delay the presidential immunity appeal because they don't care when the Fake Electors trial happens (or even if it happens), but they can't delay this 14th Amendment qualification appeal because there are election deadlines that need a decision one way or the other beforehand. But from that Gorsuch case, it looks like it will be hard to fast track a decision that takes this away from the states completely, so they have to rule on each state one by one on other grounds which is not easy. But I guess they could kill it all by saying the president is not an officer of the US. Seems a stretch, but that would end all of it immediately.
What? The immunity claim and 14th amendment off the ballot are entirely different cases. The decision for Colorado will be applicable to every state. What is the “Fake electors” trial?
I'm aware they are different. I was saying that SCOTUS can delay the immunity appeal (and they did delay it recently by deny the prosecution's petition) because they don't care when that trial happens. But on the 14th Amendment insurrection issue, I think they are compelled to decide it quickly one way or the other, because there are election deadlines that depend on a decision.
I'm not sure a Colorado decision would be applicable to every state. If they decide a president is not an officer, then it would be applicable to every state. If they decide, as Trump wants, that states cannot decide presidential qualification issues, then that applies to every state. But if they get into the substance of the Colorado statute and its procedures or the Colorado facts, then I don't think it applies to Maine, for example. Am I wrong?
What? The immunity claim and 14th amendment off the ballot are entirely different cases. The decision for Colorado will be applicable to every state. What is the “Fake electors” trial?
I'm aware they are different. I was saying that SCOTUS can delay the immunity appeal (and they did delay it recently by deny the prosecution's petition) because they don't care when that trial happens. But on the 14th Amendment insurrection issue, I think they are compelled to decide it quickly one way or the other, because there are election deadlines that depend on a decision.
I'm not sure a Colorado decision would be applicable to every state. If they decide a president is not an officer, then it would be applicable to every state. If they decide, as Trump wants, that states cannot decide presidential qualification issues, then that applies to every state. But if they get into the substance of the Colorado statute and its procedures or the Colorado facts, then I don't think it applies to Maine, for example. Am I wrong?
Jack Smith tried to do an end around and obtain kind of a preemptive strike on the immunity issue, but it wasn’t surprising that the court wanted the appeal to first go through the lower courts. There’s zero reason to believe their doing so indicates they don’t care about the trial. The trial is by far the biggest in U.S. history and the Court will not want to stand in the way.
Aren’t all of the states using amendment 14 as the basis for keeping Trump off of the ballot? One size should fit all. Whether Trump incited an insurrection hasn’t been litigated yet, so the court will find a different reason to reject Trump being taken off the ballot.
I'm aware they are different. I was saying that SCOTUS can delay the immunity appeal (and they did delay it recently by deny the prosecution's petition) because they don't care when that trial happens. But on the 14th Amendment insurrection issue, I think they are compelled to decide it quickly one way or the other, because there are election deadlines that depend on a decision.
I'm not sure a Colorado decision would be applicable to every state. If they decide a president is not an officer, then it would be applicable to every state. If they decide, as Trump wants, that states cannot decide presidential qualification issues, then that applies to every state. But if they get into the substance of the Colorado statute and its procedures or the Colorado facts, then I don't think it applies to Maine, for example. Am I wrong?
Jack Smith tried to do an end around and obtain kind of a preemptive strike on the immunity issue, but it wasn’t surprising that the court wanted the appeal to first go through the lower courts. There’s zero reason to believe their doing so indicates they don’t care about the trial. The trial is by far the biggest in U.S. history and the Court will not want to stand in the way.
Aren’t all of the states using amendment 14 as the basis for keeping Trump off of the ballot? One size should fit all. Whether Trump incited an insurrection hasn’t been litigated yet, so the court will find a different reason to reject Trump being taken off the ballot.
I said I don't think the SCOTUS care when the Fake Electors trial happens, not that they don't care about the issues involved in it.
Yes, as far as I know, all challenges to Trump being on the ballot are under the 14th Amendment, but I'm not sure every different state case (there's only two so far) is the same for purposes of appeal, for the reasons I mentioned. There are significant differences, for example, between what happened in Colorado and what happened in Maine. That may matter to the SCOTUS if they can't find a way to get rid of all these cases at once. For example, if they find a president is an officer of the US and find that, as Gorsuch once decided, states can decide candidate qualification issues, then they can't do "one size fits all." Am I wrong?
Jack Smith tried to do an end around and obtain kind of a preemptive strike on the immunity issue, but it wasn’t surprising that the court wanted the appeal to first go through the lower courts. There’s zero reason to believe their doing so indicates they don’t care about the trial. The trial is by far the biggest in U.S. history and the Court will not want to stand in the way.
Aren’t all of the states using amendment 14 as the basis for keeping Trump off of the ballot? One size should fit all. Whether Trump incited an insurrection hasn’t been litigated yet, so the court will find a different reason to reject Trump being taken off the ballot.
I said I don't think the SCOTUS care when the Fake Electors trial happens, not that they don't care about the issues involved in it.
Yes, as far as I know, all challenges to Trump being on the ballot are under the 14th Amendment, but I'm not sure every different state case (there's only two so far) is the same for purposes of appeal, for the reasons I mentioned. There are significant differences, for example, between what happened in Colorado and what happened in Maine. That may matter to the SCOTUS if they can't find a way to get rid of all these cases at once. For example, if they find a president is an officer of the US and find that, as Gorsuch once decided, states can decide candidate qualification issues, then they can't do "one size fits all." Am I wrong?
The fake electors were prosecuted and it wasn’t really Trump’s problem. They had no reasonable defense and none of the cases will ever go to the Supreme Court. Again, and as I said before, the 1/6 trial is the most important in U.S. history and the Supreme Court will not put on the brakes. Unless they’ve been sequestered, they already know there is zero evidence of fraud.
I looked up Maine and Colorado, and both claimed Trump violated the 14th amendment. The NYT analysis included:
“Mr. Trump’s appeal adds to the growing pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to act, given the number of challenges to Mr. Trump’s eligibility and the need for a nationwide resolution of the question as the primaries approach.”
abc reports that according to an as-yet unnamed source, on Jan 6 staffers implored Donald to send a message to calm the crowd storming the Capitol Building, but he refused. Then Donald sent the 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done' tweet. then he sat watching Fox News. Staffers (and family members) kept imploring him to send a calming message. Finally Donald allowed Dan Scavino to post the 'stay peaceful' message. Scavino's testimony will be very incriminating at the upcoming trial.
Special counsel Jack Smith has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Trump's refusal to help stop the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, sources say.
abc reports that according to an as-yet unnamed source, on Jan 6 staffers implored Donald to send a message to calm the crowd storming the Capitol Building, but he refused. Then Donald sent the 'Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done' tweet. then he sat watching Fox News. Staffers (and family members) kept imploring him to send a calming message. Finally Donald allowed Dan Scavino to post the 'stay peaceful' message. Scavino's testimony will be very incriminating at the upcoming trial.
This is why Jack Smith wanted and received Trumps Twitter data. He can prove that it was Scavino that eventually typed the tweet for the rioters to go home. Trump was dead set against it. He wanted the rioting to succeed and play out as much as possible to stop the certification.
This is why Jack Smith wanted and received Trumps Twitter data. He can prove that it was Scavino that eventually typed the tweet for the rioters to go home. Trump was dead set against it. He wanted the rioting to succeed and play out as much as possible to stop the certification.
And (per abc) Scavino and others will testify to this.
Today at the DC Appeals Court hearing regarding 'presidential immunity', citizen Trump's lawyer John Sauer was asked by Judge Pan "If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?" and Sauer tried to say that they could be prosecuted ONLY if they were first impeached and convicted by the Senate. In other words, Sauer argued that Biden could order murders of Trump and others, and get away with it. Sorry Citizen Donald, NO KINGS.
LegalAF hosts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok report on the oral argument before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with Donald Trump’s claim of ab...
Today at the DC Appeals Court hearing regarding 'presidential immunity', citizen Trump's lawyer John Sauer was asked by Judge Pan "If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?" and Sauer tried to say that they could be prosecuted ONLY if they were first impeached and convicted by the Senate. In other words, Sauer argued that Biden could order murders of Trump and others, and get away with it. Sorry Citizen Donald, NO KINGS.
And here I thought the Trump lawyers in the Fake Electors case were actually pretty good. Maybe they are, but that answer was certainly stupid. Sauer had to know some hypothetical like that was coming. The answer is "Great question, your honor. Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President. Everything my client is accused of is an official act." Sauer really muffed what should have been an (unintentional) softball. When this gets to SCOTUS, Trump needs to drop the argument about impeachment being the only remedy for criminal presidents.
And here I thought the Trump lawyers in the Fake Electors case were actually pretty good. Maybe they are, but that answer was certainly stupid. Sauer had to know some hypothetical like that was coming. The answer is "Great question, your honor. Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President. Everything my client is accused of is an official act." Sauer really muffed what should have been an (unintentional) softball. When this gets to SCOTUS, Trump needs to drop the argument about impeachment being the only remedy for criminal presidents.
If Sauer did that, Judge Pan would have just pressed for an answer to the actual question asked. That's what this appeal is all about, Mr/Ms Flusher. And yes it is ludicrous.
Today at the DC Appeals Court hearing regarding 'presidential immunity', citizen Trump's lawyer John Sauer was asked by Judge Pan "If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?" and Sauer tried to say that they could be prosecuted ONLY if they were first impeached and convicted by the Senate. In other words, Sauer argued that Biden could order murders of Trump and others, and get away with it. Sorry Citizen Donald, NO KINGS.
And here I thought the Trump lawyers in the Fake Electors case were actually pretty good. Maybe they are, but that answer was certainly stupid. Sauer had to know some hypothetical like that was coming. The answer is "Great question, your honor. Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President. Everything my client is accused of is an official act." Sauer really muffed what should have been an (unintentional) softball. When this gets to SCOTUS, Trump needs to drop the argument about impeachment being the only remedy for criminal presidents.
You would be correct if that was the full question, but Judge Pan's hypothetical was really about whether or not the hypothetical president would get immunity from prosecution in the murdering-political-rival-scenario.
And here I thought the Trump lawyers in the Fake Electors case were actually pretty good. Maybe they are, but that answer was certainly stupid. Sauer had to know some hypothetical like that was coming. The answer is "Great question, your honor. Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President. Everything my client is accused of is an official act." Sauer really muffed what should have been an (unintentional) softball. When this gets to SCOTUS, Trump needs to drop the argument about impeachment being the only remedy for criminal presidents.
If Sauer did that, Judge Pan would have just pressed for an answer to the actual question asked. That's what this appeal is all about, Mr/Ms Flusher. And yes it is ludicrous.
What I typed would have been an answer to the actual question asked ("If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?"). A direct answer ("Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President"). Instead Sauer waffled around with impeachment and conviction talk, and looked stupid doing so.
I think there is room in Trump's overall argument to just say that hiring SEAL Team 6 to kill a rival is not an official act. Trump has to be able to say that at least. If he can't, the SCOTUS is going to say he's wrong, and be very reluctant to help him out by coming up with an immunity rule in his favor that he didn't even propose.
But Trump's appeal here is about his imaginary immunity. If he drops immunity argument then this appeal is dropped and he just goes back to arguing that he did no crime.
What I typed would have been an answer to the actual question asked ("If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?"). A direct answer ("Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President"). Instead Sauer waffled around with impeachment and conviction talk, and looked stupid doing so.
I think there is room in Trump's overall argument to just say that hiring SEAL Team 6 to kill a rival is not an official act. Trump has to be able to say that at least. If he can't, the SCOTUS is going to say he's wrong, and be very reluctant to help him out by coming up with an immunity rule in his favor that he didn't even propose.
If Sauer did that, Judge Pan would have just pressed for an answer to the actual question asked. That's what this appeal is all about, Mr/Ms Flusher. And yes it is ludicrous.
What I typed would have been an answer to the actual question asked ("If a president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, that's an official act?"). A direct answer ("Having SEAL team 6 kill a political rival is not an official act of a President"). Instead Sauer waffled around with impeachment and conviction talk, and looked stupid doing so.
I think there is room in Trump's overall argument to just say that hiring SEAL Team 6 to kill a rival is not an official act. Trump has to be able to say that at least. If he can't, the SCOTUS is going to say he's wrong, and be very reluctant to help him out by coming up with an immunity rule in his favor that he didn't even propose.
Assassination would have to be an official act. If it weren't the SEAL team could ignore him or refuse to accept the order. They couldn't.
But Trump's appeal here is about his imaginary immunity. If he drops immunity argument then this appeal is dropped and he just goes back to arguing that he did no crime.
I don't think I said he should drop immunity argument altogether. I think he's arguing for ridiculous breadth for immunity. I know somewhere in his appeal that he has said immunity is limited to "official acts." He should just go with that and then say everything he is accused of doing was an official act. But to basically say or hedge on whether killing a political rival gets immunity is just stupid and his lawyers should have figured that out before today. They will have to come up with a better answer at SCOTUS, or they will get trashed.
But Trump's appeal here is about his imaginary immunity. If he drops immunity argument then this appeal is dropped and he just goes back to arguing that he did no crime.
I don't think I said he should drop immunity argument altogether. I think he's arguing for ridiculous breadth for immunity. I know somewhere in his appeal that he has said immunity is limited to "official acts." He should just go with that and then say everything he is accused of doing was an official act. But to basically say or hedge on whether killing a political rival gets immunity is just stupid and his lawyers should have figured that out before today. They will have to come up with a better answer at SCOTUS, or they will get trashed.
However the argument becomes circular. What is an "official act" and who determines that? Trump? "L'etat cest moi". That's the essence of his argument.
So his argument could be that lesser crimes could be done as official acts and get immunity? It all falls apart at some point, because it is estupido. Trump's lawyers make stupid arguments because there are no good arguments. The judges will boil this down to 'no kings'.
I'm aware they are different. I was saying that SCOTUS can delay the immunity appeal (and they did delay it recently by deny the prosecution's petition) because they don't care when that trial happens. But on the 14th Amendment insurrection issue, I think they are compelled to decide it quickly one way or the other, because there are election deadlines that depend on a decision.
I'm not sure a Colorado decision would be applicable to every state. If they decide a president is not an officer, then it would be applicable to every state. If they decide, as Trump wants, that states cannot decide presidential qualification issues, then that applies to every state. But if they get into the substance of the Colorado statute and its procedures or the Colorado facts, then I don't think it applies to Maine, for example. Am I wrong?
Jack Smith tried to do an end around and obtain kind of a preemptive strike on the immunity issue, but it wasn’t surprising that the court wanted the appeal to first go through the lower courts. There’s zero reason to believe their doing so indicates they don’t care about the trial. The trial is by far the biggest in U.S. history and the Court will not want to stand in the way.
Aren’t all of the states using amendment 14 as the basis for keeping Trump off of the ballot? One size should fit all. Whether Trump incited an insurrection hasn’t been litigated yet, so the court will find a different reason to reject Trump being taken off the ballot.
If Trump is taken off the ticket it would be a gift to republicans. Nikki Haley would very likely beat Biden. Trump is becoming more and more of a crazed wounded ape. He will lose to Biden. Trump's increasing rage and craziness is becoming more difficult to hide.
