On Thursday, the #scotus will be hearing arguments where lawyers for the criminal defendant are arguing that all former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for any official acts done in office.
Failure to respect the election of a new President, is the ultimate crime against the people, who are the basis of government. The President, by constitutional design, should have no role- official or unofficial-in the determination of the people's
vote. Immunity for the crimes here alleged would be most abhorrent to the Framers, because immunity would upset the constitutional scheme and aid a President in overriding the people's power over him.
The Framers would also have been appalled that Trump, despite having left office, seeks permanent immunity. As a Federalist wrote for the Maryland ratifying convention:
It seems, however, that the president may possibly be continued for life. He may so, provided he deserve it.
If not, he retires to obscurity, without even the consolation of having produced any of the convulsions, attendant usually on grand revolutions. Should he be wicked or frantic enough to make the attempt, he attones for it, with the certain loss of wealth, liberty or life.
The Founding Generation sought to ensure that, unlike a king, the President would not acquire any special status that would carry forward after the end of his term. Instead, the President would be "elected from the mass of the people, and, on the expiration of the time for which he is elected, return to the mass of the people again."
Former President Trump evidently does not wish to bear the burdens of "the mass of the people" again. That's understandable; no one enjoys being held to account. But Founding Era history provides former President Trump no solace in his efforts to evade the ordinary operation of law.
@skykiss
He's never had to be part of "the mass of the people". He's always had privilege from inherited money. He's never worked for anyone who wasn't family.
Some days I feel like the best thing we could do is turn him into an average prisoner.
There is NO presidential power at issue in this case that entitles a claim of immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the US, obstruction of official proceedings, & denial of the right to vote.
#potus elected by the people has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, cannot be above the law.
The #DoJ tell the justices that Trump's attempt to stay in power after the 2020 election frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy.
Even if #scotus finds immunity can be extended to "official acts," Trump must be prosecuted since the serious crimes charged deal with a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end: Criminal Donald's effort to remain in power by fraud.
FYI, fraud, obstruction, or blocking citizens' votes are not official acts. Further, Defendant fails to claim these are official acts. Scotus by failing to address the actual facts of the case has zero credibility.
Trump's lawyer is banging the drum that presidents can't be held accountable for official acts.
Justice Kagan asks if a coup is an official act. Lawyer says it could be.
Justice Sotomayor: If a president says a rival is corrupt and orders their assassination, "is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump lawyer D. John Sauer: "It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.
This is so dark. Criminal Conduct Rubbed In The Face Of Americans.
@skykiss
If 45 gets immunity, that means 46 could issue orders to take out 45 as a NatSec risk, and replace the SCOTUS as a democracy and womens rights risk. Both coulda woulda shoulda scenarios falling under official duties then.
SCOTUS: #LeopardsAteMyFace
@Marijke@skykiss of course it is. Remember he follows Nixon. "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." That is why #PresFord should never have pardoned #Nixon and why #kavanaugh is wrong. Most of us who lived through that nightmare believe it was wrong.
The court actually didn't try to address the question presented, scotus crafted which is overbroad and is not related to the defendants claims or the charges in this felony case.
Not only did they have trouble coming to the point of the question that they themselves wrote for this argument they also had a lot of trouble talking about Donald's crimes. #Scotus was focused on pretend scenarios, on farfetched hypotheticals and not particularly interested in talking about Donald Trump.
I've never seen an argument that didn't focus on the defendant and his conduct and how the ruling would impact him. But, here that didn't seem to be the focus the court was supposed to take up the issue of whether any immunity from official acts, there are no official acts in the felony charges against criminal Trump. #Scotus were far a field and all over the board. Fascist republicans were unprofessional, unprepared and a disgrace to the judicial system. #corrupt#fascism
What we saw at the #scotus that bothered me the most is the debasing of the lawyers. The obscene scenarios from the republican #WhiteChristianNationalist were a mockery of our justice system and spat in the face of the rule of law.
#KatiePhang on the Supreme Court hearing on Trump's presidential immunity claims. "If dictators don't have people that enable them, then they won't be able to get to the Supreme Court."
In the crimal defendant's appeal to #scotus on his #January6th criminal fraud to block the certification of our election case, aka immunity delay case, vile fascist Samuel Alito and accused sexual abuser Brett Kavanaugh declined to acknowledge certain facts of the case during the oral arguments. Their stance has drawn attention and raised questions about the case's proceedings.
Corrupt Clarence implies presidents are always committing crimes- a blatent lie, giving cover to the biggest criminal in American history.
Their overtly unethical conduct laid bare in front of Americans, and it was disgraceful. It calls into question their certification and qualifications to work in the legal profession, in any capacity.
Republican partisans are and were during the hearing, a total disgrace to the American legal system.
In the 14th Amendment case, the #scotus Court implicitly acknowledged that 18 U.S.C. 2383 (rebellion and insurrection) COULD APPLY to a former President, and provide adequate grounds for disqualification. So not sure why they are entertaining an argument that criminal laws writ large can't apply for a former #POTUS unless it specifically mentions him. This is off the rails.
The Framers did not put an immunity clause in the #Constitution.They knew how to, and they did not. They did not provide immunity to the president. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law.
@skykiss Ignoring facts and focusing on hypotheticals is outrageous.
In other words. This shit fucking pisses me off! And I hope it pisses off every other red blooded American too.
@JKirkpatrick
keep reading in the thread, two post down (with Rachel Maddow) you can see Samuel Alito declined to acknowledge the facts of the case during the oral arguments in the video. It was a disgrace.
Add comment