#total immunity

"President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling"

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

Can you believe it has been over a year since the conservatives on the Supreme Court invented a very special immunity for a very special president? It’s arguably the worst decision to come out of the Roberts Court, which is saying something. And it isn’t a reach to say that if there had been no immunity decision, there likely would be no Donald Trump second term. Without the immunity decision, Trump would probably still be dragging out his appeals in his multitude of criminal cases, and the rest of us would be living in a world where the federal government remains functional. Instead, Trump has taken full advantage of that immunity, not just to dodge his crimes, but to crown himself a king, above all laws. And thus far, the Court seems more than happy to help.

On Tuesday, sitting in his increasingly gilded Oval Office, Trump was served a softball question about who he should have the Department of Justice prosecute in light of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s so-called revelations about Russian interference in the 2016 election. “It would be President Obama,” Trump said. “And Biden was there with him ... the leader of the gang was Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. He's guilty. This is treason.”

[...]

You see? John Roberts was just looking out for future presidents, because surely granting Donald Trump immunity would guarantee that he would not try to criminally prosecute previous occupants of the White House. If there’s one thing we all know, it’s that Donald Trump is very meticulous about adhering to court orders and not at all inclined to use the power of his office to attack anyone.

[...]

Presidential immunity (exceptions apply)

The immunity decision was a literal get-out-of-jail-free card for Trump. The conservative majority took an absurdly expansive view of what constitutes an “official act” for which he would have absolute immunity. Trying to figure out a way to overturn the 2020 election? Totally an official act because Trump talked to Department of Justice officials about how to do it. Pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence to break the law by refusing to certify Biden’s victory? Per Roberts, also an official act, because they were discussing their “official responsibilities.” Oh, and also, if you’re trying to sort out what is an official act or an unofficial one, “courts cannot inquire into the president’s motives,” and acts are not unofficial simply because they violate a law.

Of course, Trump isn't limiting his attacks to former presidents, nor is Trump the only one doing the attacking. At Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s dystopian press conference yesterday, she alleged that Obama administration officials conducted a “years-long coup and treasonous conspiracy” against Trump, spouting long-debunked garbage about how President Obama led the effort to manufacture a fake intelligence assessment about Trump and Russia. Never one to be left out, Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up by announcing a “strike force” to investigate Gabbard’s nonsense.

Andy Marlette :: @AndyMarlette

* * * *

We are entering uncharted territory. The Supreme Court will conjure a non-existent presidential immunity to protect the only president to attempt a coup. Even if the Court grants Trump partial immunity only, that is more than he (or any president) deserves. No person is above the law—and there is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise. But to grant immunity to Trump on the facts alleged in the indictment is lawless and corrupt.

Josh Marshall’s comments in his Friday Editor’s Blog reflect my sentiments. See Peering into the Corrupt Court’s Pretensions and Corruption. (Accessible to all, although normally behind a paywall for members):

The display we saw yesterday was a vivid illustration of how the Court has gone thoroughly rogue, cutting itself off from even the appearances of the processes that give it legitimacy. That is the core of the current Court’s corruption. If we assume that there might be some limited ways that official acts can’t be reinterpreted as crimes, it seems to go without saying that refusing to honor the results of an election can’t be one of them. Trying to overthrow the government can’t be one of those official acts. [¶] It’s a rogue court, a thoroughly corrupt one, one that is so far gone in its corruption that it feels free even from the practical obligation to clothe its corruption for the sake of appearances.

Or, as Professor Laurence Tribe said on MSNBC, the Trump immunity case will “hurt the Supreme Court even more than Bush v. Gore.”

We cannot pretend that this is normal or acceptable. Indeed, the MAGA extremists are depending on Democrats to be temperate, refined, and reserved in the face of corruption. The time for presumptions of goodwill and deference to the Court has passed. It abused our trust and refused to regulate itself. We must do so before it is too late.

Alice Herman at The Guardian:

Kamala Harris appeared on The Howard Stern Show on Tuesday, calling Donald Trump a “sore loser” and receiving an endorsement from the host, Howard Stern.

Her appearance on the radio show, whose listenership skews white and male, comes as Harris embarks on a series of sit-down interviews on popular talkshows and podcasts, including Stern, The View, the podcast Call Her Daddy and the Late Show With Stephen Colbert. During the show, Harris blasted Trump for his comment that he would be a “dictator on day one” and called him a “sore loser” for his role in promoting false claims of widespread voter fraud after the 2020 election. “Understand what dictators do,” said Harris. “They jail journalists, they put people who are protesting in the street in jail.” The interview comes just weeks after Trump, who has appeared on Stern’s show in years past, claimed on Fox News that the host “went woke”. Stern shrugged off the charge last year, telling listeners that he takes “woke” as a compliment and that “the opposite of being woke is being asleep”.

The interview also hit on personal subject matter – from therapy (she’s not seeing a therapist currently), to her preferred choice of breakfast cereal (Special K), to her family. During the interview Stern asked if she thought there were Americans who would refuse to vote for a woman. “Listen, I’ve been the first woman in almost every position I’ve had,” said Harris. “I believe that men and women support women in leadership. And that’s been my life experience and that’s why I’m running for president.” Stern revealed that he plans to vote for Harris.

Appearing on The Howard Stern Show Tuesday, Kamala Harris gave a stern warning that Donald Trump seeks to act like a dictator if he is elected again.

From the 10.08.2024 edition of Howard 100's The Howard Stern Show:

Sanjana Karanth at HuffPost:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday delivered the kind of blistering dissent she’s become known for, after the court’s conservative majority ruled that former President Donald Trump has full immunity for “official acts” that he took while in office. The liberal justice said that her conservative colleagues on the high court ― Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts ― have a “single-minded fixation” on the presidential need “for boldness and dispatch” that ignores the “countervailing need for accountability and restraint.” Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to the court. The immunity created by the ruling now “‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation,” Sotomayor wrote, backed up by fellow liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she continued. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” Because of the ruling, Sotomayor wrote, Trump now has “all the immunity he asked for and more,” despite the Constitution not shielding a former president from having to answer for “criminal and treasonous acts.”

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” Sotomayor wrote. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.” “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. United States goes full metal on the MAGA 6 black-robed judicial activist tyrants on the court deciding to back full immunity for official actions.

Brandi Buchman at HuffPost:

Now that Donald Trump has won the White House for a second time, the path ahead seems clear for him to brush off key federal criminal indictments that have dogged him for years while potentially delaying other cases he faces in state court. By securing the presidency, he can use the awesome powers of the executive to seemingly shield from scrutiny any illegal conduct that he would deem part of his “official” duties. When the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined immunity for official acts of former presidents and “at least presumptive immunity” for acts on the outer perimeter of official duties, the majority did so amid the dissent of the three liberal justices.

When reading her dissent aloud from the bench in July, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had bristled: “Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them.” When writing her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson, she concluded that the court had henceforth created a “law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” And now Trump is heading back to that “law-free zone.” Here’s the state of his ongoing cases and how they will likely proceed:

The Jan. 6 Case

Special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution of Trump for his alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021, is likely first on the chopping block, considering that Trump has both vowed to fire Smith in “two seconds” and threatened to throw him “out of the country.” Trump faces four felony charges in the Washington, D.C., case: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and, for his alleged intimidation of voters, conspiracy against rights.

Trump has vowed for over a year to see the federal insurrection case dismissed. He has argued that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional and that he has been vindictively prosecuted. Most important, he has argued that his conduct on and before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was official and therefore protected by presidential immunity. The Supreme Court found in July that former presidents cannot be charged for any “official” conduct but that anything that falls beyond the scope of “official” duties is fair game. This decision forced Smith to revise Trump’s indictment before presiding U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Chutkan signed an order on Oct. 28 that granted Trump until Nov. 21 to file a motion explaining why the case should be dropped on presidential immunity grounds, and Smith’s team did not oppose that request. Before his victory, Chutkan was in position to weigh both arguments and decide which changes would stay or go based on the immunity ruling. As of October, deadlines in the case were still set for well into December. Trump was widely expected to appeal any ruling that did not wipe away the charges anyway, eventually putting the matter back before the Supreme Court, but now all of that looks to be essentially moot. Under Justice Department policy established in the 1970s, sitting presidents cannot be indicted because it would interfere with their duties. The election interference case is expected to be dropped as soon as Trump is inaugurated. The only thing standing in the way of that outcome is an attempt by the judge to reject any dismissal effort by the Justice Department or, if Smith is fired, an attempt by Congress to see the special counsel restored.

The Classified Documents Case

Trump was accused of hoarding classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left the White House in 2021. The 37-count case was dismissed less than two weeks after the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling because U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not have authority to appoint Smith to prosecute Trump. The decision was controversial, and Smith appealed, citing decades of contrary legal precedent. Oral arguments for the appeal haven’t been scheduled yet. Once Trump takes office, he needs only to turn to prosecutors at the Justice Department and encourage them to drop the case. Notably, ABC News reported shortly before Election Day that Trump had floated the idea of Cannon replacing Garland as attorney general.

State Cases

Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after a jury in New York determined he made illegal sought to conceal hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Trump is scheduled for sentencing in this matter on Nov. 26 before Judge Juan Merchan. But because presidents don’t have the authority to interfere with or stop state prosecutions, there’s not much Trump can do to make the case disappear during his presidency. However, his sentencing will likely be delayed indefinitely — or at least until 2029, when his term in office would end.

Trump still faces eight felony charges in Fulton County, Georgia, for allegedly criminally conspiring to overturn the state’s election results and engaging in a racketeering conspiracy with a slew of his allies and advisers that state prosecutors say were hellbent on advancing bogus electoral slates for Trump — even after it was clear Democrat Joe Biden had won the presidential vote in Georgia.

The case was thrown off track this year after Trump’s co-defendant Michael Roman alleged that Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis had an improper romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the lawyer Willis tapped to lead the probe into the alleged conspiracy. Arguments on whether Willis should be disqualified do not get underway at the Georgia Court of Appeals until December, and a decision could take months. With Willis declared as winner in her reelection bid Tuesday night, the indictment is expected to stay on ice.

While Donald Trump won, not all of his legal problems will go away entirely, as he could continue to face state charges.