Today, Trump's attorneys filed an appeal with the Supreme Court dealing with his immunity claim for his criminal trial for among other things trying to steal the 2020 presidential election. The appeal is filled with nonsense.
Most of it is about whether a president can be criminally charged for his official acts. Its always been the law that official acts can be covered by immunity. Trump is not being charged for official acts. Nobody should seriously believe that carrying out a seven state conspiracy to create fraudulent electors was an official act. None of the charges against Trump are for official acts. They are for crimes.
Still the appeal rambles on, claiming Trump is charged with things like "communicating with the Vice President, the Vice President's official staff, and members of Congress to encourage them to exercise their official duties in the election certification process in accordance with the position, based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities." The appeal doesn't mention that Trump was trying to get the lawful vote of the electoral college to be thrown out when he was doing that.The appeal doesn't mention that Trump was informed by many that the election was in fact not tainted. It doesn't mention that the activity they name is NOT what Trump was charged with.
The appeal goes on to rephrase what happened too with other crimes to things that Trump was never charged with but they claim he was.
The appeal cites the landmark case Marbury v Madison. Trump's lawyers must be nuts to think they can fool anybody with that. Marbury v Madison is considered the most important case ever and every lawyer has had it covered in law school.
Marbury v Madison says:
"It follows, then, that the question whether the legality of an act of the head of a department be examinable in a court of justice or not must always depend on the nature of that act.
If some acts be examinable and others not, there must be some rule of law to guide the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
In some instances, there may be difficulty in applying the rule to particular cases; but there cannot, it is believed, be much difficulty in laying down the rule."
Marbury distinguished between two kinds of official acts: discretionary and ministerial. Marbury said discretionary acts were not reviewable. But Marbury also said "when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others." Marbury made very clear that there is no immunity when the law is violated.
Trump's lawyers cited language from Marbury but only from the parts about the discretionary acts that weren't reviewable. They left out the rest.
Trump's lawyers also had lots to say about Presidents never being criminally prosecuted before and that's true. But Nixon probably would have been if Ford hadn't pardoned him. Clinton would have been too had he not reached a deal with a special prosecutor to give up his law license for five years and pay a steep fine.
Trump's lawyers tried to frighten the court with claims that if immunity is not declared that every president in the future would suffer from endless legal harassment. But it always been assumed that presidents could be charged with crimes. Congressional investigations from opposing parties have endlessly investigated trying to find them. While he was in office Nixon said, " when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition." Most people thought it was funny when he said that. Still, our presidents have managed somehow. The fact that no charges have been filed shows the Trump lawyer scenario doesn't happen.
Trump's lawyers have other arguments to that are also fruity. I've always considered the world immunity to mean that somebody could never be prosecuted. Trump's lawyers insist that presidents are immune but if they are impeached then the immunity magically disappears. I don't know how they can claim something so crazy with a straight face. The Circuit Court of appeals points out that impeached judges used that and other Trumpster arguments. The courts that heard them called the claims "tortured."
The Supreme Court has done all it could to drag its feet to benefit Trump. They pushed oral arguments for the immunity case all the way to the last day they would be in session - or for as long as they possibly could. Delay benefits Trump and if he can get elected and take office before the cases are over he can pardon himself. He says he won't but he's one of he biggest liars in history and I don't believe for a second he won't do it.
The Supreme Court has given the issue for appeal as: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct ALLEGED to involve official acts during his tenure in office." What could they possibly mean by ALLEGED? Things start out alleged but courts are supposed to decide if they are real or not before applying the law. Will the court end up with some absurd ruling that Trump trying to create fraudulent electors was an official act because he ALLEGED it was? If they do that I'm going to be very angry. Probably angrier than I've ever been. They just made a ridiculous ruling about Trump's ballot access. I think these corrupt bastards might do far worse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
