It will be 9-0 against full immunity for all acts, as president.
I think it will be forwarded to a lower court to consider certain acts, specific to presidential acts or personal acts and how those will be specified.
I, too, would expect a general blanket rule, for all the reasons you have laid out, but like other readers I’m skeptical. There are plenty of reasons for calling this The SUPINE Court, from its baby-splitting decision on Obamacare to its reluctance to consider the seriousness and extent of claims of electoral fraud in 2020. This Court seems nearly as political (dare I say cowardly) in its rulings as the thoroughly corrupt justice system that it sits on top of.
Further, I’m of the opinion that his January 6-related actions were thoroughly, as opposed to arguably, within the scope of Trump’s official duties. Those weren’t HIS “hooligans,” it has been shown, and everything he asked of Pence was Constitutionally determined and appropriate. If The Court starts “drawing lines” on this matter, then banana republic here we come.
You may not like their decisions, Chad, but the Court has been pretty bold lately. Consider:
* The case where they struck down the Biden student loan forgiveness program;
* Striking down Harvard's affirmative action;
* Reversing the Colo Supreme Court that banned Trump from the Colo ballot;
* Striking down the EPA's overreaching "wetlands" definition:
* Overturning Roe v. Wade;
* Reversing the lower court's requirement that a website designer provide same-sex wedding websites.
Most Supreme Court practitioners would say the Court is being historically aggressive lately. (And since most are liberals, they would bemoan that aggressiveness.)
Glenn: As to Yomamacare, I feel that Roberts waffled because he could hide behind the fact that the law was, in effect, a tax, and congress has the power to levy taxes. My guess is he hoped that Biden wouldn't get elected. I also pray you are correct in your assessment!
Agree, can you just imagine if there was no level of immunity. No offense, but the lawyers would have a field day suing every government action and , yes, there would be paralysis for fear of legal proceedings, as a result.
Here’s an example of executive immunity that has benefited the D’s - Governor Cuomo’s Spring 2000 executive decision to house positive COVID-19 patients in New York’s nursing homes leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths (never mind the cover up of the data downplaying the # of deaths). One could argue Cuomo should have been prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, but then again, it was a policy decision. Despite the mainstream press’ distortion of facts and outright lies, I don’t recall anyone (other than one rioter) dying at the Capitol on January 6.
I beg to differ with you as to what Trump did that was wrong. Masses of people who knew the 2020 election was stolen from Trump were upset and came to DC to express their feelings as per their constitutional right. As shown in videos many times, Trump emphasized to them to march PEACEFULLY to the capitol to demonstrate against the congress certifying the election. There is much evidence now that the federal government set a trap for the demonstrators when they arrived at the capitol building by the government agents encouraging them to enter the capitol, having the police open the entrance doors to encourage the the demonstrators to think it was ok to enter, having their agents with bullhorns and dressed as part of the demonstration, directing and encouraging them into the building, the government having members of Antifa dressed as part of the demonstration and witnessed as involved in violence inside the capitol. There are other proven government subversive activities that day to create their terrorist case against American citizens.
As an outstanding reporter, Julie Kelley details the events of what happened on January 6th which I consider the best expose of the truth. Do yourself a favor and watch her interview on:
Epoch Times video, American Thought Leaders entitled January 6th interview with Julie Kelly. I think it's the best expose on the truth.
I consider your statements in your article an embarrassment to yourself.
I won't address your points individually. But credible sources (that would not include Epoch Times -- not exactly renowned for its investigative journalism) have refuted most of your contentions.
As for the "embarrassment" that I'm apparently supposed to feel for relying on sources other than mud-raking click-baiting pseudo-sources like Epoch Times, I can live with it.
Unless SCOTUS issues a strongly worded decision granting immunity for any and all official acts, covering those taken negligently, stupidly, maliciously and intentionally, unscrupulous political actors will be forever filing suits and bringing criminal charges against the Chief Executive, each of which will require a defense, and this will have an unreasonaly chilling effect on the executive's decision-making authority because it will require consideration of such extraneous things, a constant and unremitting second-guessing that will simply tie the executive up to the extent that he will be rendered impotent. Can you imagine the glee with which Harry Truman's opponents would have filed suit and brought criminal "war crimes" charges for his decision to drop not one, but two nuclear devices on Japan? We have seen what unfettered prosecutorial power has done to Trump, tying him up in state and federal courts to defend himself against novel and questionable, if not outright cooked-up charges in front of hostile jurors and judges who put political power above the common national good. Even the doltish trio of Jackson-Brown, Sotomayor and Kagan must see this, and unless they are as partisan as some fear (myself included on occasion), they must join in a majority opinion that grants broad and effective presidential immunity, even against "Orange Man Bad."
In view of your modifier "official" before the word "acts" I have to agree. A president would still be not immune for such acts as drowning his wife in the bathtub.
I was, although I never made it to the Capitol because I developed a migraine and had to get home.
And I have not seen the interview that another commenter referenced, and while I am not a huge fan of Epoch Times I also think it is unfair to dismiss an interview that they did or that they posted on their site just because it was done by them. Even a blind squirrel, and all that.
And from the Capitol police video footage that was initially released only to Tucker Carlson that I watched, the breathless MSM "reporting" AND the J6 so-called committee was seriously incomplete, at best.
Had I not been forced to leave with a migraine, I probably would have eventually wandered toward the Capitol. And if I had done so, from what I saw on the Capitol police footage, I very much think I would have entered the building.
I am, let's say, an above average IQ person but - again, from what I saw on the footage - I would NOT have known that the police waiving folks to enter WAS ILLEGAL and that I could be charged for doing so.
As far as I'm aware, NO Trump supporters were found (arrested) having any weapons. Kind of a funny "insurrection" without weapons. 🤔
The ONLY people who died that day were TRUMP SUPPORTERS. I believe all of whom died due to actions by the police. I think one officer died a day or so afterwards and it was found he died of some medical condition, and not being beaten with a fire extinguisher, as initially reported. (Where does the media come up with some of this stuff!?)
And WHAT ever happened to the mysterious Ray Eppes????
Did you ever see any of the interviews of the Capitol Police Chief who was forced to resign? And perhaps he might have even testified under oath in addition to interviews. He certainly sounded very credible and he definitely shot a lot of holes in the MSM characterization of the turn of events, before during and after.
Don't you agree that there are just way too many 'hinky' things that really really do not add up to the story that is being told?
If you sincerely believe that Trump was wrong, foolish and dangerous, isn't it at least possible that you might be believing some of that seriously skewed, if not purposely incomplete - at best - "reporting".
Keep in mind that amazingly EVENTUALLY Trump has been right about just about everything that he initially is derided, scorned and ridiculed for.
An old saying that I like (and that I admit I should remember far more often than I do) is: Make your words tender, for tomorrow you may have to eat them.
In the final analysis, I do hope you are right and SCOTUS does find Trump is entitled to immunity in the way you described. This lawfare that is being waged is a disgrace that would even embarrass a banana republic.
The Epoch Times reporter clearly had an agenda, just as many of the NYT or CNN reporters do, but her agenda -- like the rest of the Epoch Times -- was on the opposite side. I see them all as equally bad "journalists" who at the core are really propagandists for one side or the other. They're sloppy partisan whores.
Regarding what happened on Jan. 6, there are certainly holes in the stories told by the media. But here's something undisputed. Although he said beforehand that the protest should be peaceful, as the invasion of the Capitol began to get out of hand, he then said nothing for hours. That was indeed foolish, mistaken and dangerous. He should have go on TV immediately and said "get the hell out of that building!"
And Trump did order, or at least urge, VP Pence to refuse to certify the election. That, too, was mistaken, foolish and dangerous. It could have triggered a civil war. Thankfully, Pence disobeyed him, which took a lot of courage.
All that said, as I've indicated before, and like Bill Barr and others who disapprove of some of Trump's antics, I will vote for him over Joe Biden who I think is much more foolish, mistaken and dangerous -- and in Biden's case it's in ways that truly imperil the nation.
But I have no illusions about Trump. He's volatile.
More broadly, I resist the tribal temptation to say "everything on our side is right, true and just, and everything on the other side is wrong, false and unjust." Politics -- and the world -- are not that simple.
Ok, I can understand your views. I might not agree with them all entirely, but I can agree to selectively disagree.
And I would agree that Trump -- at the very least! -- missed a HUGE opportunity by failing to tweet or go on tv to tell everyone to stand down. That alone would have probably neutralized any attempt by the left to use it as the cudgel they have done against him. Although they're also pretty good at twisting and fabricating and weaving things to their particular use irrespective of the facts.
Like Harry Reid famously and despicably said: "It worked, didn't it?"
OTOH, #1 If they were Trump supporters and #2 1 If Trump supporters were 'rioting', would they have actually been aware of tweets or tv broadcasts?? 🤷♀️ Just saying.
My gut and general observation of some of the crowd I saw making its way towards the Capitol (while I was waiting to see if my headache was going to get worse or start to dissipate from the caffeine I was ingesting) clearly told me that a good number ,if not all, of those going to the Capitol WHILE TRUMP WAS STILL GIVING HIS SPEECH (HInt: Actual Trump supporters would NOT have left the Ellipse and Mall area while he was still speaking!!) were NOT TRUMP SUPPORTERS. But unless there is a forensic investigation of every image of the initial folks streaming down Constitution, we'll never know if my gut is correct or not.
And maybe as an attny and member of the bar for SCOTUS you might know how this works far better than I do, but what about the disputed election of 1876 which I believe also had alternate electors?
How does it work if you think that very questionably if not unconstitutional things might have occurred, isn't it proper to hit the 'pause' button, and that once an election is certified the door is closed??
I also don't see Trump as volitile as much as I see him as being unpredictable according to the Book of the Swamp. He plays by a NYC developer's rules, not the uniparty's rules. If Trump was even a fraction as criminal as the left screeches that he is, he would have been in supermax long before now. The left has done everything but a colonoscopy on the man and found NOTHING. He has to be THE MOST INVESTIGATED human being on the planet and yet he's not been convicted of anything yet. (I guess he has 'settled' some cases and others are still in the appeal process.)
Like Lincoln said of Grant, when urged to dump him due to his alcoholism: "I need him because HE FIGHTS."
So too with Trump, he might be an SOB, but he's THE PEOPLE'S SOB.
My guess is that the Supreme Court will send it back to the lower court to have the "Special Prosecutor" prove that he actually has authority to prosecute. (He doesn't.)
Either the partisan judge will rule that the prosecutor has no standing or SHOCKING--finds umbras and emanations in the Constitution that give him standing. Pretty quick, the Supreme Court will throw it out.
Glenn:
It will be 9-0 against full immunity for all acts, as president.
I think it will be forwarded to a lower court to consider certain acts, specific to presidential acts or personal acts and how those will be specified.
I hope you are right and common sense says that! But in today’s world????
I, too, would expect a general blanket rule, for all the reasons you have laid out, but like other readers I’m skeptical. There are plenty of reasons for calling this The SUPINE Court, from its baby-splitting decision on Obamacare to its reluctance to consider the seriousness and extent of claims of electoral fraud in 2020. This Court seems nearly as political (dare I say cowardly) in its rulings as the thoroughly corrupt justice system that it sits on top of.
Further, I’m of the opinion that his January 6-related actions were thoroughly, as opposed to arguably, within the scope of Trump’s official duties. Those weren’t HIS “hooligans,” it has been shown, and everything he asked of Pence was Constitutionally determined and appropriate. If The Court starts “drawing lines” on this matter, then banana republic here we come.
You may not like their decisions, Chad, but the Court has been pretty bold lately. Consider:
* The case where they struck down the Biden student loan forgiveness program;
* Striking down Harvard's affirmative action;
* Reversing the Colo Supreme Court that banned Trump from the Colo ballot;
* Striking down the EPA's overreaching "wetlands" definition:
* Overturning Roe v. Wade;
* Reversing the lower court's requirement that a website designer provide same-sex wedding websites.
Most Supreme Court practitioners would say the Court is being historically aggressive lately. (And since most are liberals, they would bemoan that aggressiveness.)
Glenn: As to Yomamacare, I feel that Roberts waffled because he could hide behind the fact that the law was, in effect, a tax, and congress has the power to levy taxes. My guess is he hoped that Biden wouldn't get elected. I also pray you are correct in your assessment!
Agree, can you just imagine if there was no level of immunity. No offense, but the lawyers would have a field day suing every government action and , yes, there would be paralysis for fear of legal proceedings, as a result.
Here’s an example of executive immunity that has benefited the D’s - Governor Cuomo’s Spring 2000 executive decision to house positive COVID-19 patients in New York’s nursing homes leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths (never mind the cover up of the data downplaying the # of deaths). One could argue Cuomo should have been prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, but then again, it was a policy decision. Despite the mainstream press’ distortion of facts and outright lies, I don’t recall anyone (other than one rioter) dying at the Capitol on January 6.
Glenn, Thank you for your clear explanation of the issues in this case. As a non-attorney, I was not completely clear on the implications.
I beg to differ with you as to what Trump did that was wrong. Masses of people who knew the 2020 election was stolen from Trump were upset and came to DC to express their feelings as per their constitutional right. As shown in videos many times, Trump emphasized to them to march PEACEFULLY to the capitol to demonstrate against the congress certifying the election. There is much evidence now that the federal government set a trap for the demonstrators when they arrived at the capitol building by the government agents encouraging them to enter the capitol, having the police open the entrance doors to encourage the the demonstrators to think it was ok to enter, having their agents with bullhorns and dressed as part of the demonstration, directing and encouraging them into the building, the government having members of Antifa dressed as part of the demonstration and witnessed as involved in violence inside the capitol. There are other proven government subversive activities that day to create their terrorist case against American citizens.
As an outstanding reporter, Julie Kelley details the events of what happened on January 6th which I consider the best expose of the truth. Do yourself a favor and watch her interview on:
Epoch Times video, American Thought Leaders entitled January 6th interview with Julie Kelly. I think it's the best expose on the truth.
I consider your statements in your article an embarrassment to yourself.
Marty mms3103@bellsouth.net
I won't address your points individually. But credible sources (that would not include Epoch Times -- not exactly renowned for its investigative journalism) have refuted most of your contentions.
As for the "embarrassment" that I'm apparently supposed to feel for relying on sources other than mud-raking click-baiting pseudo-sources like Epoch Times, I can live with it.
Unless SCOTUS issues a strongly worded decision granting immunity for any and all official acts, covering those taken negligently, stupidly, maliciously and intentionally, unscrupulous political actors will be forever filing suits and bringing criminal charges against the Chief Executive, each of which will require a defense, and this will have an unreasonaly chilling effect on the executive's decision-making authority because it will require consideration of such extraneous things, a constant and unremitting second-guessing that will simply tie the executive up to the extent that he will be rendered impotent. Can you imagine the glee with which Harry Truman's opponents would have filed suit and brought criminal "war crimes" charges for his decision to drop not one, but two nuclear devices on Japan? We have seen what unfettered prosecutorial power has done to Trump, tying him up in state and federal courts to defend himself against novel and questionable, if not outright cooked-up charges in front of hostile jurors and judges who put political power above the common national good. Even the doltish trio of Jackson-Brown, Sotomayor and Kagan must see this, and unless they are as partisan as some fear (myself included on occasion), they must join in a majority opinion that grants broad and effective presidential immunity, even against "Orange Man Bad."
In view of your modifier "official" before the word "acts" I have to agree. A president would still be not immune for such acts as drowning his wife in the bathtub.
Glenn, were you in DC at the rally on Jan 6?
I was, although I never made it to the Capitol because I developed a migraine and had to get home.
And I have not seen the interview that another commenter referenced, and while I am not a huge fan of Epoch Times I also think it is unfair to dismiss an interview that they did or that they posted on their site just because it was done by them. Even a blind squirrel, and all that.
And from the Capitol police video footage that was initially released only to Tucker Carlson that I watched, the breathless MSM "reporting" AND the J6 so-called committee was seriously incomplete, at best.
Had I not been forced to leave with a migraine, I probably would have eventually wandered toward the Capitol. And if I had done so, from what I saw on the Capitol police footage, I very much think I would have entered the building.
I am, let's say, an above average IQ person but - again, from what I saw on the footage - I would NOT have known that the police waiving folks to enter WAS ILLEGAL and that I could be charged for doing so.
As far as I'm aware, NO Trump supporters were found (arrested) having any weapons. Kind of a funny "insurrection" without weapons. 🤔
The ONLY people who died that day were TRUMP SUPPORTERS. I believe all of whom died due to actions by the police. I think one officer died a day or so afterwards and it was found he died of some medical condition, and not being beaten with a fire extinguisher, as initially reported. (Where does the media come up with some of this stuff!?)
And WHAT ever happened to the mysterious Ray Eppes????
Did you ever see any of the interviews of the Capitol Police Chief who was forced to resign? And perhaps he might have even testified under oath in addition to interviews. He certainly sounded very credible and he definitely shot a lot of holes in the MSM characterization of the turn of events, before during and after.
Don't you agree that there are just way too many 'hinky' things that really really do not add up to the story that is being told?
If you sincerely believe that Trump was wrong, foolish and dangerous, isn't it at least possible that you might be believing some of that seriously skewed, if not purposely incomplete - at best - "reporting".
Keep in mind that amazingly EVENTUALLY Trump has been right about just about everything that he initially is derided, scorned and ridiculed for.
An old saying that I like (and that I admit I should remember far more often than I do) is: Make your words tender, for tomorrow you may have to eat them.
In the final analysis, I do hope you are right and SCOTUS does find Trump is entitled to immunity in the way you described. This lawfare that is being waged is a disgrace that would even embarrass a banana republic.
The Epoch Times reporter clearly had an agenda, just as many of the NYT or CNN reporters do, but her agenda -- like the rest of the Epoch Times -- was on the opposite side. I see them all as equally bad "journalists" who at the core are really propagandists for one side or the other. They're sloppy partisan whores.
Regarding what happened on Jan. 6, there are certainly holes in the stories told by the media. But here's something undisputed. Although he said beforehand that the protest should be peaceful, as the invasion of the Capitol began to get out of hand, he then said nothing for hours. That was indeed foolish, mistaken and dangerous. He should have go on TV immediately and said "get the hell out of that building!"
And Trump did order, or at least urge, VP Pence to refuse to certify the election. That, too, was mistaken, foolish and dangerous. It could have triggered a civil war. Thankfully, Pence disobeyed him, which took a lot of courage.
All that said, as I've indicated before, and like Bill Barr and others who disapprove of some of Trump's antics, I will vote for him over Joe Biden who I think is much more foolish, mistaken and dangerous -- and in Biden's case it's in ways that truly imperil the nation.
But I have no illusions about Trump. He's volatile.
More broadly, I resist the tribal temptation to say "everything on our side is right, true and just, and everything on the other side is wrong, false and unjust." Politics -- and the world -- are not that simple.
Ok, I can understand your views. I might not agree with them all entirely, but I can agree to selectively disagree.
And I would agree that Trump -- at the very least! -- missed a HUGE opportunity by failing to tweet or go on tv to tell everyone to stand down. That alone would have probably neutralized any attempt by the left to use it as the cudgel they have done against him. Although they're also pretty good at twisting and fabricating and weaving things to their particular use irrespective of the facts.
Like Harry Reid famously and despicably said: "It worked, didn't it?"
OTOH, #1 If they were Trump supporters and #2 1 If Trump supporters were 'rioting', would they have actually been aware of tweets or tv broadcasts?? 🤷♀️ Just saying.
My gut and general observation of some of the crowd I saw making its way towards the Capitol (while I was waiting to see if my headache was going to get worse or start to dissipate from the caffeine I was ingesting) clearly told me that a good number ,if not all, of those going to the Capitol WHILE TRUMP WAS STILL GIVING HIS SPEECH (HInt: Actual Trump supporters would NOT have left the Ellipse and Mall area while he was still speaking!!) were NOT TRUMP SUPPORTERS. But unless there is a forensic investigation of every image of the initial folks streaming down Constitution, we'll never know if my gut is correct or not.
And maybe as an attny and member of the bar for SCOTUS you might know how this works far better than I do, but what about the disputed election of 1876 which I believe also had alternate electors?
How does it work if you think that very questionably if not unconstitutional things might have occurred, isn't it proper to hit the 'pause' button, and that once an election is certified the door is closed??
I also don't see Trump as volitile as much as I see him as being unpredictable according to the Book of the Swamp. He plays by a NYC developer's rules, not the uniparty's rules. If Trump was even a fraction as criminal as the left screeches that he is, he would have been in supermax long before now. The left has done everything but a colonoscopy on the man and found NOTHING. He has to be THE MOST INVESTIGATED human being on the planet and yet he's not been convicted of anything yet. (I guess he has 'settled' some cases and others are still in the appeal process.)
Like Lincoln said of Grant, when urged to dump him due to his alcoholism: "I need him because HE FIGHTS."
So too with Trump, he might be an SOB, but he's THE PEOPLE'S SOB.
WE NEED HIM BECAUSE HE FIGHTS -- FOR US!
My guess is that the Supreme Court will send it back to the lower court to have the "Special Prosecutor" prove that he actually has authority to prosecute. (He doesn't.)
Either the partisan judge will rule that the prosecutor has no standing or SHOCKING--finds umbras and emanations in the Constitution that give him standing. Pretty quick, the Supreme Court will throw it out.