Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

An excellent read on the insanity of the cons at work:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4624601-supreme-court-donald-trump-presidenital-immunity-hypocrisy-oral-arguments/

I will say that at least Barrett, joining liberal jurists, and unlike the other cons, did consider at least consider some of the facts of the case in noting the fake electors scheme in her questioning of Trump's lawyer. Why is it that it's seemingly "ok" for her to do so while the other cons expressly stated they have no interest in the facts of the case, preferring, instead, to bury their heads in the sand and pull the veil of hear no evil, see no evil over their heads?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod - this opinion piece is angst porn for liberals, nothing more. 

Rational people will wait for the opinion, which I expect will be complicated as it confirms presidential immunity for certain classes of official acts and deny it for personal crimes.   This is a very complex question and even the liberals on the Court, especially Brown-Jackson seemed to acknowledge that immunity might apply to some of the more clearly official acts covered under Smith's broad indictment.   I'll be very surprised if any of the Justices conclude that absolute immunity applies.

Smith decided to charge Trump with a wide range of acts that could be official or personal.   Now he and his supporters will whine and moan that the Court has to legitimately sort out what type of acts might be subject to official immunity.   They will whine more when this is sent back to the trial court to make findings of fact on an act-by-act basis, in accordance with the directions set out in the majority opinion.  

Those who thought that this was a simple case presenting simple issues need to enhance their information sources.  Jim

Hi Jim, I disagree with a number of your points.

First, the question that the court took in this case is clearly that of Trump's team and not that of Jack Smith and THAT is the question that is driving this decision. (It remains unclear who on the court accepted it as written or if one of the cons wrote it himself.) Smith's question clearly focused on absolute immunity for criminal acts and that was the decision reached and agreed upon unanimously by the appellate court. That some of Trump's actions were also personal in nature is not really in question and even his own lawyer essentially acknowledged that under scrutiny from Barrett who noted such acts would not likely be covered under immunity.

The above really is the crux of the matter. However, add to that the overt resistance of the cons (other than Barret) to hearing the facts of the case even before the case had been presented to them, and you begin to see a pattern emerging from the court. It boils down to what a particularly galling and disturbing statement from one of your knights at the round table who can do no wrong, chief justice Roberts himself said and I'm paraphrasing, " I read the appellate court decision and it's simple, circular reasoning that a president can be prosecuted because a president can be prosecuted"! That's NOT what the appellate decision says and to reduce it to such simplistic terms is a gross insult to the legal reasoning by the appellate judges noted in the pages from their painstakingly thorough review of the case.

What's really constitutes "circular reasoning" here is the high likelihood the the cons will decide to send it back to an appeals court for more deliberation in order to supposedly ferret the "personal" from the "official" acts which will then be, according to lawyers from both conservative and liberal media, appealed again to SCOTUS so they can rule on essentially the same issues they should be ruling on now. THAT'S circular reasoning for you and constitutes nothing but a thinly veiled acquiescence to the continuing delay tactics of Trump and his co-horts to evade justice...

Originally Posted by James Brown

You see it as a delay tactic - I see it as the careful and necessary consideration of complex legal issues by the Appellate and Supreme Courts. 

I understand that a rush to judgement in this case is desirable to those who oppose Trump, since he can terminate the federal proceedings against himself if he is elected.   Even under this special circumstance, a rush to judgement is never acceptable.   A criminal defendant's rights to appeal can not be cast aside under any circumstances.

SCOTUS didn't have any hesitation in its rush judgement to keep Trump on the ballot box. That couldn't come fast enough. 

We're clearing dealing with overt criminal acts by Trump to overturn the results of a free and fair election. He's calling for blanket immunity from prosecution for those acts. That's not complex but it's being made as such by the refusal of the cons to acknowledge the facts of the case.

Originally Posted by James Brown

You mean the case that was a unanimous rebuke of some rouge secretary of states' blatantly unconstitutional attempt to unilaterally block Trump from the ballot?   Unanimous.   Let that sink in.   Kagan, Sotomayor, Brown-Jackson... all on Trump's side in the politically corrupted Supreme Court of your imagination.

Seriously though, these are apples and oranges.   The Supreme Court had to act quickly to block the unconstitutional power grab by Colorado, Maine and maybe other states.   Otherwise the election of 2024 would have been compromised.   Smith is bringing a complicated criminal case.   The stakes are whether Trump will be convicted, incarcerated and thus deprived of liberty.   Criminal due process is properly stacked in favor of the defendant.  Legally, getting this issue resolved before the election is irrelevant.   Also, The DOJ waited forever to bring these charges.   When there is no trial before the election, blame Garland and Smith, not the Court.

You ought to just admit that your reasons for demanding that the case be fast-tracked and your reason for slandering the Court is simple political expediency.   I think it is wrong that you would toss due process for political expediency, but I recognize that in your view the issues are simple.  It comes across to me as the Queen of Hearts, "Sentence first—verdict afterwards."   I am afraid that the Queen's attitude is the prevailing view on the left, and this precise attitude is going to get Trump reelected, as I worried here months ago.

Jim, we all know the verdict was unanimous. I'm pointing out that when the court wants to act fast to resolve an issue in the public interest, it does so. It could have acted in a similar manner and duration for the Trump ballot cases because he remained on the ballot while awaiting a decision from the court. That it is in the public interest to know is undeniable in either case.

Instead, there will likely not be a decision, and rather than being based upon the facts of the case, it will be likely go round-robin back to the appellate court and then back to SCOTUS to hear and decide the same issues they could be ruling on now. I guess that's your idea of an expedited hearing...

When will RICH DAVIS ever get anything?

SCOTUS is NOT concerned with the facts of a case! The CONS on the court have said so! And THAT is the only fact that matters!

PS: Another DAVIS DIVERSION into the nonsensical argument that anything Biden may have done with a few so-called classified documents pales in comparison to the dumpster full of 'em, included the highly classified ones, that Trump absconded with him when he left the WH after the insurrection. Not to mention he shared them with others who have no clearance. I guess this is a Davis idea of comic relief...

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is an interesting point Rod.  Any court of appeals (including the Supremes) has as a primary function the obligation to assure that the law applied to the facts is the correct law.  In other words, is the law applied to the facts constitutional, a proper interpretation of statute and so on.  So, the facts matter, but the court of appeals does not determine the facts.  That is the trial court and/or jury's job.    The Supreme Court's opinion will be far more broadly applicable than to just this case alone.

Both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court grilled the attorneys for both sides with many hypotheticals.   These hypotheticals matter because it will be up to the Supreme Court to direct the trial court as to which sort of acts by the president might be subject to immunity and which might not be.  (This is going to be the broad opinion/rule I mentioned above).   So, I disagree completely that the conservatives do not care about the facts.  They do, but it is also their job to interpret the law such that future presidents know what kind of acts are subject to immunity and what kind are not.  

The law has to be determined first, (since Trump raised the immunity defense) then a final determination of applying that law to whatever facts are eventually proven at the trial court can be made.   

This seems backward to you, but it is not because the immunity defense, if Trump were to win entirely (he will not win entirely), it would mean that Trump would be immune from prosecution under any facts.   The Court will not go there, but count on some well-defined class of official actions being subject to immunity.  Jim

I'll let a former conservative federal appeals court judge explain it to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPiFiT3ADz0

Originally Posted by James Brown

p.s.  If you really want to curl your hair read this brief:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/300972/20240220173530766_Trump%20v%20US%20Stay%20Amicus%20Final.pdf

These experts, including a former US Attorney General argue that Jack Smith's appointment is illegal because unlike all the other special prosecutors appointed by the DOJ, his appointment was never approved by Congress.   They may be right.   Garland had 90+ properly approved prosecutors to choose from but he chose Smith.   If this view were to prevail (seems unlikely) then Trump walks.

Glad you noted the above. Those are the views of the conservative legal professors that Clarence brought up to Trump's lawyer who explained to Thomas that was not an argument he had made on Trump's behalf.  In other words, it was not an issue before the court to decide.

Let me restate it one more time: "it was not an issue for the court to decide."

Thomas read it and presented it as if it were. He went out of his way to pull it out of the hat even though it was not an immunity issue. In other words, the question before the court did not concern the standing of the prosecutor of the case. It's an entirely different issue. 

As far as I know, it didn't get any traction during the proceedings after Trump's own lawyer shot it down but we'll see. 

Along with Alito's own bizarro question regarding the insane hypothetical that a sitting president might get so upset about being prosecuted after leaving office that he may, therefore, not leave office without causing mayhem afterwards and that would be the true harm to democracy so we really shouldn't be able to prosecute a president.

I agree with liberal legal pundits that the behavior of Thomas and Alito while hearing this case prove they both traded in their black robes for red caps long ago...

On edit: I'll note Thomas shouldn't have even been hearing the case because of his wife's overt actions in attempting to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. If he had even a modicum of professional ethics, he would have recused himself...

DELAY is the name of the game!

Evidence of the above:

1. "Justice Clarence Thomas noted a position advanced by two conservative law professors that Smith’s appointment was unlawful.

“Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?” Thomas asked Sauer, Trump’s lawyer."

"Sauer agreed with the law professors but had “not yet” raised such a challenge in the case, the lawyer explained.'

2. "Several conservative justices expressed annoyance at the charges in Trump’s federal election subversion indictment."

(Yup, you read that right: annoyance"!)

3. "The court delayed Trump’s election interference case just by taking up the immunity claims to begin with. If the case is remanded back to the district court for further consideration, it will only eat up more time."

"Any further decision might be appealed, a process that could again lead to the high court."

"Two of Trump’s other legal proceedings could also be impacted."
"Trump has made similar arguments in his Georgia election interference case and his Florida documents case."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4622601-a-historic-day-at-the-supreme-court-six-things-to-know-about-trumps-immunity-argument/

So much for Trump being held accountable if he wins in November...

Follow the money:


"Qatar has emerged as the largest foreign donor to US universities, contributing $5.1bn since 1986, according to one study. Most of the donations were made in the past decade."

https://www.ft.com/content/d0a16f75-8b05-4ff9-b5f1-d473d7f5a704


" Qatar is a major Hamas financier"

"The former Emir of Qatar was the first world leader to visit Gaza after Hamas seized the territory by force in 2007. Sheikh Hamad, father of the current emir, visited the coastal enclave and pledged $400 million in support. Qatar has pumped an estimated $1.8 billion dollars into Hamas-run Gaza since then. Doha pledged $360 million of annual support to the enclave in January 2021, in part to subsidize government salaries. About a third of Qatari support is in the form of fuel that Hamas authorities sell for cash. Hamas also collects kickbacks from salaries and other aid flowing into Gaza."

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/12/19/10-things-to-know-about-hamas-and-qatar/

Watch for the inverted triangle, the Hamas gang logo:

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-798799