326 Comments

During my recent, annual visit to see my 94 year old Mom, she insisted we update her voter registration following several hasty moves she’s endured these past few years. Despite all she’s been through, she’s more determined than ever to do her part to “…keep that son of a bitch out of the White House!”

(One of her assisted living facility neighbors has a bumper sticker stuck to his door that reads, “I just want to see Trump spend 11,870 days in prison.” This small facility is in a very conservative, backwater rural area - there’s room for hope.)

Expand full comment

I love this. My mom voted in every election, even when she lived overseas. She passed at age 97. Her last vote was for Barack Obama.

Expand full comment

My mom is 96 1/2 (funny how those halves become important again, like a kid), and she abhors trump. She always votes!

Expand full comment

Love her and yes! I just round up myself so I’m not too shocked when the birthday strikes!

Expand full comment

May she forever be a wonderful memory for you. A Reaganite until then end, 43 was my mom's last vote yet I guarantee she would not have voted for 45. She had scruples.

Expand full comment

My dad was a lifelong Democrat who voted once for a Republican president-Richard Milhouse Nixon because he promised to get our troops out of Vietnam. As a father of 8 sons, 6 of which were draft eligible, I can understand his vote. I am the youngest of those eligible sons and recall watching the annual draft drawing of birthdates.

My grandfather served in WWI, France. My father served in WWII, South Pacific. Four of his brothers served. My oldest brother, “had his number drawn” in 1969 and enlisted in the Marines(he ended up serving 10 years then 15 as a Naval officer). My father knew firsthand the horrors of war. He later regretted his vote. His last vote was cast for President Obama in 2012. He would have been horrified at observing Trump’s first run for President let alone everything that has transpired since.

I am a lifelong Independent and have voted for a handful of downballot Republicans over the past 50 years but overwhelmingly vote along Democratic lines.

All politics really are local.

Expand full comment
founding

My Mominlaw is 97 and we just got her in an assisted care joint. She was interned at Heart Mountain at 15 and takes no shit. Waiting for her tv to get connected so she can watch MSNBC, broken up by Guy Fierri on the food network. While she was living with us over the Covid years I could always hear her grumbling about the orange blob. She voted in 2020 so she is good to go.

Expand full comment

Undeterred by the bullshit. She’s a role model. I’d bet her grandchildren understand the toughness and admire her strength.

Bless her.

Expand full comment
founding

They love her. Her Japanese New Years was an LA event. She is also an award winning master quilter. Fine art, not folk craft. Her legs are giving out, but her mind is still sharp as tacks. She's worth theveffort to keep her going. I'm a Hapa. We have no kids, but sisterinlaw does.

Expand full comment

Well she’s now a woman I admire and hope to be like at her age - if I get there. You’re a good son-in-law!

Expand full comment

Give my sincerest regards to your mother. I just voted in the primary today. I'm only 91 but I love your mom, sight unseen.

Expand full comment

Bless you Fay! ONLY 91?? You go girl!!!

Expand full comment

Thanks

Expand full comment

Gunnar, all the best to your Mom and her neighbor!

Expand full comment
founding

I love your mom!

You go, Girl!

Expand full comment

And there is room for laughter too. I laughed my head off when I read this. Bravo to you kid 🙋‍♀️

Expand full comment

Love your Mom! I add that my 98 year old WWII veteran husband reminds me (and anyone who will listen) that Trump is not what he and his fellow veterans fought and died for. I think making sure that Trump does not become President and goes to jail instead is what keeps him going every day!

Expand full comment

God bless your mom. And the gentleman with the bumper sticker on his door.

Expand full comment
founding

Gunnar, your Mom is a Saint and an example to all of us. Please give her my respects.

Expand full comment

Gunnar, I could just kiss your mom and her neighbor!! Give them my very best!

Expand full comment

My mother, a Daughter of the American Revolution, did the same thing in 2020, at 98. She died in October before the election but was able to fill in her mail-in ballot and send it off to do its duty on her behalf. Wish she could have lived long enough to see Trump lose, but glad she missed 1/6.

Expand full comment

I too love this. My mom passed in 2021 and on her final vote, she insisted on voting to keep Trump out of office. She didn't want to vote on any other office or issue at that time because she didn't want to take the time to learn about the candidates or understand the issues, but she had a full understanding of how much she hated candidate Trump! We had to witness her ballot because her signature was so shaky it no longer matched her signature on file. But her very last vote was accepted and counted (Washington State all mail-in ballots)!

Expand full comment

Gunnar! This is wonderful! Love to your Mom!

Expand full comment

Hurray for mom and the bumper sticker :) .

Expand full comment

Ooh, I want that bumper sticker!

Expand full comment

Gunnar J: You and your Mom are INSPIRING!

Expand full comment

My mother passed at 98. She died a few months before she would have voted for Hillary. Not that it would have done much good in deep red Tennessee, but she too abhorred Trump.

Expand full comment

Three things:

Love this Court of Appeals.

Don’t trust Thomas to do the right or honorable thing.

Why isn’t Smith trying to get Aileen Cannon removed from the documents case? Her bias is blatant. Please, Joyce, I’d like an answer.

Expand full comment

Don’t you think they might on an appeal from some significant misstep she will likely make - for example, regarding the redaction of confidential or secret information? I think Smith is waiting for another screwup that even this Court of Appeals couldn’t accept. They’ve rebuked her once before on the Special Master she appointed to review the documents, and she will put a foot wrong again. The Court of Appeals needs a record to remove her.

Expand full comment

Patience. This Judge is both corrupt and incompetent. Jack is giving her enough rope to hang herself.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Justice Cannon hasn't shown actionable bias in failing to progress the case as fast as anyone concerned with national security might think appropriate. I'd not expect her to show sufficient bias to justify her removal on that basis.

On the other hand, her past performance doesn't fill many with confidence that she is mentally equipped to deal with the case at all. Whether here or elsewhere it's been suggested that the prosecution's best hope is that she again makes a dog's breakfast of some pre-trial issue, and appeal court correction reassigns the case to someone else. That sounds about right.

Expand full comment
Feb 7·edited Feb 7

DO NOT elevate her to "Justice." Unlike some state court systems (NY's is particularly upside-down), the federal ct system has only "Judges," no "Justices," except at the SCt. So there is -- and, unless the electorate makes yet another decision so foolish as justly to be called "unamerican" this November, never will be -- a "Justice Aileen Cannon."

Expand full comment

Very well

Expand full comment

Wasn't she rebuked twice?

Expand full comment
founding

maybe third time is the charm, as they say.

Expand full comment
Feb 7·edited Feb 7

Based on all she’s done (or hasn’t done) to delay bringing this case to trial, the wait for her to screwup could be a long one.

Expand full comment

She’s just screwed up again, refusing many of Smith’s requested redactions from classified documents before they’re handed over. There’s a hearing on the matter next Monday the 12th, and I’d expect that Smith may see this as a reason to appeal her handling of that information. Adding it to her prior rebukes, might get her removed even by the 11th Circuit.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the update. If it’s enough to get her removed let’s hope he seeks to have her removed asap.

Expand full comment

Smith just met with Judge Cannon about the evidence that the government has and what Trump and his team are alleging that they did not provide them with. Smith argued that he and his team has provided all of the evidence they requested and even provided a computer to one of the defendant’s attorney who didn’t haven’t one, if you can believe that! The government has the receipts for all of the things they’ve done. So now Cannon has set up hearings, which is she is right to do. So far, so good but should she go astray, Smith will go to the 11th Court Circuit to ask for a replacement of judges. I know I am not Joyce, but these are the facts that I learned from her. Hope it helps explain a few things and if I am incorrect somebody here will tell me and clear things up.

Expand full comment

I have to correct myself ( and here I thought I was so smart…) yesterday Judge Cannon rejected Smith’s request. I didn’t know that until a few hours ago! Time for Smith to ask for her recusal from the 11th Court. Actually way past time but get this poor excuse of a lifetime federal judge out of the way!

Expand full comment

I hope the 11th Court can remove her from her duties, altogether. We have numerous Courts around the country that should be dealt with the same way. The TX Supreme Court comes to my mind immediately, but that's not going to happen.

Expand full comment

I assumed you had missed her latest. Her rulings continue to be based not on the law but on helping trump.

Expand full comment

What???? I didn't know. How on earth can this conduct be tolerated by our system of justice? Get it done Smith/Garland. Now.

Expand full comment

It’s all going to be up to the 11th Circuit, one of the most conservative Circuit Courts. They have rebuked her before, so there’s at least a shot to get her removed from this case, and I would hope that DOJ will try. But Betty, the only way to remove a sitting federal judge from her duties altogether is to impeach her, and that’s not something that’s at all likely to happen, probably nor worth the time and effort to try. Appointed for life.

Expand full comment

'Sparse and undifferentiated Response': Mar-a-Lago judge shuts down Jack Smith's attempt to keep government witnesses secret in Trump motion to compel, setting stage for unredacted release

https://l.smartnews.com/p-eYUWE/Bs1OS9

Expand full comment

Gerald Shur created the current Witness Protection Program.

Courts can change a person's name & the proceedings remain sealed & can take many actions to protect trial appearances. i have sought & obtained an immediate TRO against intentional ”bumping" of a witness out in the Hallway. No objection from the Perp.

Gerald"s Program provides "Best Practices" advice to Witnesses.

Expand full comment

Ginni, the article is not available unless you download the app. Can you summarize or share it somehow? Thx!

Expand full comment

P.S. I had to click on the "Comments" link to see the whole article. Weird.

Expand full comment

Excellent thoughts.

Expand full comment

Cannon keeps making minute orders. Nothing appealable yet. Watching now her CIPA actions...if she allows defendants to view top secret docs, 11th circuit will reverse.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't we all. I hope Joyce answers your question.

Expand full comment

Yes, please, it's nagging me and has been for it feels like years. CAN she be removed for playing favoritism not using the law.

Expand full comment

Trump has played the immunity issue like a shill game. And almost everybody has fallen for it. It's not about immunity. It's all about taking an appeal on an issue, no matter how absurd the issue may be, that will delay his trial past the election and into his Presidency, should he be re-elected, when he can bury it. And should the Supreme Court take his case, Trump will be gloating that he has pulled off his biggest scam ever.

Expand full comment

"Citizen Trump" has a number of Federal Appellate Rules to over come. I agree with the Professor that "en banc" review is not possible. The next hurdle is the 4 votes required for "CERT". Granting CERT would be yet another blow to to SCOTUS' dwindling legitimacy even worse if Thomas does not recuse given his marriage to a J6 coconspirator. If Thomas does recuse, then 4 votes would fail if the Chief Judge votes no on "CERT".

The Professor will keep us well informed. Stay tuned to Joyce, "We are all in this Together."

Expand full comment
founding

Alway good to hear your clarity Bryan.

Expand full comment

If Thomas doesn't recuse, and he won't, seems there's no recourse? Where is the mechanism that would protect the standing of the American people against the corruption of a SC justice?

Expand full comment

There is Plan B as Sheldon Whitehouse is working feverishly to get Thomas impeached. Also, this puts Chief Roberts in a predicament. He knows the public is already seething from Alito’s mindless destruction of Roe v. Wade. If he fails to convince Clarence to recuse himself, then it won’t be insurrectionists taking to the streets. It will be us citizens who believe in our rules, our laws! My guess is that Scotus doesn’t want a showdown.

Expand full comment

https://youtu.be/IJJgZxuJqgI?si=0ZXPuRKx-UnDDHYw

Thanks for the heads up on possible impeachment of Judge Thomas, Marlene. I found this presentation by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse most illuminating and convincing.

Expand full comment

Super Link Mary Pat as a follow up see, Senator Wyden's Senate Finance Committee statement on the Senate floor 6 days ago for the latest on tax cheat Justice Thomas.

There is absolutely no doubt on Thomas's failure to report $250,000.00 of income.

Expand full comment

This was excellent! Thanks Bryan!

Expand full comment

Holy Moly! Will check out Sen. Wyden.

Expand full comment

Yes, Wyden is something else too!

Expand full comment

He has been working on this for I think, at least three years, and has dug up some awesome info. Pro Publica has also been astounding in their investigations and reporting.

Expand full comment

Agreed Pamela. Let's keep our collective eye out for whether Thomas participates tomorrow on the oral arguments on whether individual states can invoke the 14th Amendment to keep Thomas off the bench. If he participates, it signals that he has no intention of recusing himself on this and all other Jan. 6 related cases.

Expand full comment

Good point, I'll be listening tomorrow. I seriously doubt he'll recuse because wouldn't that be acknowledging his wife's involvement in J6? One of our esteemed writers here pointed out that Sheldon Whitehouse is looking into impeaching Thomas. Timeline on that might be a problem.

Expand full comment
Feb 7·edited Feb 7

In the 1979 book by Bob Woodward, “The Brethren” issuing Cert was referred to as, “The rule of Four.”

Expand full comment

Precisely. Think of all this in terms of the delay. Not the decision. The appeal to the 3-judge court of appeals bought the Trump legal team a month. They had hoped the next appeal would be to the full court of appeals - thankfully that was stopped by yesterday's ruling. Otherwise another delay of at least a month. Now, I do not know how much time will be allowed putting together the appeal to the SCOTUS (heard it could be up to three months), but rest assured all the allowed time will be taken. Bet your house on it. And then of course the hope is that SCOTUS will not fast track it. They will lobby for SCOTUS to first hear the case and not reject it, and second to follow a course that takes the max time possible. Quite a strategy for a team that in theory should be fighting for an innocent verdict. As contemptible as this strategy is, it is legal. But our court system must recognize when it is being played, and act accordingly. Treat the orange dumpster fire like a mob boss - don't allow it.

Expand full comment

SCOTUS MUST IMMEDIATELY DECLINE to hear the case.

No further stonewalling of any of Trump’s cases must be allowed! In America, no one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to game the system.

America’s Presidential Accident and Disgrace, liar fraud con traitor Trump, if convicted, MUST be sentenced to prison.

We put Black Americans in prison for having in their possession a pound of marijuana. If a White American, after being convicted of committing multiple crimes against the American People, does not get sentenced to prison, or, worse yet, is allowed to game the system and runs out the clock on his indictments, what message would that send to everyone in America and everyone around the world?

Sadly, we have two SC Justices who’ve been outed as on the take and at least three who’ve already lied to the American People.

Expand full comment

I think the message to everyone in America would be that you can postpone prosecutions indefinitely if you are very rich, or if you can raise sufficient campaign contributions by conning enough of the population.

Expand full comment

Sadly that does seem to be the message.

Expand full comment

It amazes me that no one has told him that, if he is correct, Biden could order his execution and there would be no recourse... Of course Biden wouldn't do that, but the concept is there.

Expand full comment

Thanks for highlighting this! That light bulb came on for me in the middle of Joyce's post. I immediately told my family: "OMG, I just realized that if Trump's appeal for absolute Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution were upheld, Pres. Biden could immediately have Trump eliminated without criminal penalty - although I wonder how much post-Confessional penance that would earn Joe. That's gotta be a LOT of Hail Marys. Fortunately for democracy (as well as all that is good & holy), today the DC Court of Appeals denied Trump's appeal."

Expand full comment

I have been saying the same thing ever since Trump said Presidents have complete immunity! If that's the case, why would Biden ever hand the office back to Trump (Biden is too honorable to kill the idiot)? He could stay in office until his death and then then Kamala Harris, as VP, would become President. Democrats could hold the Executive branch indefinitely!

Expand full comment
founding

That is clear as a bell.

Expand full comment

I’m wondering if the Court might allow the decision to stand without review as a way to avoid the embarrassment (and hypocrisy) of Justice Thomas not recusing himself.

Expand full comment

Embarrassment and hypocrisy do not seem to be deterrents to action for at least five members of this Court (see Dobbs v. Jackson).

Expand full comment

True. I think CJ Roberts may want to clean up his legacy just a little. Ok. Magical thinking

Expand full comment

Review is optional; four justices have to say they want to hear the case. We can but hope.

Expand full comment

Right. I know. Think they could just duck it if Roberts convinced one of the trump justices to go along. Gets them off the hook in a way. And avoids the embarrassment of Thomas not recusing.

Expand full comment

Since Koch has ditched trump for Haley, he will, no doubt, be instucting his Supremes to do the same, and accept the lower court ruling.

Expand full comment

Interesting thought. I'm not sure that Roberts and others will think that clearly (although I do not believe Roberts would vote to take the case),

Expand full comment

Under the circumstances, that would be the rational action for the SC to take, as JV points out. The Appeals Court decision is so tight that it should be unassailable. But as she also points out, there is also the temptation by judges to put their own imprimatur on a case. If the SC can keep Thomas from sitting in on it, the simplest way for them to do that would be to simply concur unanimously with the Appeals Court decision without hearing arguments. This court does not seem to have the capacity to do that. But they may well recognize that it is in the interests not only of the country but, more to their interests, the validity of the court to keep themselves out of it as much as possible.

Expand full comment

Excellent explanations, Ms. Vance.

Our nation thanks you.

Daniel

Expand full comment

I think that there zero chance that Thomas will do the ethical thing and recuse himself. He has no ethics.

Expand full comment

Remember Anita Hill!

Expand full comment

Yep I do! Listened to the hearings on the car radio on a family road trip. Compelling

Expand full comment

Which is why I think Roberts will convince his court to not touch this case, but instead let the lower court verdict stand. More controversy is not his friend.

Expand full comment

I hope you're correct!

Expand full comment
Feb 7·edited Feb 7

I believe that the Court of Appeals has carefully boxed out SCOTUS from wanting to take this matter by tying their ruling to the allegations and facts of the specific case and not just issuing a blanket ruling on presidential immunity. I don't think SCOTUS will be incented to expand upon or modify what the Court Appeals has done because of this focused approach.

Expand full comment

I agree. Then they also avoid the pesky little problem of Justice Thomas.

Expand full comment

Thank

You Joyce, for always being on top of this for us; it’s very helpful!

Expand full comment

I can see that the mad tea party we have suffered through, should be coming to an end. Thank you for your efforts.

Expand full comment
founding

Stay prepared, though.

Expand full comment
founding

While we are on a little roll...can we stop Tucker (F...ing) Carlson from coming back into the USA for conferring with a state enemy? ...and Google, stop calling him "Journalist", he is an insurrectionist and liar.

Expand full comment

A litmus test for king-for-life Putin is whether he has ordered the detention, incarceration and murder of genuine journalists investigating corruption and reporting political dissension in Russia. The answer, of course, is so many, year in and year out. The litmus test for peevish Tucker Carlson is whether no-patriot-he would swap his precious U.S. passport for lifetime Russian sanctuary. The answer of course is no way, because podcaster Carlson knows that Putin, like Russia fanboy Trump, discards people when they are no longer useful. Just ask Michael Cohen, Mo Brooks, Chesebro, Ellis, Powell, McCarthy, Barr, Christie, Hailey, Romney, Romney’s niece RNC chair Rhonda Romney McDaniel, and, yes, brave Liz C. and Adam K. and the dozens of other Republicans driven from public office for calling Trump out as one wholly unfit for, and a disgrace to, the office of president of our fair Republic. Vote and support grass roots efforts to get out the vote.

Expand full comment

The manner with which the DCC panel dealt with tRump's "Impeachment Judgment" claim was priceless:

"The text says nothing about non- convicted officials. Former President Trump’s reading rests on a logical fallacy: Stating that “if the President is convicted, he can be prosecuted,” does not necessarily mean that “if the President is not convicted, he cannot be prosecuted.” See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 589 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring) (explaining “the fallacy of the inverse (otherwise known as denying the antecedent): the incorrect assumption that if P implies Q, then not-P implies not-Q”)."

"Logical fallacy", "denying the antecedent"...where did his lawyers go to school, for god's sake? This isn't constitutional law we're talking about, but simple rules of logic already!

Expand full comment

If I ever get divorced, I want Alina Habba to represent……. my wife.

I hired Alina Habba to fight my parking ticket….

….,Now I’m guilty of war crimes, a triple murder AND money laundering.

Expand full comment
founding

Bwahahahahahahaaaaa

Expand full comment

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Expand full comment

Lance, Gilead rejects Logic. The Hunger Games Continue

Expand full comment

The outcome of the Court of Appeal decision on whether Trump has immunity was obvious, legally. I don’t believe that, if the supreme court took the case, there would be even four votes for presidential immunity. The question really is whether four justices want to do Trump the favor of making it less likely he can be tried before the election. So I think. Granting cert would be shameful. They should promptly announce they won’t take the case.

Expand full comment

Or THEY could be held to our laws!

Expand full comment

Says Trump’s lawyer: “If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party.” As we so frequently see, this is a projection of what Trump himself will do if he returns to office. He’s essentially promised this already, in making “retribution “ his platform for governing.

Expand full comment

This "argument" that tRump and his parking garage attorneys used just blows my wee brain. They are literally saying, 'presidents should be able to commit criminal acts with impunity' and you cannot convince me otherwise. How can any rational person, with firing grey matter, believe this steaming pile of bull pucky? It's pure insanity and makes me question if this is live or Memorex!

Expand full comment

Thank you Joyce for another beautiful yet complicated, for me, article, though I took my time and stuck with it. The goal here is to learn to move forward in a positive motion. But I do ask one question because I really don’t know the answer yet I search…. I have tried to find it but like you said it seems like immunity is taken for granted, is it law because if it’s law that says that they were allowed to be criminal with no impunity. I believe in common sense, and I think the court ruled appropriately, wisely, and with depth. If I had to make a wager, I would think that SCOTUS, will simply not hear the case. There’s a few, for lack of terms, weird guys on the bench and I don’t think they have the guts for the glory. And I am being positive here because no man is above the law and I just can’t understand how people can’t look at the situation and see that it is wrong that’s the most troubling thing I guess and that’s why we get a chance to vote, sorry I’m rambling here late at night but it’s important for me to think through this and hopefully the rest of my friends on here and or you Joyce can make me wiser in this regard. Peace Love and compassion always.

Expand full comment

I’ll take a stab at your question, Mike, subject always to correction by sharper minds. As far as I can tell, presidential immunity is not established in any statute/law, but it has been recognized - within limitations - in Supreme Court case law. For a discussion of the distinctions that have been made between when a president is immune from judicial process and when not, see the discussion in this decision or the essay here: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/. I believe there’s also a policy at DOJ that bears on this too but that only insulates a sitting president and again only within limits. If you’re confused, it’s with good reason since it can be complicated. But I haven’t heard anyone but Trump’s lawyers suggest that this is even a close call.

Expand full comment

Thanks for taking the time buddy. That’s what it’s all about. We learn we pass it on and we pass it on and we pass it on….. to learn is to live. ☯️❤️☮️

Expand full comment

This all comes down squarely on Roberts now. He's proven he doesn't care about his legacy, and the court continues to create precedence, when they're supposed to be enforcing, not creating. So it's anyone's guess what they will do, versus what we know they SHOULD do.

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you Joyce for your thorough analysis. I'm surprised I got through it all with only 15 comments ahead of me. One thing struck me in the issue of Thomas' recusal. His wife is a documented participant in the crime TJT is charged with. She should be an indicted co-conspiritor. How can he not be recused and sit beside the other justces that are fully aware of that situation?

Expand full comment

Because he does not care. Nor do Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Coney Barret, and Gorsuch. The Supreme Court is not about to lose its credibility; that ship has sailed. It only remains to be seen how much damage it can do to the republic.

Expand full comment
founding

It can try to be that overt and see what happens when the Dems get a majority and POTUS. The Court will be expanded so far, they will need need power wheelchairs to get from one end of the bench to the other. With the current clown, uh, er, shitshow going on, there are enough Repubs out there who are getting discusted enough to vote for Biden and enough other Dems to pull that off. Three MAGA losses in the House today was quite the hoot and the appelate decision was pretty air tight.

Expand full comment
founding

Not sure those justices can all be lumped together.

Expand full comment

Thomas cannot be recused if there's no case to recuse him from, so Roberts will do all he can to let the lower court verdict stand.

Expand full comment
founding

So "appeal" is not a case? Let's hope the numbers work out.

Expand full comment
Feb 7·edited Feb 7

"Appeal," where the party has a RIGHT to appellate review (as from a final decision of a district court to a ct of appeals in the federal system), IS a "case." But a REQUEST for DISCRETIONARY review ("Petition for Certiorari"), which is all that's available before the Supremes in any of these circumstances, is NOT a "case" before the Court, until and unless the request is GRANTED. The Supremes could very easily simply deny "cert" in the immunity-claim case, since the position of TFG (AKA "the Defendant" here) is outright frivolous.

Another possibility here is that the Ct could grant the petition and summarily -- without delay, further briefing, or oral argument -- affirm without saying any more than "for the reasons explicated by the court of appeals," or words to that effect. It's just not a question that needs any extended consideration of arguments both ways. And if several want to add, "we agree only as to attempts to stop the peaceful transfer o0f power pursuant to an election; we leave for another day whether a former Pres can be prosecuted for spitting on the sidewalk during his or her term in office," OK -- as long as they can't delay issuance of the affirmance while they study exactly how to word that caveat.

Expand full comment
founding

Got it. Thank you, Josh. I'm a designer and maker, not a lawyer, though much Poli Sci and History in college. I looked at your profile and it seams your head might be attached with the same screws as mine. I missed the Elliot Abrams situation. I hit follow.

Expand full comment