No surprise to readers of Civil Discourse, Donald Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution. Neither he nor Joe Biden can order SEAL Team Six to execute a political rival with impunity. They cannot prevent the smooth transfer of power by abusing the power of the presidency.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)!
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
'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
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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?
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.
Thanks for the heads up on possible impeachment of Judge Thomas, Marlene. I found this presentation by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse most illuminating and convincing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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. ☯️❤️☮️
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.)
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.
My mom is 96 1/2 (funny how those halves become important again, like a kid), and she abhors trump. She always votes!
Love her and yes! I just round up myself so I’m not too shocked when the birthday strikes!
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.
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.
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.
Undeterred by the bullshit. She’s a role model. I’d bet her grandchildren understand the toughness and admire her strength.
Bless her.
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.
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!
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.
Bless you Fay! ONLY 91?? You go girl!!!
Thanks
YAY, FAY!!
Gunnar, all the best to your Mom and her neighbor!
I love your mom!
You go, Girl!
And there is room for laughter too. I laughed my head off when I read this. Bravo to you kid 🙋♀️
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!
God bless your mom. And the gentleman with the bumper sticker on his door.
Gunnar, your Mom is a Saint and an example to all of us. Please give her my respects.
Gunnar, I could just kiss your mom and her neighbor!! Give them my very best!
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.
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)!
Gunnar! This is wonderful! Love to your Mom!
Hurray for mom and the bumper sticker :) .
Ooh, I want that bumper sticker!
Gunnar J: You and your Mom are INSPIRING!
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.
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.
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.
Patience. This Judge is both corrupt and incompetent. Jack is giving her enough rope to hang herself.
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.
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."
Very well
Wasn't she rebuked twice?
maybe third time is the charm, as they say.
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.
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.
Thanks for the update. If it’s enough to get her removed let’s hope he seeks to have her removed asap.
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.
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!
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.
I assumed you had missed her latest. Her rulings continue to be based not on the law but on helping trump.
What???? I didn't know. How on earth can this conduct be tolerated by our system of justice? Get it done Smith/Garland. Now.
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.
'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
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.
Ginni, the article is not available unless you download the app. Can you summarize or share it somehow? Thx!
Here is a link to the original article
https://lawandcrime.com/?s=Sparse+undifferentiated+
P.S. I had to click on the "Comments" link to see the whole article. Weird.
Excellent thoughts.
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.
Wouldn't we all. I hope Joyce answers your question.
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.
I agree!
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.
"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."
Alway good to hear your clarity Bryan.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This was excellent! Thanks Bryan!
Holy Moly! Will check out Sen. Wyden.
Yes, Wyden is something else too!
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.
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.
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.
In the 1979 book by Bob Woodward, “The Brethren” issuing Cert was referred to as, “The rule of Four.”
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.
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.
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.
Sadly that does seem to be the message.
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.
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."
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!
That is clear as a bell.
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.
Embarrassment and hypocrisy do not seem to be deterrents to action for at least five members of this Court (see Dobbs v. Jackson).
True. I think CJ Roberts may want to clean up his legacy just a little. Ok. Magical thinking
Review is optional; four justices have to say they want to hear the case. We can but hope.
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.
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.
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),
Possible Hap.
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.
Excellent explanations, Ms. Vance.
Our nation thanks you.
Daniel
I think that there zero chance that Thomas will do the ethical thing and recuse himself. He has no ethics.
Remember Anita Hill!
Yep I do! Listened to the hearings on the car radio on a family road trip. Compelling
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.
I hope you're correct!
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.
I agree. Then they also avoid the pesky little problem of Justice Thomas.
Thank
You Joyce, for always being on top of this for us; it’s very helpful!
I can see that the mad tea party we have suffered through, should be coming to an end. Thank you for your efforts.
Stay prepared, though.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Bwahahahahahahaaaaa
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Lance, Gilead rejects Logic. The Hunger Games Continue
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.
Or THEY could be held to our laws!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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. ☯️❤️☮️
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.
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?
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.
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.
Not sure those justices can all be lumped together.
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.
So "appeal" is not a case? Let's hope the numbers work out.
"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.
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.