Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Justice closes in on the criminal Trump

There was one case in New Mexico. County Commissioner Couy Griffin was ousted as a Commissioner in Otero County and banned from holding any government office in the state because of his participation in J-6.

Very true Rick. But we don’t know what will happen or which way the winds may blow.

On the other hand MTG got a pass on "I don't recall" responses to the many questions regarding her involvement in J6. I still don't understand how a judge didn't see through her lies ... under oath.

and I recall another person who was tried and acquitted.

so we do have several people who were involved in J6 holding office ... still.

Jack Smith asking the SCOTUS to consider ruling on Trump's stance that a POTUS has immunity from crimes committed while presidenting is brilliant.

Jury selection for Trump's J6 trial begins February 9, 2024.

I have often wondered about our system of justice. If, for instance, you get in a car accident and an attorney get involved you just might also have something that may not be decided for a year or so. Trump is constantly being hammered for stretching out any litigation he might be in but, as far as I can tell, it will be stretched out any way you cut it. He doesn't have to work very heard to stretch this stuff.

I remember the good old days. You get in a fender bender, you exchange insurance info and get everything settled. If there are police involved then somebody might get a ticket. In that case, if you get a ticket you go to court. If the cop that did the ticketing isn't there you are done. That's it! The only time you involve an attorney is if there is some kind of problem. Apparently chasing ambulances is not a bad business. The Seattle tv stations have an ambulance chaser ad, it seems, every 5/10 minutes or so. (they also seem to promise millions!)

Now our system of justice and time is, I think, a disaster. Even the people involved in it all are starting to whine a bit. I wonder if its going to get worse or somebody can figure out a better way.

I also don't understand why federal court cases don't allow TV (including the Supremes). I think that is a bit anti-constitution. EVERYBODY should have the right to watch our justice system working.

I also wonder about the Supremes, in general. Jack White went to the supremes and asked them if they could decide whether Trump, as president, had a right to break the law freely. They said 'sure', in a couple of weeks or so. This Trump thing has to get into court. I have no idea how many cases we are talking about but its not just a few. One would think that the Supremes, as the ones that are, basically in charge, might do something to deal with the Trump thing before he has so many cases that he is shutting down the national justice system.

I have no solution to this one, not a single clue. I just know that it is into trouble and needs to get fixed. If not its just possible that people will start dying before they can get into the system to solve their problem. (I know, a bit extreme, but.....)

Oh, I have been gone for a while and may be putting stuff where I should be. If I screw up please let me know. My memory is starting to fail a bit.

Of course, SCOTUS punted. For a thoroughly biased majority, Smith put them between two grindstones.

If they rule according to the clear meaning and stated intent of the constitution and the rule of law, TFG is obviously libel for crimes he committed while in office - and especially crimes that are beyond any legitimate function of the office he held. But that would go against their personal partisan politics and enrage their political allies.

If they rule that presidents are forever immune to prosecution, no matter what they do while in office (and perhaps after they leave office), then Biden would be free to have them all arrested or executed along with any non-compliant congresspeople and install however he should choose. And they certainly do not believe that.

Oh! what binds we put ourselves in when we first flirt with mendacity and specious arguments.

Well, I woke up early this morning in time to listen to the DC Circuit's hearing in the Trump v. US appeal on Presidential immunity. I hadn't intended to listen live, but I was up, anyway.

Some impressions. That's what is referred to as a "hot bench" - a LOT of close questioning by the judges.

It is always fraught to try to make predictions based upon judges' questions during an appeal hearing, but... here goes anyway.

First, I think this is going to be a 3-0 result finding that immunity does not apply. There is some chance that there will be a decision that the court is without jurisdiction to take the appeal, but I think that the arguments gave them an opportunity to reach the merits even if that were the case. That part of the discussion was quite interesting, but very much "inside baseball".

Second, the reason I am confident in my prediction was the nature of the questions, the fact that the government was not given such a skeptical reception to its argument, and because the Appellant has such a weak argument. The Achilles heal, so to speak, was (I think it was Judge Pan) the extended colloquy over whether a President could be prosecuted if Congress HAD convicted him at impeachment. Trump's attorney steadfastly refused to answer that question, and it was pissing off the Judge. It is a central plank of their argument, so I am not surprised that it irritated the judge.

Third, another weakness of the argument was pointed out (by I think by Judge Childs) that Congress might never impeach someone - it is discretionary - or that criminality might not be discovered until well after having left office, so that seems way too broad a reading of the concept of immunity. It was also pointed out that Trump took the exact opposite position during the impeachment itself, which his attorney tried very hard to dance around.

Fourth, I admit that I am already biased against the immunity argument, because I think it is ridiculous. I think the ridiculousness of the argument was explored to great effect by the judges.

Finally, I was having flashbacks from my time in the barrel. These kinds of arguments are the pinnacle of an advocate's experiences, and this was a good one. I thought both advocates had a real command of their material (as did the judges). This is exactly how an appellate argument is supposed to go - everyone is up to speed on the cases, has their facts lined up, and the argument gets reduced to those particular issues that the judges feel were unresolved by the briefing. That is what makes it difficult to predict outcomes - since some determinations have already been made and the judges don't even discuss those - but in this case, it was clear that all of the judges were troubled by the breadth of the claims in Trump's argument.

On balance, I thought the government attorney did a better job of answering the judges' questions and making the policy arguments. That was reflected, I think, in his opportunity to get over a minute into his argument before anyone even asked any questions (which surprised me - I thought they'd open with the jurisdictional question before he even presented any argument). I suspect we will have a decision before the end of the week.

Of course it is. To argue ... to believe ... to think otherwise would be tantamount to saying there are people above the law, contrary to the intent of the Founders, as written in the Constitution.

Of course it is easy to see and understand why Trump believes it ... he is a classic narcissistic personality disorder type or to say it another way ... the Constitution is toilet paper in his eyes.

"If you're driving down the road with a high blood alcohol level, you're driving drunk UNLESS you CRASH INTO a building and then, at the point at which your car enters the building, the courts rule that you're no longer driving, because you're no longer on a public roadway thus you are not driving drunk anymore."

That is how a SCOTUS Donald Trump carve-out would sound if applied to state and federal motoring laws.

The fact that Trump's attorney argued that a POTUS can call on Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival is completely asinine. POTUS' are NOT immune from criminality while presidenting.