Do you mean EISENHOWER sent troops into Arkansas to help with desegregation of schools? The Supreme Court upheld Eisenhower’s decision to do this.
Trump did claim in 2021 that 100,000 fraudulent votes were deleted; however, no votes were deleted. At the time, the Secretary of State’s office had announced their regular maintenance of voter rolls, and this involved removing voter registration files (not votes) from the rolls. These files mostly involved people who changed their addresses. This same maintenance was done in 2019 prior to the 2020 election.
Would anyone here want JB to have the kind of immunity that Trump's counsel is arguing for? Of course not. Much of the arguments are asinine.
Bottom line is Trump flagrantly broke many laws in trying to illegally undermine an election that he lost in an attempt to remain in power. Many mistake this extremely pathetic behavior / his rhetoric as some type of evidence that he must have believed the election was stolen. However there is more evidence that in fact Trump knew he lost but lied and committed these crimes anyway because he had a clinically severe and contagious case of butthurt. The case appears to be of the same type and strain that many of the commenters in this substack show when it appears like Trump may in anyway be held accountable for any of his illegal actions.
The fact that he was president while committing these crimes does not shield him from culpability, it actually makes the conduct much more egregious and the consequences should reflect that reality.
Yes it is all a witch hunt, and hopefully people are seeing through the lawfare but actionable or not his behavior, his mouth, his inability to STFU and not make statements against interests, his and ours, is fatigueing. It is not all about him and he needs to act that way more consistently.
I believe I will take the assessment of Turley, McCarthy, and the other top constitutional scholar whose name I cannot recall this moment which is rather different than your assessment. It was pretty clear that some of the justices strongly believe that a president is entitled to a significant degree of immunity. Not complete, but a significant amount.
Apparently we were listening to different hearings. This Court will set limits on immunity, but they will not set it aside completely and they'll send it back to the lower court who will be tasked with determining within the allegations, what is an official duty and what was a private action. That's how the constitutional issue will be decided. Trump's lawyers will appeal every action the court deems private, thus delaying the case until after the November election.
This is the most important constitutional case in our lifetime. (Roe/Dobbs is being decided by the states as it should have been. But Roe/Dobbs would not destroy the executive branch of government if decided incorrectly as it was for 50 years.)
If the justices decide against Trump, in the long term we will effectively no longer have a Chief Executive. In many cities the mayor's job is ceremonial and they have no authority over anything. A city manager hired by the city council runs city functions such as the police force, the hiring and firing of city employees, etc. The president will have no authority to do anything. His duties as commander in chief of the armed forces will be curtailed. In this new country, Congress is the city council and civil servants are the city manager. Congress will run the country and the President will do exactly what he is told by Congress or he will be thrown in jail when he leaves office.
Nearly all of the justices made it clear they understand this case has less to do with Trump and more to do with the long term consequences for the executive branch and the office of the president.
It seems to me that presidents are not immune from all laws. For example, they are not immune from being prosecuted for murder, armed robbery, or burglary. They are immune from being prosecuted for any action connected to their official duties. For example, 13 service members were killed in the botched Afghanistan pullout/retreat/surrender. Their families cannot sue Biden for wrongful death, nor can Biden be prosecuted for some type of homicide. It follows that It is well within the scope of a president's duties to ensure that an election was conducted legally, even if he was a candidate in the election. The counsel for the Special Counsel today stated that the President's foremost duty is to ensure the nation's laws are faithfully executed.
This duty includes election laws. Ordering subordinates in the justice department to contact state authorities and in turn ask them to insure an election was conducted legally is within the scope of the president's duties. It doesn't matter when he gives that order, even, as in Trump's case, if he gave the order after election results were certified in a certain state and slates of electors were already submitted to the electoral college.
If Mr. Erickson is correct, the harm to Trump is inconsequential. The harm to this 247 year experiment will be devastating and transformative to world history. The transformation of our Constitutional Republic to a third world banana totalitarian state will be accelerated well beyond its current pace.
And from what I read Trump counsel's opening statement was pretty stark, certainly foder for SCOTUS to understand the implications of saying no immunity.
Made your point in the first couple of sentences. People don’t realize the implications here. If the president has no immunity and can be locked up imprisoned or even executed after leaving office for things done while in office that are official duties like handling classified documents, then it effectively ends the power of the presidential office. What authority would he have if restricted with the threat of incarceration or death?
If he starts a war and people die could he be convicted of murder?
If he approves legislation that leads to the death of anyone could they lock him up for assault?
Opens too many doors.
The duty to convict the president rests with the legislature and they tried that twice and found him not guilty, why is it double jeopardy to try him again?
Kennedy sent troops to Arkansas to intergrat Schools
Was that an against State Law.
Is it True Trump was told 100,000 fraudulent votes
In Georgia?
Do you mean EISENHOWER sent troops into Arkansas to help with desegregation of schools? The Supreme Court upheld Eisenhower’s decision to do this.
Trump did claim in 2021 that 100,000 fraudulent votes were deleted; however, no votes were deleted. At the time, the Secretary of State’s office had announced their regular maintenance of voter rolls, and this involved removing voter registration files (not votes) from the rolls. These files mostly involved people who changed their addresses. This same maintenance was done in 2019 prior to the 2020 election.
Would anyone here want JB to have the kind of immunity that Trump's counsel is arguing for? Of course not. Much of the arguments are asinine.
Bottom line is Trump flagrantly broke many laws in trying to illegally undermine an election that he lost in an attempt to remain in power. Many mistake this extremely pathetic behavior / his rhetoric as some type of evidence that he must have believed the election was stolen. However there is more evidence that in fact Trump knew he lost but lied and committed these crimes anyway because he had a clinically severe and contagious case of butthurt. The case appears to be of the same type and strain that many of the commenters in this substack show when it appears like Trump may in anyway be held accountable for any of his illegal actions.
The fact that he was president while committing these crimes does not shield him from culpability, it actually makes the conduct much more egregious and the consequences should reflect that reality.
Yes it is all a witch hunt, and hopefully people are seeing through the lawfare but actionable or not his behavior, his mouth, his inability to STFU and not make statements against interests, his and ours, is fatigueing. It is not all about him and he needs to act that way more consistently.
I believe I will take the assessment of Turley, McCarthy, and the other top constitutional scholar whose name I cannot recall this moment which is rather different than your assessment. It was pretty clear that some of the justices strongly believe that a president is entitled to a significant degree of immunity. Not complete, but a significant amount.
Trump is the Republican nominee. I don’t care that he’s a whatever. Vote for him. If Biden wins the US is done.
Oh! I intend on voting for him because Biden’s is in the Devil’s camp.
Erik, love your show, but were you and I listening to the same arguments? WOW, Brother you are out there on this one.
Apparently we were listening to different hearings. This Court will set limits on immunity, but they will not set it aside completely and they'll send it back to the lower court who will be tasked with determining within the allegations, what is an official duty and what was a private action. That's how the constitutional issue will be decided. Trump's lawyers will appeal every action the court deems private, thus delaying the case until after the November election.
This is the most important constitutional case in our lifetime. (Roe/Dobbs is being decided by the states as it should have been. But Roe/Dobbs would not destroy the executive branch of government if decided incorrectly as it was for 50 years.)
If the justices decide against Trump, in the long term we will effectively no longer have a Chief Executive. In many cities the mayor's job is ceremonial and they have no authority over anything. A city manager hired by the city council runs city functions such as the police force, the hiring and firing of city employees, etc. The president will have no authority to do anything. His duties as commander in chief of the armed forces will be curtailed. In this new country, Congress is the city council and civil servants are the city manager. Congress will run the country and the President will do exactly what he is told by Congress or he will be thrown in jail when he leaves office.
Nearly all of the justices made it clear they understand this case has less to do with Trump and more to do with the long term consequences for the executive branch and the office of the president.
It seems to me that presidents are not immune from all laws. For example, they are not immune from being prosecuted for murder, armed robbery, or burglary. They are immune from being prosecuted for any action connected to their official duties. For example, 13 service members were killed in the botched Afghanistan pullout/retreat/surrender. Their families cannot sue Biden for wrongful death, nor can Biden be prosecuted for some type of homicide. It follows that It is well within the scope of a president's duties to ensure that an election was conducted legally, even if he was a candidate in the election. The counsel for the Special Counsel today stated that the President's foremost duty is to ensure the nation's laws are faithfully executed.
This duty includes election laws. Ordering subordinates in the justice department to contact state authorities and in turn ask them to insure an election was conducted legally is within the scope of the president's duties. It doesn't matter when he gives that order, even, as in Trump's case, if he gave the order after election results were certified in a certain state and slates of electors were already submitted to the electoral college.
If Mr. Erickson is correct, the harm to Trump is inconsequential. The harm to this 247 year experiment will be devastating and transformative to world history. The transformation of our Constitutional Republic to a third world banana totalitarian state will be accelerated well beyond its current pace.
Excellent
And from what I read Trump counsel's opening statement was pretty stark, certainly foder for SCOTUS to understand the implications of saying no immunity.
Russ, you should have written today's column, as your level of understanding of the issues, and your ability to lay them out, are superb.
Made your point in the first couple of sentences. People don’t realize the implications here. If the president has no immunity and can be locked up imprisoned or even executed after leaving office for things done while in office that are official duties like handling classified documents, then it effectively ends the power of the presidential office. What authority would he have if restricted with the threat of incarceration or death?
If he starts a war and people die could he be convicted of murder?
If he approves legislation that leads to the death of anyone could they lock him up for assault?
Opens too many doors.
The duty to convict the president rests with the legislature and they tried that twice and found him not guilty, why is it double jeopardy to try him again?
Ridiculous.
No offense but didn't you make yours in the first sentence. I like when considered opinion is fleshed out anticipating triggered counter arguments.
"Donald Trump’s team thinks he is going to win and this is just an attempt to run out the clock..." while billing hundreds and thousands of hours.
At the same time he is texting me saying he’s going to jail and is begging for a donation. I deleted it.
I'll bet you have been invited to Mar a Lago too. See you there.
Never got an invite there. But I bought a copy of the Founders Bible on Wallbuilders.com
Dave Barton’s website
Ditto for me. I just block thr number(s) before I delete.