DC circuit court rejects immunity for Trump, SCOTUS appeal is pending

[Occam's Banana]

He's not the president.

He was on Jan 6.

He's not on May 3.

That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.

Submitted for consideration for inclusion on "compare the United States to the Roman Republic" bingo cards:

FTA (underline emphasis added ; all other emphasis in the original): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

A Roman dictator was an extraordinary magistrate in the Roman Republic endowed with full authority to resolve some specific problem to which he had been assigned. He received the full powers of the state, subordinating the other magistrates, consuls included, for the specific purpose of resolving that issue, and that issue only, and then dispensing with those powers immediately.

A dictator was still controlled and accountable during his term in office: the Senate still exercised some oversight authority and the rights of plebeian tribunes to veto his actions or of the people to appeal them were retained. The extent of a dictator's mandate strictly controlled the ends to which his powers could be directed. Dictators were also liable to prosecution after their terms completed.

Dictators were frequently appointed from the earliest period of the Republic down to the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), but the magistracy then went into abeyance for over a century. It was later revived in a significantly modified form, first by Sulla between 82 and 79 BC and then by Julius Caesar between 49 and 44 BC, who became dictator perpetuo just before his death. This later dictatorship was used to effect wide-ranging and semi-permanent changes across Roman society. After Caesar's assassination in 44, the office was formally abolished and never revived.
​

 

[Invisible Man]

No President has immunity from prosecution. They just have to be impeached first, then convicted by the Senate. That's what it says in the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't say that.

 

[TheCount]

That's not when the alleged "crime" occurred. That's why you can impeach a President after they have left office.

Are these rules written in invisible ink between the lines of the constitution?

 

[TheCount]

Indirectly he is....and YOU know that.

Oh, an indirect charge? Will he be sentenced to indirect prison?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

Did you read it or just link it?

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, an indirect charge? Will he be sentenced to indirect prison?

I take it you've not read any of the Trump indictments. None of them are direct. For example the "falsifying business documents" charge is only a crime if Trump falsified the documents for the purpose of covering up another crime.

Did you read it or just link it?

I read it. Did you? If you did read it you know that it did not say there is no presidential immunity from prosecution regardless of whether or not there was an impeachment. It said that was "unclear." If it becomes "clear" there is no such immunity that indeed is diminishing the presidency. If it becomes "clear" that there is such an immunity then the presidency is enhanced. Either way something will happen.

 

[acptulsa]

I read it. Did you?

Of course he did. The letter of the thing is the source of all his silly semantic gotcha games.

What he is not read up on is the half of a millenia of western legal tradition directly traceable back to the Magna Carta which is the source of all the implied powers and implied rights.

 

[johnwk]

Are these rules written in invisible ink between the lines of the constitution?

Determining what our Constitution means requires and adherence to not only its text, but the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to, which gives context to its text.


In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court emphatically notes a fundamental principle concerning the meaning of our Constitution.


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[johnwk]

Put D.C. Court on judicial notice - lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction in Trump case

.
In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):


"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."

So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

Provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Article II; Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[TheCount]

He's not a government actor

 

[johnwk]

Supreme Court fiddles while our Presidency is being weakened and destroyed (Trump case)

.
What has become increasingly apparent in the case being discussed (USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024), is, the very fabric of our Presidency is under attack and being made susceptible to the whims and passions of political partisan opponents by ignoring the unique due process procedure thoughtfully placed in our Constitution to deal with a President who might violate his public trust and engage in acts thought to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

As confirmed by historical evidence during the making of our constitution, and with respect to a President who might violate their public trust and cause injuries to society itself, our founders rightfully concluded the first step to be taken was for the people, through their Representatives, to accuse and charge that President of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The next step in the unique due process procedure adopted to address charges lodged against the President by the people is to conduct a trial to determine guilt or innocence. And our wise founding fathers as a preponderance of the evidence confirms (e.g., see Federalist No 65) the United States Senate, and not our ordinary judicial system, is the proper venue to conduct such a trial.


Hamilton convincingly argued that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,”

Hamilton went on to note:

“The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”


And if by chance the President was indeed found guilty of the charges complained of by the people, not only would that president then be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust but would then be “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “ within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)



So, here we are today, with the very due process procedure agreed upon by the adoption of our Constitution being ignored, and in doing so, opening the door for our Presidency in future years to be exposed to the very uninformed and dangerous passions and prejudices of self-interested political actors feared of by our founders. Even our Supreme Court appears to have lost its spine, or has joined in on the attack on our Constitution, and is willing to be an accomplice in subverting the very intentions and beliefs under which the unique due process procedure was adopted to deal with those who violate a public trust.

.

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

 

[johnwk]

The $64,000 question in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939

.
.

With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

“This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the events of January 6, 2021. Trump sought a stay of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision affirming the district court’s rejection of Trump’s presidential immunity defenses.”

The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”(my emphasis)

Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/nx-s1-5002157/supreme-court-trump-immunity

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers — and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lacks immunity for unofficial acts. But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump's actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.

That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not reelected. If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Monday's decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.

Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.

Monday's Supreme Court decision came months after the court agreed to hear the case Feb. 28 and scheduled arguments for two months later. Court critics have noted that the justices could have considered the case as early as in December, when Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith unsuccessfully sought review of the same questions later put forward by Trump.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the way the court has handled other presidential power cases. In 1974 the justices ruled against President Nixon just 16 days after hearing oral arguments. The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case. And this year the court took less than a month to rule unanimously that states could not bar Trump from the ballot.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:

Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

I may seem absurd to you, but it didn't to the Court. The majority opinion rejected the argument that Trump had to be impeached first.

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16. The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.

Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President man ages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government. Page 32-34 of slip opinion.