First off, T**** is full of shit. He was trying to take credit for it weeks after the fact. Second, the cops who killed Reinoehl were mostly locals who had been deputized by the Marshals. Mostly county sherrif deputies, some state troopers, and one or two US Marshals. Thirdly, Lacey Washington is two hours from Portland, not “half a state away.”
7 Likes
This feels like a really weak argument with all kinds or false underlying assumptions that must be accepted first. While the lawyer said it, I don’t believe for a minute any of the judges are thinking it. The lawyer said all kinds of nonsense.
It assumes that campaign actions are really official actions of the office, to make them equivalent to border policy decisions. It assumes that preventing the certification is a policy option available to the president. It assumes that Biden is making border decisions outside the policy options he is legally allowed to make. Which if true, that Biden was making border decisions beyond the scope of decisions he’s allowed to make, then prosecution should already be an option. For instance if he created a policy to funnel guns to uncontrolled private militias and told them to “patrol” the border while he looked the other way. A decision that would clearly be outside the options available to the president.
If someone goes to the cafeteria and can pick from a burger or pasta. Trying to indict them for picking the pasta isn’t the same as indicting them if they destroy the cash register.
5 Likes
I think the reasoning was if done in an official capacity, there’s a lot of people around the world - say plenty of people whose family were attending weddings in Pakistan - who have legit reason to complain that a US president like Obama sanctioned murder in the course of their official duties. Which, we clearly have had. The counter was that Trump’s conduct was not an official act. But the legal argument (per Emptywheel) seems to have gone in a different direction toward a concept of ministerial actions.
4 Likes
When Russia moved tanks across the Ukrainian border, I had hoped that this new reality would kill off the Republican tendency to analogize immigration with invasion. But the right wing republicans stuck to their script.
So, of course Biden’s policies can be analogized to actual crimes. Reality must be reinterpreted to fit the existing imagination.
6 Likes
It’s not even established law that a president is immune from indictment and prosecution while still president for actions outside of their official duties.
11 Likes
Just remember only guilty people seek immunity or pardons
4 Likes
The stuff that had logic in it when I was drunk? I don’t think you’re making a ton of sense. I think sensible would more… sensible?
I’m confused.
1 Like
Also, unless you cop the Alford Plea, you are admitting guilt.
1 Like
Again, about what specifically? You could quote something that is unclear, because now you’re just saying NOTHING I’m saying made sense, when it seemed to make sense to the person I was conversing with, even if they disagreed with me… I’m happy to clarify, but “you’re just not making sense” isn’t anything I can clarify, I’m afraid.
5 Likes
I would suggest re-reading the exchange, because it was pretty clear what was being asked and answered. I’m really not sure where your confusion comes from.
8 Likes
Are you sensible now, or just drunk again?
Because like, we’re confused.
6 Likes
Which would never happen, since anyone proposing impeachment [much less actually voting to impeach] would instantly become a ‘political rival’ and subject to assasination.
Same goes for anyone proposing conviction in the Senate…
And Lord Dampnut wouldn’t even need Seal Team 6 to carry out his desires.
EDIT: tyop
5 Likes
He uses Meal Team 6
5 Likes
We should do something. Anyone got s’mores?
3 Likes
Mentioned largely because using Seal Team 6 would make the assassination official and/or ministerial. “Who will rid me of this”contains that certain element of deniability.
2 Likes
It’s such a laughably stupid argument. Impeachment is a quasi-legal process. It’s not criminal and it’s not really civil either. It’s a political process, the “due process” aspects are made up on the fly by whoever is in power, you have no jury of your peers, no real sixth amendment protections, and subpoenas basically mean nothing. I’m sure his attorneys know just how stupid of an argument this is, but it’s all performative anyway.
8 Likes
I quite enjoyed* the suggestion made in the Public Notice newsletter today, which is about amicus briefs and how the Supreme Court has been known to adopt arguments from them when they need to, ahem, dodge certain questions.
And the sheer brazenness of one in particular which contends that the whole thing is moot anyway because Smith was not eligible to be appointed a Special Counsel (a) because he was a private citizen and (b) because only the President can appoint one (and Smith was appointed by the AG.)
So the extremist justices could take this excuse to avoid ruling on the actual issue, and instead say “sorry, it’s not a legal process, so start all over again, thanks.”
(This is very, very similar to the tactic seemingly being used in Georgia to attempt to disqualify Fannie Willis and thus neuter that case as well. And, of course, they don’t need to do that in the stolen documents case because the judge is already all in on delay.)
Again, it’s hard not to admire the chutzpah being used here, but only in the sense of wondering why such smart people are wasting their time like this (yeah, I know, it’s because they are being paid so very, very well.)
*for certain definitions of the word “enjoyed” that probably veer somewhat into masochism.
Not necessarily, as to immunity. In civil cases immunity doctrine allows government employees to do their jobs without having to contend with groundless lawsuits by private citizens with an axe to grind. Without immunity I could see the MAGA mob not contenting themselves with overwhelming public records requests to undermine the election departments, and graduating to civil suits funded by Thiel-types.
I can’t speak as to criminal cases, but I would imagine most defendants wouldn’t try it because it’s a stupid defense. Also it appears that there is little precedent for the doctrine, which is why we are going back to Nixon to rule on Trump. Possibly only those at the very top have enough power to realistically assert immunity, and even then it seems to be couched as personal (executive) immunity rather than governmental immunity. (ETA: thus, the Nixon and Trump cases prove your point exactly)
Seeking a pardon, now . . . If only every reporter encountering Andy Biggs would ask him why he was seeking a pardon.
I haven’t paid much attention to the current debate, as I don’t see the Supremes overturning the DC Circuit. I am worried they will work up enough votes to grant cert so that Thomas and Alito can publish batshit dissents in the hope they will become majority precedent in 20 years.
4 Likes
