Update: No surprise here! The MAGA court ruled today that Colorado must put the Ochre Menace back on the ballot since 14th Amendment Section 3 must be enforced by Congress alone. The prospect of that happening is statistically zero. The majority relied on the language in Section 5 stating that Congress shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment; three liberal justices concurred in the result. Notably the Court did not disturb the finding by the Colorado Supreme Court that Don Legit is an insurrectionist.
What some learned observers see is an issue that the DC Appeals did not address in their opinion. The Court may want to provide guidance to lower courts on the distinction between former and current presidents, and official and unofficial acts when it comes to immunity from criminal prosecution. Potentially, the Court could find that a former president is not entitled to immunity for either type of act. And that a president, either current or former, can be prosecuted for criminal acts considered unofficial, such as interference in an electoral vote count for which a president has no official role under the Constitution. Such a conclusion, handed down with alacrity after April 22nd, would send the case back to Judge Chutkin for trial, which could be accomplished before the November election. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but it is faint.
{29.02.24}Exposing the majority's tilt towards MAGA, the Supremes agreed to hear Dear Leader's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution and kept the stay of the trial court proceedings in place. The Court scheduled April 22nd for oral arguments. The decision required at least four votes in favor. The DC Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously against his claim. Many Court watchers expected the Court to let that opinion stand given its "masterful" treatment of the law. Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor, said in his brief that accepting Trump's radical immunity claim, "would upend understandings about presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law", especially in a case where a president sought to subvert the democratic transfer of power by disenfranchising millions of voters.
Delineating the contours of alleged presidential criminal immunity is a complicated question and unnecessary to decide this case. No one in their right mind thinks a president of a republic has the right to foment his own coup. What is clear is that this Court has no interest in expediting its process to obtain a jury verdict before the vote. Thus the American people will be deprived of an answer to this critical question: is Trump guilty of subverting our democracy? The Court said that it wanted to consider whether there is criminal immunity for "official acts" of a former president, leaving open the possibility that Trump's subversion of the democratic process falls outside the perimeter of "official acts". But the Court's formulation of such a broad question for review is disturbing. Of course, Trumpilini claims that every thing he did or did not do while in office was an official act. Parsing which acts could reasonably be described as official would be time consuming to say the least.
Their decision has de facto allowed Trumpilini to win his years' long campaign to run any prosecution for wrong doing in office head-on into the election of 2024. After winning Michigan's primary easily, he is on course to the Repugnant Party nomination. Any trial occurring during the presidential election campaign is unlikely. Even the New York criminal prosecution for election fraud scheduled to begin in March will be tied up in interlocutory appeals of a gag order request by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to protect witnesses and court personnel. The granting of a Supreme Court appeal in the federal insurrection case exposes the deplorable extent to which politics plays a significant role in the US justice system, and how helpless it is when opposed by a legal tactician and "professional litigant" with funds. His campaign claims of being smeared in a political "witch hunt" may now proceed uncontradicted by a jury verdict based on facts. Pundits make fun of his in-court legal representation, but his attorneys have effectively hog-tied multiple efforts to hold him legally accountable for his actions before the November election.
On a positive note in Georgia, defense counsel failed to provide any evidence that DA Willis benefited from the prosecution of the Ochre Menace despite grilling witnesses about when her affair with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade began. Wade's divorce attorney had a conspicuous lack of memory on the stand about this question. Apparently the defense was attempting to show Willis lied under oath, allegedly disqualifying her for an appearance of impropriety. Willis and Wade both testified their sexual liaison did not begin until after Wade began working in her office. Regardless, there was no showing she benefited financially from hiring Wade, and therefore no conflict of interest. Nota bene: Judge McAfee faces a retention vote in November.
In New York, Trump counsel filed for emergency relief from the $454 million dollar judgment handed down by Justice Engoron. Trumpilini is apparently unable to raise the necessary 120% appeal bond on his own, but a state appeals justice did allow him to find loans in New York pending a hearing by the full appeals panel. Several non-bank lenders may be willing to help the "King of Debt" including billionaire political contributors. Once again, 'Tiny' is playing for time. He may have access to $4 billion in new money in March if he is allowed by other stockholders to sell or hypothecate 78 million shares in his Truth Social internet platform. He has thirty days from the date of judgement entry (02/23/2024) to raise the bond money, otherwise execution on the judgments may begin.
 |
| credit: A. Telnaes, Washington Post Wackydoodle sez, But we want to hear about Fani's love life! |