Tag Archives: Jack Smith

Supreme Court Sells Out to Trump in Insurrection Case

Leave a reply

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court denied Trump’s request to stay the judgment of the DC Circuit that his claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution be stayed, while still taking review of the case through a procedural maneuver suggested as a fall-back by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The Court’s schedule for briefing and argument of the case is ludicrous in light of what has gone before. The case has been briefed and argued to death in the lower courts, and thoroughly developed decisions rendered. There is no justification for a briefing and argument schedule taking the case to the week of April 22, 2024, almost two months further into the presidential election schedule.

Trump has until March 19, to file his brief, which will almost certainly be a mere reprise of arguments and citations already presented to and rejected by the DC District Court and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The Special Counsel is given three weeks (to respond, a period vastly longer that he is likely to require, given what has gone before, but a faster reply will not change the argument date. Oral argument will occur, if the schedule holds, a week after Trump’s reply brief.

Trump likely will find some excuse to whine about the schedule and seek to extend it.

The Court may then take weeks more, perhaps longer, to decide the case. The order is not signed and there is no indication that any justice dissented.

Unbelievable.

Humpty Dumpty Was President of U.S. 2017-2021

Leave a reply

Donald Trump, in one of his multitude of efforts through obfuscation and delay to avoid accountability for his many crimes against the nation and humanity, has stated what may be his most remarkable lie yet. In the litigation over whether he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot in 2024 due to his inciting the January 6 insurrection, Trump’s lawyers have declared that he never gave an oath to “support” the Constitution. https://tinyurl.com/3kdazbku

Here is text of the presidential swearing-in ceremony for Trump in 2017, and every other president:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, states that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Trump’s Colorado filing states:

The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully. Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office ‘under the United States,’ and President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States.

From many decades of law practice in sometimes fraught circumstances, I am conscious of the pressure on lawyers to produce arguments that can strain credulity. They usually do this because they have nothing else, and the client demands they fight with anything and everything. So, they throw some legal slop at the wall and hope some of it sticks. I learned early, however, that such tactics usually do more harm than good and rarely convince experienced judges and neutral juries that an extreme position, lacking any basis in reason or precedent, should be embraced.

Here we have the former president of the United States, through his attorneys, flatly disavowing his oath of office. His lawyers are arguing, in effect, that “preserve, protect and defend” are not synonyms of “support.” In short, Trump is telling the Supreme Court,

Yes, the world saw me swear on a bible that I would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution but that didn’t mean I support the Constitution. In fact, I don’t support the Constitution. I am opposed to the Constitution.

Now, imagine, if you can, that at his actual inauguration in 2017, Trump had placed his hand on the bible, Melania looking stricken behind him, and said to the world: “I decline to take the oath as prescribed. I don’t support the Constitution. I am opposed to the Constitution.” Imagine.

Trump’s lawyers are also arguing that the presidency is not an office “under the United States” and thus that the president is not an “officer of the United States,” as stated in the 14th Amendment, even though the president is the chief executive officer of the United States and is the repository of the “executive power” of the federal government as plainly stated in Clause 1 of Article II. By the way, this is the same Article II that Trump famously said conferred upon him the authority to “do whatever I want.” http://tinyurl.com/4jpuc2y9

The Trump position is right out of Alice in Wonderland:

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

Alice’s retort, you may recall, was:

The question is … whether you can make words mean different things.

Trump would say, yes, of course, I’m Donald Trump and I can say ‘yes’ and mean ‘no.’ I can bow down before foreign dictators while claiming that I courageously stood up to them. I can say something with complete seriousness and later claim I was joking if people don’t like what I said. I’m like the governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas who sings Side Step:

Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep

Now they see me, now they don’t

I’ve come and gone

And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step

Cut a little swath

And lead the people on!

Such foolishness may work in movies and childish fantasies but in the real world, Trump must be treated like an adult. He swore an oath before the world. That oath is prescribed by the Constitution. Trump may not be heard now to disavow his oath and its plain meaning. He is estopped, in the language of the law:

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine, a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before, or what has been legally established as true.[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel]

It is way past time that the courts brought the hammer down on Trump’s dissembling. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has taken a major step in that direction by seeking immediate Supreme Court review of Trump’s preposterous claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution because he was once President of the United States.

Trump’s legal strategy has always been predicated on delay, delay, and more delay. Smith, seeing the delay strategy at work again, is calling the question whether Trump can escape responsibility for his criminal conduct. Trump is asserting something akin to the divine right of kings. But there are no kings in this country. The fate of the nation hangs on the Supreme Court’s decision. The Humpty Dumpty defense must be rejected. If not, violence may result. In 1776 and again in 1787, we said, “no more kings.” It cannot be otherwise.

Closing Note:  It appears that the Judge in the DC case has stayed the proceedings until the Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for crimes committed while president is resolved by higher courts. While expedited briefing schedules have been established, it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will deny the government’s petition for certiorari and dump the case back to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That court may be independently looking at Trump’s appeal anyway. Chaos reigns. More time will pass, and Trump will avoid the consequences of his preposterous legal position yet again. If so, we will move another giant step toward autocracy and the death of American democracy.

I will have more to say about this as soon as I can get through the multitude of decisions and pleadings being filed almost every day. The irony is that by committing so many crimes in so many jurisdictions, Trump has managed to create a scenario that will allow some courts to accede to his delay tactics. I will never understand why the judiciary has not taken central control of this situation rather than letting Trump’s cadre of lawyers making ludicrous arguments play the courts against each other. But that seems to be where we are.

The Presumption of Innocence

Leave a reply

With all the Republican handwringing about Trump’s multiple indictments and efforts to interfere with the administration of justice (including defunding the Special Counsel’s office – to be covered in separate post), it may be useful to consider what the “presumption of innocence” means.

Some people appear to believe that the presumption of innocence has some meaning outside the courtroom and that a person cannot be “guilty” when “presumed innocent. That belief is wrong. The presumption is a legal process concept not found as such in the Constitution but implied by the right to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The practical result of those words is that the accused cannot be convicted, i.e., formally found “guilty” of the alleged crimes without a trial and process that complies with the Sixth Amendment and other applicable sections of the Constitution and laws. But that does not mean that the accused is “innocent.” It means that in court, the accused enjoys the protections associated with “fair trial” at the end of which a decision of “guilt” or “innocence” will be made. It means he hasn’t been found guilty yet. This may seem like a “dancing on the head of a pin” issue, but Trump’s acolytes make much of it and the media constantly repeat it.

Being “presumed innocent” doesn’t mean you are innocent. It means you haven’t yet been found guilty by the proper process. If you are not guilty, you cannot be kept in jail pending trial unless some limited conditions are met and appropriate, evidence-based findings are made. These include being a flight risk. Or a threat to witnesses.

So, Donald Trump may be “presumed innocent” but he is not “innocent.” No one, even his most ardent sycophantic idolizers, has argued that the facts alleged in the four criminal indictments against him are untrue. Nor could they make credible arguments to that effect. Instead, they deflect and distract with unproven and unprovable claims that the various governments that charged Trump have been “weaponized” for purposes of political revenge, or to keep Trump out of the 2024 race, or Trump shouldn’t be held accountable because others for whom no meaningful evidence of criminal conduct was ever brought forward have not been charged with crimes. Or or or or something anything, look a flying squirrel, look a UFO!

Trump’s only defense is delay. On the merits, on the facts, he is dead in the water. And yes, yes, he has the legal right to ask the state courts to remove the cases to federal court [all should be denied] and the legal right to ask that trial dates be put off to 2050 [denied].

Yes, Trump has us right where we want him. American justice is painfully slow, but Trump’s standard playbook is toast. The only real question is how long this is going to take.

One other thing. Various of Trump’s political allies are trying to have Jack Smith’s Special Counsel office defunded as a means of stopping the prosecution. In Georgia, efforts are under way to impeach or otherwise halt the prosecution by Fanni Willis. I believe all of these efforts constitute obstruction of justice, and it is past time for the governments involved to say so. Republicans in Congress have no business interfering with a criminal prosecution any more than they could pass a law saying that prior conduct of a particular individual, criminal at the time, was retroactively no longer criminal. The Republican Party has lost its claim to being the party of “law and order.”

Is Trump Disqualified?

Leave a reply

The New York Times reports that:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office.

https://tinyurl.com/yh38rjyd

Oh, Lordy, I wish they were right.

But are they?

The NYT article says:

The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

Upon reading that, my first thought was Groucho Marx’s infamous saying that, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” But I digress. I do not adhere to such absolutist thinking about most things, and I suspect there’s a club somewhere that I might want to join, though whether there is one that would have me is another question for another day.

Returning to my new-found idols (if and only if they’re right) in the Federalist Society, they summarize their conclusion this way:

Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.

Affirming what I and many others have been saying since at least January 6, 2021, the esteemed authors of a forthcoming law review article state there is:

“abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.

“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” ….

Abundant evidence. Yes. Unquestionably fair. Without a doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But is saying it enough? What about innocent until proven guilty, etc. Right to a fair trial. All that.

The relevant sections of the 14thAmendment to the Constitution state:

No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The central question is, I think, whether the provision is self-executing or requires a judicial finding that the person in question has engaged in insurrection, etc. The least relevant question is whether Congress would give Trump a pass. Two-thirds of “each House” means what it says (originalists are stuck with that) and that’s not happening.

According to the Times, the article concludes that:

essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”

It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

I’m fully down with that so far but the question remains, I think.

The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president.

“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.

In an interview, apparently, Professor Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and Yale and a founder of the Federalist Society, said those administrators must act:

“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.

Therein lies the rub. Republican secretaries of state, many of whom are abjectly committed to support Trump no matter what, cannot be assumed to perform the asserted duty, no matter how forcefully that obligation is confirmed by Federalist Society professors. Some enterprising journalist should immediately put the question to each of the fifty secretaries of state, starting tomorrow. What they say will not, of course, be binding but still would be good to know their answers in fashioning a way forward.

As much as I desperately want to believe that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the cynics among us (me) do not believe anything so simple could possibly work in the political world Trump has handed down to our country. Lawsuits are going to be necessary, complicated, I suggest, by the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith elected not to charge Trump with insurrection under the relevant statute:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [18 U.S. Code § 2383-enacted June 25, 1948]

Why Smith did not bring that charge has not been, and likely will never be, explained, but Trump will try to drive his denial truck through that gap and, typically, more litigation will ensue if anyone tries to disqualify him through legal action.

A final observation. I just read that Alan Dershowitz, ready to defend Trump’s criminality at every turn, has reportedly declared that the 14thAmendment applies only to “those who served the Confederacy during the Civil War.” Reported in the Daily Caller (where else?) but published only in the SmartNews app, apparently. The piece notes that the “the text does not authorize Congress—or any other body or individual—to impose the disqualification in the first place.” Further, the article claims, “It wasn’t intended as a general provision empowering one party to disqualify the leading candidate of the other party in any future elections.”

That’s an odd claim for an ultra-originalist to make. That fact, moreover, undermines Dershowitz’s argument. If no mechanism for applying the law was created, the most reasonable conclusion is that Congress thought it was self-actuating. And, if it were true that the law was only to apply to ex-Confederates, it would be most reasonable to expect that the statutory text would have been explicit to that effect.

The contrary position states that

it was fairly evident who participated in the Civil War on the part of the South. No formal mechanism was needed for making that obvious determination. If the disqualification had been intended as a general rule applicable to all future elections, it would have been essential to designate the appropriate decision maker, the procedures and the criteria for making so important a decision.

That argument ignores that Marbury v Madison was decided by the United States Supreme Court establishing the principle of judicial review, that the Constitution was indeed the supreme law of the land that Congress could not by itself change. While the article lists all kinds of mischief that might ensue without explicit mandates of who decides what, the reality, I suggest, is that the claimed disabilities are overcome by the fact that judicial review of all actions inconsistent with the plain intent of the statute would be available. As with many other laws in which judicial oversight is not expressly mentioned, the supremacy of federal law and the even greater supremacy of the Constitution are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Congress did not have to established a specific enforcement mechanism for the operative sections of the Amendment. The courts were available to adjudicate any conflicting claims.

Thus, the absence of an explicit provision for judicial review does not support the speculation that the courts “might regard as a political question” the issue of whether a candidate had engaged in insurrection. No reason exists to think of that as a political question beyond the courts’ purview or that “if the controversy were not resolved by the Supreme Court, there would be a constitutional crisis.” Such imaginings are the product of an overactive ultra-originalist imagination.

Dershowitz gives himself away in the ensuing argument that,

Interpreting this post-Civil War amendment as a general provision for disqualifying candidates who some people may believeparticipated in what they regard as an insurrection or rebellion—as distinguished from a protest or even a riot—would create yet another divisive weapon in our increasingly partisan war. It would be used by Republicans against candidates who may have supported (gave “aid or comfort” to) riots such as those that followed the killing of George Floyd or other violence-provoking events. [boldface added]

The Constitution articulated limited qualifications for presidential eligibility. Beyond those neutral criteria, the decision should be made by voters, who are free to consider the participation of a candidate in activities with which they disagree. Unless an amendment was clearly intended to further limit these qualifications, the voters are the ones to decide who is to be their president.

Quite clearly, Dershowitz is fine if “the voters” decide it’s acceptable to elect a criminal who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power and who has threatened violence and further insurrection if he is elected. That is not the argument of a “constitutionalist,” at least not the one that laid the foundation for the United States. No basis exists, I suggest, for interpreting the Constitution or any federal statute as permitting the overthrow of the government if a bare majority use the ballot box rather than armed revolt to accomplish it.

That said, I believe it is entirely appropriate for lawsuits to be instituted to present to the courts for adjudication the question whether January 6 was an unlawful insurrection and, if so, whether Donald Trump inspired, incited, and directed it. If yes, he’s out. Period.

Let’s get on with it. Somebody (ACLU?) sue to bar his candidacy for the presidency and let the future of our democracy be decided.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 2

Leave a reply

Let’s review what has happened most recently.

  • 6-8-23 Trump is indicted. Finally. Thirty-seven counts. Felonies. Trump is accused of harboring hundreds of classified documents dealing with, defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
  • Classified documents were stored in multiple unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago;
  • On at least two occasions, Trump showed classified documents to persons not cleared to see them;
  • Trump obstructed the grand jury investigation by:
  • suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • directing co-defendant Waltine Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;
  • suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;
  • providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and
  • causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced;
  • Trump was personally involved in causing boxes containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transportedfrom the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club;
  • Trump directed the move of some classified documents to non-secure locations at his Bedminster Club;
  • Despite public statements to the contrary, Trump was fully aware that he had not declassified the documents while he was president;
  • Trump and his co-defendant withheld key information from Trump’s attorneys regarding the location and number of document boxes at Mar-a-Lago;
  • Trump knowingly procured a false certification by one of his attorneys regarding the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago;
  • As a result, Trump was charged with:

Willful Retention of National Defense Information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § (e)

 Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k)

Withholding a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2

Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2

Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2

Scheme to Conceal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2

 False Statements and Representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2

 All the allegations are supported by documents, testimony, photographs, and recordings.

TRUMP’S “DEFENSES” [Or “What, Are You, Nuts?]

[Warning: Do not eat or drink while reading this next part]

The willful ignorance of Republican politicians brings to mind Sam Cooke’s anthem song with the perverse (in current circumstances) title of Wonderful World:

Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book

Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me, too
What a wonderful world this would be ….

One person who loves Trump is the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who just hours after the unsealing of Trump’s 37-count felony indictment threatened the U.S. Attorney General, stating that House Republicans “are not going to stand for” the criminal prosecution of the ex-president. McCarthy, in keeping with the observations above, claims Trump is being treated differently than others, even though no one in modern times has committed the treasonous acts for which the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No one.

The Republican idea of “equal justice” is to treat Trump better than everyone else. Trump had numerous chances to get true equal treatment; all he had to do was return the documents and, if, and it’s a massive ‘if,’ he had a claim to them, pursue it through legal channels. Instead, he chose self-help and then engaged in a coverup. By grossly misstating the legal processes by which the Trump indictment was issued, McCarthy proved he is just as dishonest as Trump himself, a believer in what Kellyanne Conway, acting as counselor to Trump, cynically called “alternative facts.”

McCarthy’s sycophancy is not peculiar to him. In his usual manner of double-talking between law, politics and delusion, Alan Dershowitz produced this preposterous standard for judging Trump’s conduct: “the Richard Nixon test.”https://tinyurl.com/5y6zz4yv (Fox Business. Where else?):

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.” “I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Translated to simple English, Dershowitz thinks the proper legal test for Trump’s document crimes is whether Republicans approve of his being indicted. Wow. How the mighty have lost their way. Dershowitz had more to say:

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge.

Dershowitz apparently believes that the reality and nature of Trump’s crimes is simply irrelevant to whether he should be president again.

Dershowitz seems to have forgotten about the long history of the Trump family’s foreign entanglements, including massive infusions of cash from Saudi Arabia. But I am for “equal justice” too. If there is evidence of corruption in the Biden family that relates to the president doing his job, bring it.  So far, nothing but phantasmagorical claims based on missing or criminally indicted “witnesses.” It looks a lot like the claims of election fraud that Trump and his cronies repeatedly asserted without evidence. Republicans are the reincarnation of the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

Meanwhile, otherwise responsible media continues to bemoan the fact that a former president is being charged. The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote on June 9 that,

No one should celebrate Thursday’s indictment of Donald Trump in a case involving classified documents improperly stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Something has gone deeply wrong when, in a historic first, federal prosecutors reach the point of filing criminal charges against a former and possibly future president. Yet, in this matter, the defendant appears to have left them little choice.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/]

On the contrary, all patriotic Americans should applaud the fact that “equal justice” means what it says and that one’s political status does not confer privileges to violate the law that applies to others. The Post finds the allegations against Trump “disturbing” as if they related to shoplifting a shirt at Macy’s. And USAToday continues to publish click-bait pieces like this one: Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents. Why aren’t Joe Biden and Mike Pence? https://tinyurl.com/5xv63mjh

Concerns have justifiably arisen about the bizarre fact that the Trump-appointed judge in the documents case is the same judge that was reversed in dramatic terms by the 11th Circuit for gross errors of law and bias toward Trump. Jack Smith is unlikely to tolerate much funny business from her but there are clearly risks in her overseeing a criminal trial like this, given her lack of experience and apparent lack of judgment. Time will tell.

Trump is in serious trouble as his standard stratagems of delay and obfuscation are, one by one, falling apart. He appears to be destined for trial in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and for new indictments related to the January 6 fake-electors scheme and the January 6 insurrection. These cannot come soon enough, particularly since, reports already indicate that Judge Cannon is falling all over herself to stall the case against Trump. https://tinyurl.com/yck42wbt  She should be removed from the case before it’s too late.

If fair-minded juries are chosen and the trials are fairly administered, Trump will surely be convicted of multiple felonies, along with, hopefully, many of his co-conspirators.

Trump will then go down in history – down being the correct word here – as what he is: the worst criminal ever to occupy the White House. He will join the legions of failed putative dictators and other men that fortune falsely anointed as “great men” but whose ignorance and greed undid them. Trump loves to do his form of “dance” at rallies to the YMCA song to show that he’s young, virile, and cool, but his real song should be Send in the Clowns to distract from the reality that his day of reckoning may finally, at long last, be approaching.

What Pence’s Subpoena Resistance Means

Leave a reply

Special Counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a Grand Jury investigating attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Pence has stated he will not testify, citing the Speech & Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). https://politi.co/3xw9GZs

That Clause states:

They [Members of Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Pence claims that because his involvement in the coup was limited to presiding over the Congress’s final tally of electoral votes and certification of Joe Biden’s victory, he was acting in a “legislative capacity” and thus cannot be questioned.

On its face there are a multitude of problems with Pence’s position. First is that he has insisted, correctly, that his acts on January 6 were purely ministerial and that he lacked any discretion under the Constitution and laws to evaluate the validity of state vote counts or other acts leading to the election certification. His job was to open envelopes and announce their contents. This alone raises fundamental doubts about the “legislative nature” of what was intended to be protected by the Speech & Debate Clause.

Second, even if his January 6 actions were covered to some extent by the Clause, he cannot justify total refusal to be questioned about other matters arising out of the January 6 coup attempt and subsequent insurrectionist activities by Trump and others of which Pence may have knowledge. His immunity claim sweeps too broadly. In fact, it seems unlikely Special Counsel is much interested in Pence’s non-discretionary acts on January 6. Rather, the investigation more likely seeks his knowledge about actions by Donald Trump and others supporting his coup/insurrection attempt to overturn the election. As far as I am aware, Mike Pence conducted no legislative activities about any of that, other than his non-discretionary overseeing of the final electoral count tally.

Thus, Pence cannot plausibly argue that “because I performed one legislative act that day, I am immune from disclosing any information I may have about other matters related to the insurrection that day.”

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that Pence’s conduct on January 6 was questionable constitutionally or otherwise. Except Donald Trump, of course, who want berserk when Pence refused to go along with the false attack on the election.

Politico reports that Pence “feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.” Maybe, but it’s more than coincidental that, as Politico also notes, Pence’s resistance ”will allow him to avoid being seen as cooperating with a probe that is politically damaging to Trump, who remains the leading figure in the Republican Party.”

I do not understand how “Trump’s months-long crusade to pressure his vice president to derail Biden’s win — which is central to Smith’s investigation — focused entirely on Pence’s [ministerial] duties as Senate president, which legal scholars say lends credence to Pence’s case.” Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor, supports the argument that Pence may be on to something by observing that “a lot of the action here took place in terms of arguments about how he should rule from the chair.”

But the “action” around this issue was generated by Trump, not by Pence, who consistently resisted the argument that he had any more authority/responsibility on January 6 than opening envelopes and announcing their contents. Such “acts,” even if judged “legislative,” were not likely what the framers had in mind in protecting the legislators from encroachment by the other two branches.

Roy Brownell, former counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that “Pence … could characterize his pre-Jan. 6 conversations with Trump and others as research into how he might rule on matters related to the Electoral College.” True, Pence could try that, but the courts are not bound by claims like that. Pence was researching anything and if he had been, it would certainly not have been by asking Donald Trump whose credentials as an expert on the Constitution are less than zero.

In any event, the question here is not whether some specific aspects of Pence’s conversations were privileged – he is refusing to testify at all, arguing that there is nothing the Special Counsel could legitimately ask him about his knowledge of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government. That, I suggest, is facially preposterous and inconsistent with extensive case law on the limitations of privilege assertions in all contexts.

As reported elsewhere by Politico,

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the South Carolina Republican’s [Senator Lindsey Graham] claim that he is constitutionally immune from such questioning. Though Graham may not be questioned about any conversations he had in support of his legislative activity, the panel ruled, prosecutors may question him about his “coordination” with the Trump campaign to arrange his calls with Georgia officials, as well as efforts to pressure those officials amid their ongoing audit of Georgia’s presidential election results.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene on Graham’s behalf.

We should also have regard for the literalist interpretation of the Constitution favored by “conservatives” and “originalists.” The Speech & Debate Clause refers expressly to “Senators and Representatives.” The Vice President is neither of those. The fact that he has limited, ministerial duties to perform in the legislative branch every four years does not make him one. He is there as the Vice President, conducting ministerial, non-discretionary acts involving no legislative work.

United Press International reports that Pence said at a campaign rally:

I’m going to fight the Biden DOJ’s subpoena for me to appear before the grand jury because I believe it’s unconstitutional, and it’s unprecedented. No vice president has ever been subject to a subpoena to testify about the president with whom they served. [https://bit.ly/3lC9Co9]

Unprecedented it may be, but no president has ever tried to overthrow the government and reinstall himself despite having lost the election. Arguing the lack of precedent just doesn’t work here.

At the end of the day, what Pence’s position comes down to is this: he is desperate to appease Trump’s loyalist political base and in fact supported Trump’s attempt to overturn the election while cleverly, but rightly, refusing to actively participate in the coup attempt. Pence wants it both ways – no responsibility for the insurrection but avoiding the appearance of attacking Trump, while simultaneously undermining Trump. He hopes Trump’s loyalists will overlook his refusal to play along on January 6 if he appears to defend Trump while not actually defending him.

Pence thinks Trump’s loyalists are a bunch of cultish dopes who will, when push time comes, choose him as Trump’s successor.

Pence is only slightly less a traitor than Trump. Special Counsel Smith is not going to fall for this nonsense and should vigorously contest Pence’s claim to immunity from subpoena by the Grand Jury.