TANGERINE IMPERIALISTS, DECISION FOR THE AGES (OR AGED?), FLAGS FLY FOR REVENGE

Well, well…it looks as though His MAGAness was right about his innocence all along, and that he has the right to be a criminal, borne out by the US Supreme Court decision released last Monday. Does the new Imperial Presidency, supported by the new Imperial High Court apply to President Biden as well, or does he have to abide by the law as we ordinary citizens must do? The Court could have, and should have, decided on this case in December (only agreeing to take the case in late February)…or at least shortly after that acceptance, as the courts demonstrated in 16 days when the Nixon/Watergate tapes scandal erupted. This very court ruled that Trump’s name should remain on the Colorado primary ballot in less than a month! Constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence Tribe, accused the Court of dragging its feet, saying, “It’s obvious that the Court has DELIBERATELY delayed everything. It could easily have issued a ruling much sooner.” Special Counsel Jack Smith brought the four-count indictment against Trump almost a year ago, accusing the former president of conspiring to derail the 2020 Biden victory by preventing Congress from verifying the totals from the state Electors.

In December, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges on ground of absolute presidential immunity in his argument that any actions taken while in office protects him from prosecution, and that the House of Representatives must impeach, and the Senate must convict a former president before criminal prosecution is initiated. Trump’s claim was rejected by the DC Circuit Court in February, with Chutkan delaying the scheduled March 2024 trial date until the Trump argument wended its way through the court system. Trump asked the Supremes to weigh in and offer their “thoughtful consideration.” We now see that the ‘consideration’ wasn’t very ‘thoughtful’ as they delayed release of a decision for four months, waiting until the last day of the court session to rule on a decision that was, in reality, probably decided six months ago by the majority of six MAGA-leaning judges. James Sample, a Hofstra University constitutional law professor believes there was “no legal necessity” for the High Court to accept this case in the first place, pointing to Trump’s “dangerous” arguments. Sample argues, “When you compare the Supreme Court’s handling of similarly urgent presidential matters in the past, including Watergate…, and certainly Bush v Gore, the delay that has occurred here is intentional, and it is destructive of our democratic process. The DC Circuit’s decision was correct on the merits, the Supreme Court has effectively interfered in the political process for no reason whatsoever other than for the purpose of interfering.”

Clair Wofford, poli sci professor at the College of Charleston, said it’s “certainly fair” to criticize the court for not taking up the case sooner, adding, “If you wanted, there are lots of people you could hold responsible for how long this is taking.” She references Attorney General Merrick Garland, who waited until November 2022 to appoint Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the FBI’s hesitancy of a year before investigating the J6 riot. “If you want something to be reasonable and rational and thoughtful and ordered, it doesn’t happen quickly,” Wofford stated. So, in it’s tardy ruling last week, The Supremes ruled that our Tangerine Darth PaidHer can be tried for any of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss that were not in an official presidential capacity…too late for a trial to be completed before election day. Both Wofford and Tribe agree that Jack Smith can rewrite the indictment against Trump to include things that Trump’s lawyers admit were private, narrowing the case to the fake elector scheme. Tribe says, “No one doubts that that’s outside the president’s powers, that he supported the filing of false allegations of election fraud, that he signed verifications in court filings knowing that they were false.” He adds that Smith could proceed with trial 88 days from the decision, time to which Trump and his defense team are entitled for trial prep. Smith’s narrowing the case might allow for a trial before the election, but it wouldn’t include all the crimes committed leading up to and including January 6, the only advantage being that Trump could be partially exposed for his criminality to voters. One hitch might be that AG Garland will determine that with the election being eminent, he will not authorize holding a trial, a decision that Tribe warns against since a winning candidate Trump will appoint a compliant attorney general who will simply waive all charges.

Writing for the 6-3 court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts says, “The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the majority’s decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” She argues that the Supremes gave the former president “all the immunity he asked for and more. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” The Chief Justice downplayed the dissenters, saying, “As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today – they conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General , and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.” Of the six conservative justices, half were appointed by Trump, and he was quick to jump on Truth Social, calling the ruling “A BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

Roberts agrees that presidents are not above the law, but says, “…under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” Former Justice Department attorney, David Becker, called the Supreme’s decision “deeply disturbing” and “really striking” for what it would allow a president to do in office and remain unchallenged criminally, such as immunity from interactions with an attorney general who might endeavor to change election results or kill a political opponent. “The way I read this opinion is it could be a road map for (presidents) seeking to stay in power. It could put into question whether or not future peaceful transfers of power occur.” Robert Mintz of McCarter & English, said the decision created more heat than light, and, “Rather than finding either a clear immunity or no immunity for alleged criminal conduct, this new standard will unquestionably lead to protracted hearings and further appeals as the lower courts have to now grapple with the question of which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts.”

Presidential criminal immunity is something the framers of our Constitution didn’t consider, nor could they have conceived of such a clause for inclusion, after having rejected the toxic rule of a royal sovereign. But now it seems we must crown King Donald. Previous courts had ruled that presidents are immune from civil lawsuits for official actions taken while president though not from lawsuits tied to their behavior, but after the three judges of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals discounted the Trump claim of absolute immunity, the Supreme Court felt a need to step in to examine whether or not there are barriers to any criminal charges against a president. Though it had to make a ruling on the Trump appeal, rather than make a decision for the ages, it mutilated any rationale that a responsible court could have accomplished by cherry-picking to satisfy the MAGA swamp. Indeed, Justice Neil Gorsuch said as they took up the case, “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” with Justice Kavanaugh joining in that the justices should be focused on how their decision would affect future presidents…the “here and now of this case,” as he said. Sorry guys, but you missed the mark by a bunch since you no longer share OUR values, but those of MAGA! Guaranteed to have smiles on their faces are justice’s wives, the flag-flying Martha Ann Alito, and ‘Ginni-Stop-the-Steal’ Thomas, who undoubtedly pillow-talked and conspired with their respective spouses in their decisions.

Clarence Thomas questions whether Jack Smith is a legitimate prosecutor, by saying, “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.” Instigating another Supreme Court decision, eh Clarence? And since the justices left it to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act versus an unofficial act, this must be seen as a tactical victory for The Donald, since it fits right in with his strategy of delay-delay-delay, as he attempts to exhaust prosecutors and the courts with his tactics. As Steve Schmidt tells us in The Warning, “Scumbaggery is his rocket fuel, and all you need is anger, rage, and stupidity if you want to advance politically and advance Trump’s scumbaggery!” It’s now easy to conclude that the Court’s ruling have validated Trump’s ideas of “retribution” against his enemies should he return to the Oval Office, especially against Joe Biden and the Democrats who he charges with attempting to sidetrack his candidacy in acts of political persecution…for which he has no proof…because “I said so!”

Political revenge may need to be meted out, as Trump said to Dr. Phil, “Well, revenge does take time, I will say that, and sometimes revenge can be justified, Phil, I have to be honest. Sometimes it can.” He continues to bring up possible retribution in his interviews, or at his campaign rallies. Trump’s White House attorney, Ty Cobb, says, “I think there should be concern. From a 30,000-foot view, what I see is Trump angrier now than he was before he was convicted.” In an interview on Fox, Trump told Sean Hannity that critics were wrong in saying that he will use his possible return to the White House for revenge, but the next minute found him to be laying out the opportunities. “Look, when this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them. And it’s easy because it’s Joe Biden, and you see all the criminality, all the money that’s going into the family and him, all of his money from China, from Russia, from Ukraine.” Both Hannity and Dr. Phil tried to dissuade him from speaking of retribution, that it serves no purpose and will not help the country, but on Newsmax, Trump went so far as to mention the possibility of imprisonment for his political opposites if he has the opportunity, also suggesting that the public would reach a “breaking point” if he is sentenced to jail time or house arrest at his July 11 sentencing. In 2020, Trump criticized his attorney general, William Barr, for not arresting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for their “illegal activity” tied to Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation, as he continues to claim this is being done on behalf of his base. “I know a lot of Republicans who want retribution. They want to do that. We’re going to see what happens.”

Ty Cobb once said that he believes the nation’s institutions would hold the line if Trump attempted to delve into what would clearly be political revenge, nevertheless fraught with peril. After the Supreme Court ruling, his opinion today would be interesting to hear, since he felt that the checks and balances would resist these attempts, and that it would be difficult finding people to carry out his demands. Raise your hand if you think Ty should take another look! For instance, revenge-seeking Trump supporters had their hackles raised when a federal judge ordered former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to prison after the Supreme Court turned down a hearing on his appeal to delay his four-month term. True to form, Bannon in his anger issued his own threats. “Don’t pray for me. Pray for my enemies. They’re the ones who need it,” he barked. In defense of Bannon, Trump posted on Truth Social that members of the J6 Committee should be indicted, writing, “INDICT THE UNSELECT J6 COMMITTEE FOR ILLEGALLY DELETING AND DESTROYING ALL OF THEIR ‘FINDING!’” Caution is advised after Trump shared a post…“Haul Out the Guillotine!”

The political world is still roiled by President Biden’s poor showing at the so-called CNN ‘debate’ last week, with Democrats far and wide making their views known about the candidate’s future. Polls are in flux for whatever that may be worth, but it seems that the rank-and-file are still on board with continuance, and a family confab over the weekend seems to suggest support for his staying the course. Historian Allan Lichtman of American University, who has correctly predicted the results of nine of the last ten presidential elections, argues that replacing Biden on the ticket would cost his party the 2024 election. Post-debate concerns of Biden’s age and ability don’t seem to sway Lichtman, who says, “It’s a huge mistake. They’re not doctors. They don’t know whether Biden is physically capable of carrying out a second term or not. This is foolhardy nonsense.” Lichtman uses a series of 13 historical factors or “keys” in his election predictions, missing only the race in 2020, out of the last fifty years. His system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality, making it imperative that the incumbent party maintain at least seven out of the thirteen to retain the White House. The state of the economy and the presence of third-party candidates factor into his determination, but debate performance is not a determinate of election outcome…pointing to Ronald Reagan who captured 49 states in spite of poor debate performance and age considerations. Lichtman considers Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as a president. “Debate performances can be overcome, yet at the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw him under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness!” However, it must be pointed out that he has not made his final prediction for November’s contest.

Final thoughts, with thanks to the Scots and Luckovich: Trump has all the wit, charm, and intelligence of a rectal thermometer. Something the Scots would call a “cockwomble”…a person, usually male of course, prone to making outrageously stupid statements and/or exhibiting inappropriate behavior while generally having a very high opinion of their own wisdom and importance. And recapping a Mike Luckovich cartoon with Trump sitting across from a fortune teller and her crystal ball, she says, “In your future, I see corruption, vengeance, dictatorship, internment, deportation…” A pleased Trump interrupts with, “So far, so good…”