Chief Justice John Roberts is giving prosecutors a week to respond to former President Donald Trump’s request to keep his federal criminal election-subversion trial on hold while he tries to persuade the Supreme Court to scuttle it entirely on the grounds of presidential immunity.
A brief docket entry from the court Tuesday morning said special counsel Jack Smith has until next Tuesday at 5 p.m. to address the emergency application Trump’s lawyers filed at the high court Monday.
I really was hoping the Court would just deny certiorari and be done with this crap. I guess not.
Why is this important, anyway? Here’s something at Talking Points Memo that isn’t getting enough attention — Josh Kovensky, Two Weeks of Chaos.
Donald Trump’s months-long effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election culminated on a single, now-infamous day: Jan. 6.
But there was an alternate scenario gamed out by Trump’s lawyers — one that would have expanded the hours of indecision caused by the Trump campaign’s efforts and stretched out the process for weeks, all the way until Jan. 20, 2021, the Constitution’s ironclad deadline for the transfer of power. If their scheme succeeded, these lawyers hoped, Joe Biden would never take office.
The details of this scheme are being revealed here for the first time. They are drawn from a trove of documents provided to Michigan prosecutors by Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, including thousands of pages of emails among Trump’s lawyers, some containing information that has never before been published.
The plan would have seen the Trump campaign pushing Republican lawmakers to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win not just on Jan. 6, but for days afterwards. GOP legislators would have feigned confusion over competing slates of electors, paralyzing Congress as the Trump campaign brought increasing pressure on the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the election in their favor.
To do this, Chesebro formulated various ways to invalidate the Electoral Count Act, the law laying out the procedures for Congress to certify the election on Jan. 6. Critically, the law places tight limits on how long individual lawmakers can debate disputed electoral votes — nullifying or inflating those limits, capped at five minutes per member and two hours total, could make Jan. 6 go on indefinitely.
Kovensky followed this with The Ideas Man: How Chesebro’s Most Radical Theories Entered Trump Campaign Planning for Pence and Jan. 6. And I see that this is a three-part (so far) series. The first installment is The Legal Coup.
While at TPM see also David Kurtz, Candidate Trump Keeps Doing Putin’s Bidding And No One Bats An Eye.
There are a lot of other good commentaries today to link to. In no particular order —
Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times, Trump Is Losing It. No paywall. Just read it.
Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Why I Am Now Deeply Worried for America. No paywall.
Greg Sargent, The New Republic, An Infuriating Poll Finding About Trump Should Galvanize Democrats
In other news: The Senate very early today passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Twenty-two Republicans voted with nearly all Democrats. The three Dems who voted against it were Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. They were protesting the $14 billion for Israel.
Here is the fun part: House Speaker Mike Johnson is already saying he won’t let the House vote on it because, get this, because it lacks the tougher border security measures the House asked for months ago. Um, dude, seriously? We did this already. There was such a bill a few days ago, and you let it be known the House wouldn’t pass it on orders from Donald Trump. Chuck Schumer says nope. This is the bill that’s going to the House. Pass it, or reject it and face the consequences.
Hopefully Roberts is just following protocol and they will refuse to hear the case after doj responds? I doubt it me thinks they will hear the whole thing, who knows im not encoraged they will do the right thing, hell they might even side with Stump, i wouldn't be suprised. Johnson's demands about the border be included is of course the peak of hypocricy but hey they have faux newsbreotbart and hate radio their voters never see that angle of the story.
With respect to the spending bill, I think it has a discharge petition going in the House with enough weight behind it to put it to a vote no matter what Johnson says. And let's pause briefly to reflect on what a discharge petition coming through suggests about Johnson's leadership.
Off topic…. Florida Court Rejects Challenges to Abortion Amendment (msn.com)
Hopefully the voters will vote for the ballot initiative, I'm sure the GQP will word it to confuse voters, that's all they (the fetus people) have left now.
“It seems to me like all of these things will need to be argued out in the political process … We aren’t given the power in the Constitution to impose such a restriction,” Justice Charles T. Canady said"
If only Roberts understood that concept!
Thanks for this link, Swami. Florida sure can do ballot initiatives. Now, about electing a governor and a school board, these are a problem.
I read that Miss Lindsey voted against the aid to Ukraine and Israel. Talk about hypocrisy that twit has been very vocal about urging aid for both countries for months, but Putin and Stump have spoken and Lindsey gets on his knees. I once read a story about Lindsey and the author described him as a pilot fish (The pilot fish congregates around large sharks where it eats ectoparasites on, and leftovers around, the host species). Back in the day McCain was the big fish , now it's Stump, Lindsey just needs someone he sees as powerful to suck on!
Miss Lindsey forever belies the idiotic myth that women shouldn't be in positions of power because they get hysterical under pressure.
In all future dictionaries, the word "hysteria/hysterical" forever onwards needs to have Miss Lindsey's picture next to it!
What a hysterical ninny!
BTW:
I forgot to add that the word "hypocrisy" ought to have a team picture of the RepubliKKKLAN Cult…
Sorry, the RepubliKKKLAN Party!*
*Now, however, unarguably, a cult – in every meaning of the word.
Gotta second Uncledad that SCOTUS is following protocol. There's nothing new in Trump's argument except possibly he's more direct and obvious that if he's tried for crimes committed in the last election it will hurt him in the next election. Nobody can say it out loud but if Trump did not know he is guilty, he'd be begging for a swift trial to clear his name. The "defense" screams Trump's guilt – the implication of guilt is embedded in the claim that Trump's not guilty because he can't commit a crime. Think about it! Trump's BEST defense after spending $50 million on lawyers is a Hail Mary to the USSC that he's royalty.
The Supremes have got to do a convincing "after due deliberation" thing. It went to the USSC on the last day. Roberts responded quickly, requesting the DOJ state their position to what Trump said to THEM. It was no different than what he said to Judge Chutkan or the three-judge appeals court. I suspect that every one of the Justices have followed every word of every submission, But they will treat it like it's brand-new. After they have read Trump's brief and the reply from Smith, they will invite one more response from Trump, I think. It's possible, but unlikely that the Justices will allow Smith a response to Trump. But only if something unique, novel, and unexpected comes from Team Trump in his rebuttal.
I suspect Jack Smith will respond on or before Friday. The USSC might only give Trump as much time as Smith needed – these briefs are supposed to get shorter each time and focused on a few critical legal points. Then the internal debate with the nine justices begins. Thomas and Alito will want to do Trump's bidding. (My guess.) They will go through the two previous decisions for something that might interest three more justices because they need five. IMO, three liberal justices don't need to hear any more. The whole argument is BS and isn't worthy of review. There's not a chance in HELL that five justices will reverse the clear meaning of the Constitution and a ton of precedent in order to bequeath to Trump royal status. Based on previous decisions, I think Roberts is already there for two reasons. One, he's aware a Trump presidency ends the USSC because Trump will ignore any adverse ruling. Second, the justices will catch more shit from MAGA if they rule against Trump than they will if they simply pass on the case without comment. So I think there's four there and they simply need the argument for one more justice and it's game over.
But I think they will take a month, not because there's any doubt but because they don't want to look like they were hasty. I think this is the pressure point that Roberts will be under – the majority of Roberts' allies will want to move quickly while those in the minority will want to drag it out. It's gonna look like they are considering taking the case and hearing arguments but I think they won't. If the USSC says "Thanks, but no thanks." by mid-March, that will be fast for them and fast enough to get this in court sometime in May.
Biden is linking Trump with Putin over NATO. This is a strong move that Trump could easily counter if Trump could bear to utter any criticism of Vlad. We shall see but I bet Trump can't do it. But Ukraine-Russia and Trump-Putin is where we want the conversation.
On NATO, Biden can probably shine in a public conversation. There needs to be some education on how well it has worked for decades. There needs to be some education on what Russia stands for on elections, corruption, and human rights, particularly people in non-traditional sexual relationships. Again, if Trump is going to embrace Putin, voters need to know what that says about where Trump would take US freedoms.
I've read somewhere that the Court of Appeals unofficially ran their ruling by the entire en banc 11th circuit of justices to insure that their ruling would hold up if challenged by Trump to an en banc appeal. And that word came back to the three judge panel that it was a sound ruling and any appeal would be denied. I agree with uncledad that Roberts is just extending the courtesy of protocol. I also agree with Doug that any ruling that gives Trump immunity would mean that the Supreme Court would render themselves powerless outside of Trump's will. I don't think they are going to do that.
A week is a very short time in the appellate world. And both sides should be given the opportunity to be heard.
I am not very familiar with Supreme Court procedure, but this doesn't seem surprising at all.