It’s a bit ironic that, the day before the Supreme Court immunity hearing, Arizona issued iindictments of the Arizona fake electors and some of their national-level handlers — Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Mike Roman, Jenna Ellis, and Christina Bobb. Philip Bump at WaPo points out that Bobb was recently put in charge of the Trump campaign’s “election integrity division,” or maybe it’s the RNC’s election integrity division; it’s hard to tell.
It was either an odd or a fitting appointment, depending on how you look at it. Bobb wrote a book — “Stealing Your Vote: The Inside Story of the 2020 Election and What It Means for 2024” — elevating various debunked allegations about the election, particularly centered on Arizona, where she went to college. Putting Bobb in charge of “election integrity” was a bit like putting the guy who runs the Loch Ness souvenir shop in charge of finding the monster.
At this point, it’s obvious that there was a very real effort coordinated by Trump’s people to throw to use the slates of fake electors to stop Joe Biden from being declared 46th President of the United States on January 6. And then, either by the legislatures of the “contested” states or in the U.S. House of Representatives, Donald Trump would be declared the winner of the election instead. The amount of public evidence for this is overwhelming. This is much worse than Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy.
Even so, as near as I can tell from following live commentary, the conservative justices on the SCOTUS are diddling around and will probably cause the J6 trial to be delayed until after the election. The verdict at WaPo:
Much of the discussion has focused on which allegations in the indictment involve potentially official acts, which means the high court’s ruling is likely to create more work for the lower courts before trial proceedings can restart.
This could be wrong, but I’m betting it’s not.
Today in the Manhattan trial, David Pecker clearly said that Trump’s concerns about his extramarital activities were clearly about the election, not his personal life. It seems to me that the prosecution has well established that Trump and Pecker were working together on behalf of his campaign.
The defense has begun x-examination of Pecker. They're establishing the the Enquirer was running interference for different celebrities, not just Trump. See where this is going? They didn't charge Arnold Schwarzenegger for unflattering stories they killed for him. So obviously, this is all political and Trump is not guilty. This is called a half-truth. The difference between killing stories for a celebrity and killing a story for Trump on the eve of an election IS the way the absence of the story can skew the results of the election. The voters are the victim of the fraud, where Arnie's infidelity did not affect the crucial decision of who will lead the nation.
I'm pleased that we have an above-average jury in terms of education because I hope they are less inclined to be swayed by sloppy thinking. Thump was NOT charged with infidelity – he's charged with concealing an attempt to affect the outcome of an election through business fraud.
By the time three witnesses testify that the Stormy Danials payoff was to prevent bad publicity in the weeks before the election, the issue should be clear to the jury. I've read that had Trump admitted to the infidelity and made it about protecting his family from the fallout, he might have beaten the felony charge. Trump's bald-faced claim that he's done nothing wrong is an insult to the intelligence of the jury. When Trump's lawyer says in summation, "Even if you believe Trump had an affair and paid to hide it from his wife, that's not a crime.", the jury will balk. Which set of lies are you asking us to swallow?
Judge Merchan scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, next week at 2:30 in the afternoon on Trump's violation of the gag order. That torpedos two events scheduled for Tuesday. A fine of 1K per offense is chump change to the Don. How much advance money for these events did the judge flush down the toilet? And don't tell me judges don't do it. I had to appear at a half-dozen status hearings in DC at my own expense where my presence was not needed. But the judge is hitting Trump with a time penalty. There's the implicit promise that the judge will investigate every purported violation every week one happens every Wednesday at the time most inconvenient to Defendant Trump.
"torpedoes two events scheduled for Wednesday…"
I'll go on the record to state that any and all Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, should absolutely be subject to criminal prosecution provided that the grand jury process that applies to everyone else in this country is followed to arrive at an indictment, and that this should apply to both "official" and "private" acts. The constraint that some justices worry will hamper a president in doing his job is a feature, not a bug. Since 1943, Presidents have consulted the White House Counsel to get a sense of where the legal guardrails are.
Cleaning up the Supreme Court is a longer term project, but it's coming into view. When 2024's Blue Wave re-elects Biden and a Democratic Congress, all eyes will turn to the corrupt Supreme Court. Trump is like the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz – "I'm melting…!" He is going to pull down the Republican party.
You didn't mention the ridiculous positions the male Supreme Court justices were taking in hearing a case involving Idaho's total abortion ban, earlier this week.
And so, be patient. Change is coming. Be cheered by the victories in the state courts. Four of them – Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada – have indicted Republicans involved in the fake electors scheme.
And so, be patient. Change is coming
That's the thought that I hold on to, but seeing how deep the rot that Trump has injected into our system of governance makes it extremely difficult to be at peace with that thought.
The testosterone caucus at the USSC refused to actually engage in any discussion about the actual case being appealed and the facts and law involved. Each time Smith's lawyer would bring up the actual case at hand they would literally say 'we don't want to talk about that' and then go on long rants about some hypothetical future scenario where Presidents are being charged, willy-nilly, by rogue prosecutors out for political revenge.
It was actually quite frightening. They all know they can't admit there is not immunity so they are going out of their way to invent shit that will never happen.
Bizarre
Once upon a time I recall a republican political operative instructing a group of young republicans on how to act. He began by collecting whatever position papers and supporting information they brought to the meeting and replacing it with tabloids. I cannot recall who this was. The best guess I have is Lee Atwater. Does this ring a bell to anyone? Is this documented somewhere?
The SCOTUS seems to have circled its wagons around Jini Thomas.
The Supreme Court says that criminal presidents shouls be entitle to 'peaceful retirements'. The same kind of peaceful retirement that Sammy the Bull Gravano is enjoying.
This has little to do with Ginni Thomas and everything to do with Donald Trump.
Congress must make it clear that any Supreme Court justice who believes a president should have some form of immunity not hitherto recognized will face immediate impeachment.
I agree with you in spirit, but given the current membership of Congress, there’s no way that’s going to happen. Democrats need a majority in the House and a bigger majority in the Senate, as removal from office requires a two-third majority vote in the Senate. Otherwise it’s a toothless impeachment.