Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

How should prosecutors+courts respond to Trump's promise of a "bloodbath" if he loses the election?
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 17, 2024

Donald Trump is on pretrial release in four felony cases. Donald Trump used inflammatory rhetoric to inspire and incite an attack on the US Capitol on January 6 to try to retain power. Now, Trump has ratcheted up his violent rhetoric, promising a "bloodbath" if he is not reelected.

In the criminal justice system, the law provides that if someone on pretrial release poses a danger to even a single person in the community, they should be revoked on release and detained pending trial.

Will prosecutors, the courts and the institutions of government receive Trump's latest violent rhetoric - signaling to his supporters that he expects them to respond with violence if he loses - with a shrug? Or will they protect the American people by applying the law as it is intended to be applied and detain him pending trial?



Transcript

well friends Donald Trump is now on
record as promising a
bloodbath if he's not
reelected how should the criminal
justice system
respond let's talk about that because
Justice
matters
hey all Glenn kersner here so friends
can we talk about Donald Trump's recent
bloodbath
comments and the
implications of a defendant who is on
pre-trial release in four felony
cases promising that the country will
experience a blood bath if he doesn't
get what he
wants start with the new reporting this
from Rolling Stone headline Trump says
there will be a blood bath and elections
will end if he isn't
reelected and that article begins Donald
Trump appeared at a rally hosted by
Super PAC Buckeye values in Dayton Ohio
on Saturday supporting Bernie Marino the
Senate candidate vying for the GOP
Primary who Trump endorsed
of course it would not be a trump rally
without him spouting off about the
election he lost being rigged and
talking in near apocalyptic terms should
he not be reelected this year quote now
if I don't get elected it's going to be
a bloodbath for the whole that's going
to be the least of it it's going to be a
bloodbath for the country that'll be the
least of it close quote he warned later
he went as far as ominously implying
that voting as we know it won't exist if
he loses quote I don't think you're
going to have another election in this
country if we don't win this election
close quote Trump said now friends let
me Circle back to the bloodbath comment
because Trump tried to walk it back
later saying he was really talking about
what would happen to the Auto industry
if he wasn't elected but
his words belly that indeed they
contradict that BS walk back after he
kind of yammered and slurred his way
through something about the Auto
industry he then pivoted and let's go to
his words again he said if I don't get
elected it's going to be a bloodbath for
the whole that's going to be the least
of it it's going to be a bloodbath for
the country that'll be the least of it
so when he was talking about the blood
bath for the country that would result
if he wasn't elected when he said
that'll be the least of it he was
setting aside his yammering about the
Auto industry he pivoted he's like uh
the auto stuff that'll be the least of
it if I'm Not Elected there will be a
blood
bath what was he doing there
friends remember proud boys stand
by right now it's it will be a blood
bath there will be a blood bath for the
country do you all hear me am I sending
the signal clearly enough do what I say
there will be a blood bath this is no
different than come to DC on January 6th
will be
wild if you don't fight like hell you
won't have a country anymore stand by
there will be a blood
bath you hear my command
magga this from a man who is on
pre-trial release in four felony cases
two Federal and two
State you know what the law provides
friends you probably do if you've
watched any of my Justice matter matters
videos over the past 6 months or a year
the law provides that if somebody is in
a pre-trial status in a felony case and
that person poses a risk to the
community or even one person in the
community that person is to be detained
pending trial that person should be
revoked on release and should sit his
big orange butt in a jail cell pending
trial to neutralize the threat he is a
threat to everyone in the United States
of America he is a threat to democracy
he launched an attack on January 6th
against our democracy and it turned out
to be a deadly attack and he launched it
with far less inflammatory language than
he just used at the rally on
Saturday there will be a bloodbath in
this country country do you understand
me that's what he just said he's
actually ratcheted up the recklessness
and the violence of his
rhetoric and he's on pre-trial release
in four felony
cases will the criminal justice system
RIT large just receive this
latest deadly threat with a
yawn or will they apply the law as it
was intended to be applied if somebody
poses a danger to the community to even
one person in the
community they are to be detained
pending trial can you imagine friends if
somebody was on pre-trial release in
let's say a homicide case and while on
pre-trial release that person said if I
don't get what I want there's going to
be a blood
bath do you know how quickly that person
would be revoked on pre-trial released
release and put in pre-trial
detention as the law
provides the law needs to be prodded
into
wakefulness you know on the danger
presented by Donald Trump I don't care
if he's a former president I don't care
if he's a candidate he shouldn't be
allowed to endanger our nation and her
people and our democracy
with this kind of violence violence
inducing rhetoric more Reckless than his
rhetoric on January 6th this is
institutional
insanity if the institutions of
government just receive this with a
shrug I mean do what the law
provides revoke Donald Trump on release
detain him pending trial and for God's
sakes let our country begin to move
forward
again because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
[Music]
tomorrow
[Music]

****************************

David Corn slams Trump's claim of a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses presidential election
by MSNBC
Mar 17, 2024 #Trump #Politics #2024Election

In a campaign speech, Donald Trump says there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses. David Corn joins The Weekend to react to the former President’s comments.



[b]Transcript[/b[

>>> THIS MORNING WE ARE
REMINDED ONCE AGAIN OF WHO
DONALD TRUMP REALLY IS, AT A
RALLY IN OHIO, THE FORMER
PRESIDENT SAID SOME MIGRANTS
ARE NOT PEOPLE.
HE CAST DOWN ON THE FUTURE OF
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IF HE LOSES
IN NOVEMBER.
>> IF THIS ELECTION ISN'T WON,
I'M NOT SURE YOU WILL EVER HAVE
ANOTHER ELECTION IN THIS
COUNTRY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
I DON'T THINK YOU WILL HAVE
ANOTHER ELECTION IN THIS
COUNTRY IN OR CERTAINLY NOT A
ELECTION THAT IS MEANINGFUL.
>> HE CONTINUED TO WHITEWASH
JANUARY 6th, HE STOOD FOR A
RECORDING OF THE NATIONAL
ANTHEM PERFORMED BY 1/6
DEFENDANT FROM JAIL.
HE CALLED THEM QUOTE HOSTAGES.
JOINING US IS DAVID CORN,
YOU'VE ALSO A POLITICAL
ANALYST.
>> DAVID WHAT DID YOU THINK
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S BLOODBATH
COMMENTS.
AND I MUST NOTE, LOOK, DONALD
TRUMP, CAMPAIGN, THEY SAID HE
WAS TALKING ABOUT AN ECONOMIC
LIKE BACK I DON'T KNOW IF I BUY
THAT BUT THAT IS IN FACT WHAT
THE CAMPAIGN SAID.
>> TRUMP HAS ALWAYS DONE THIS.
WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE SHOW
FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS NOW AND
I'VE SEEN IT EVEN LONGER IF
YOU'VE COVERED HIM FOR YEARS,
HE USES THESE HIGH IMPACT WORDS
THAT HAVE EITHER THE DIRECT OR
IMPLICIT TONE OF VIOLENCE.
JANUARY 6th, COME DOWN, IT'S
GOING TO BE WILD, GO TO THE
CAPITAL AND FIGHT LIKE .
>> IT IS ACTUALLY USED EXPLICIT
VIOLENT LANGUAGE AND TELLING
HIS OWN PEOPLE AT RALLIES TO
BEAT THE YOU KNOW WHAT OUT OF
PROTESTERS AT THESE RALLIES.
AT THIS POINT IN THE GAME,
TRYING TO PARSE A WORD LIKE
BLOODBATH IS ABSURD.
IN THE SAME SPEECH HE CALLS
HUNDREDS WHO BEAT UP COPS,
UNBELIEVABLE PATRIOTS.
WHEN HE SAYS THE WORD
BLOODBATH, HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S
DOING, WHETHER HE MEETS AN
ECONOMIC BLOODBATH OR SOMETHING
ELSE IN THE SAME SPEECH, HE IS
ENDORSING POLITICAL VIOLENCE
AND WHEN HE SAYS HE'LL NEVER
HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION IF I
DON'T WIN, WELL, THAT, TOO, HAS
A TONE OF VIOLENCE TO IT AS
WELL.
THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE POWER
WOULD BE TO USE POWER IF
THERE'S NO ELECTION.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I
WANT TO PLAY THAT SOUND FROM
THE SPEECH ON SATURDAY, IN
DAYTON.
IF WE COULD.
>> WE ARE GOING TO PUT A 100%
TARIFF ON EVERY SINGLE CAR THAT
COMES ACROSS THE LINE AND HE
WON'T BE ABLE TO SELL THOSE.
IF I GET ELECTED, AND NOW IF I
DON'T GET ELECTED IT'S GOING TO
BE A BLOODBATH, THAT WILL BE
THE LEAST OF IT.
IT'LL BE A BLOODBATH FOR THE
COUNTRY.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SELL
THOSE CARS.
>> MY TAKE AWAY FROM THAT IS
DONALD TRUMP IS A GROWN MAN.
HE'S A GROWN MAN, AND LAST TIME
I, YOU KNOW, SAW AND HEARD HIM
SPEAK, HE COULD SPEAK THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH SOME
DEGREE OF CONCLUSION DOES MY
CONFUSION.
THOSE WERE HIS WORDS OUT OF HIS
MOUTH.
YOU HAVE THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION COME BACK WITH A
STATEMENT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY
SAYING, THIS IS WHO DONALD
TRUMP IS, A LOSER WHO GETS BEAT
BY OVER 7 MILLION VOTES AND
INSTEAD OF APPEALING TO A WIDER
MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE DOUBLES
DOWN ON HIS THREATS OF
POLITICAL VIOLENCE.
I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT TONE.
I THINK THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN HAS
PUT THEIR FINGER ON THE RIGHT
PART OF THIS.
IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW,
TO YOUR POINT, DAVID?
WE KNOW HE HAS A WAY OF USING
THESE WORDS TO SORT OF,
INSIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF
RESPONSE FROM HIS AUDIENCE BUT
THERE IS MEANING BEHIND THE
WORDS BECAUSE USE THE WORDS
THAT YOU MEAN, RIGHT?
>> HE USES APOCALYPTIC
LANGUAGE.
HE SAYS JOE BIDEN IS A RADICAL,
WORKING WITH COMMUNISTS AND
ANTIFA TO DESTROY THE SUBURBS.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT HE SAID
OVER AND OVER, SO HE'S SAYING,
THEY ARE COMING AT US WITH
VIOLENCE, WE HAVE TO MEET THEM
WITH VIOLENCE, OF COURSE, HIS
ANALYSIS IS ABSURD, JOE BIDEN,
HAND-IN-HAND WITH ANTIFA AND
COMMUNIST, BUT IT HAS A RACIAL
COMPONENT BECAUSE HE'S TALKING
ABOUT WHITE SUBURBS, IT'S FEAR
MONGERING.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT VIOLENCE,
YOU ARE BASICALLY APPEALING TO
PEOPLE'S FEAR, YOU ARE TRYING
TO GET THEM TO SEE THE OTHER
SIDE AS PEOPLE WHO CAN ONLY BE
DEALT WITH, WITH VIOLENCE.
SO I KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS,
IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE KIND OF
STUCK IN GROUNDHOG DAY.
WE HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION AND
DEBATE ABOUT TRUMP, HIS USE OF
LANGUAGE, VIOLENCE, FOR THE
LAST EIGHT YEARS.
YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEONE TELLS
YOU WHO THEY ARE, BELIEVE THEM.
AND TO ME THE SCARY THING IS NOT
THAT HE'S DOING THIS, HE'S BEEN
DOING THIS FOR EIGHT YEARS AND
IT STILL APPEALING TO TENS OF
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, AND
THAT'S A DEEPER QUESTION WE
NEED TO THINK ABOUT AND A
DEEPER CHALLENGE FOR THE BIDEN
CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATS TO
CONTEND WITH.
>> AND I WOULD ARGUE, DAVID,
FOR THE COUNTRY.
THERE WAS ALSO AN ADDITION TO
THE VIOLENT RHETORIC THERE WAS
THE DEHUMANIZATION OF MIGRANTS.
SAYING SOME MIGRANTS ARE NOT
PEOPLE.
I THINK WE HEARD ENOUGH DONALD
TRUMP SOUND FOR TODAY BUT I
WON'T PLAY ANYMORE BUT HE DID
BRAG ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS
HAVE THE LARGEST DOMESTIC
DEPORTATION OPERATION IN
AMERICAN HISTORY.
I THOUGHT IT WAS NOTABLE THAT
HE TRIED TO ARGUE THAT THE
CRISIS WE ARE SEEING AT OUR
SOUTHERN BORDER HAS AFFECTED
HISPANIC AND AFRICAN AMERICAN
COMMUNITIES MORE THAN ANY
OTHERS, THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A
VERY STRATEGIC CHOICE.
WE SAT AT THIS TABLE MANY TIMES
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THEY KNOW THEY
DON'T HAVE TO WIN LATINO VOTERS
OR WHEN BLACK VOTERS BUT THEY
JUST HAVE TO SIPHON OFF ENOUGH
MARGINS FROM DEMOCRATS TO
CREATE A BUFFER IN THE SWING
STATES.
IT'S ALARMING BOTH BECAUSE
WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
DONALD TRUMP USES THIS RACIST,
XENA PHOBIC RHETORIC BUT IT'S
ALSO DANGEROUS TO ME, SYMONE,
THAT HE IS SLIPPING AND, IN THE
MIDDLE, A CALL TO LATINOS AND
AFRICAN AMERICANS TO USE
IMMIGRATION AS A WEDGE.
>> HE'S PROBABLY BANKING ON
THAT WE ARE STUPID.
THAT BLACK AND LATINO VOTERS
ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION
AND THEY CAN BE SCARED WITH HIS
XENA PHOBIC AND I WOULD ARGUE,
QUITE FRANKLY RACIST RHETORIC,
INTO PITTING THEMSELVES AGAINST
ONE ANOTHER, IN THE SAME BREATH
HE SAYS THESE THINGS, HE WILL
ALSO, YOU KNOW, GO ON TO SAY,
AND REMIND US AND SAY OH, I WAS
VERY GOOD TO THE BLACK
COMMUNITY, BLACK PEOPLE LOVE
ME, REMEMBER HE SAID THAT BLACK
PEOPLE REALLY IDENTIFIED WITH
HIM BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, FROM HIS
PERSPECTIVE IS AFTER HIM, AND
BLACK PEOPLE IDENTIFY WITH
THAT?
I THINK AGAIN, PEOPLE HAVE TO
LOOK AT NOT THE POLLS, BUT WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN COMMUNITIES.
AND THERE IS SOME SKEPTICISM
AMONG BLACK AND LATINO VOTERS
IN VARIOUS SWING STATES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY BUT I THINK PEOPLE
HAVE TO SLOW THEIR ROLE BEFORE
THEY EQUATE THAT WITH FOLKS
VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.
AS THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
SAYING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, I
HEARD A SPEECH OF HERS AND SHE
SAID THAT DEMOCRATS ARE
FIGHTING THE COUCH.
I THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY THE
MORE CONCERNING THING THESE
DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS, NOT THAT
LARGE SWATHS OF PEOPLE WILL
VOTE FOR TRUMP BUT THAT THEY
COULD STAY HOME.
>> THAT'S TRUE.
I MEAN THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE
FROM THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN,
REMINDING PEOPLE AGAIN AND
AGAIN AND AGAIN, OF THE DANGERS
THAT DONALD TRUMP POSES, THIS
IS A GUY WHOSE MISMANAGEMENT OF
THE PANDEMIC COST THE LIVES OF
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
AMERICANS.
THESE WERE PREVENTABLE DEATH
ACCORDING TO THE SURVEYS BUT
PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THAT, TO
THE EXTENT THAT SEAN KENNEDY
CAN GO ON AND SAY SHE BETTER
FOUR YEARS AGO, WE ARE WORRIED,
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE
OR THE COUNTRY WOULD BE AND
YET, SO PEOPLE ARE YOU KNOW,
THEY MAY NOT LOVE BIDEN OR BE
JAZZED BY HIM BUT MAYBE TO
REMEMBER WHAT THOSE TRUMP YEARS
WERE LIKE.
WHAT HE REPRESENTS.
AND HE DOES THIS FIREHOSE OF
OUTRAGE, SO AS SOON AS HE SAYS
SOMETHING OR DO SOMETHING
OUTRAGEOUS, HE DOES 20 OF IN
AND OUT ALL CLOSE TOGETHER,
THEY TURN IT OFF AND IT'S TRUMP
BEING TRUMP AND THE NEW YORK
TIMES EVEN SAID HE TRAFFICS IN
STEREOTYPES. ALL OF THESE
THINGS BLUR TOGETHER AND
POINTING IT OUT AND GETTING
PEOPLE ENERGIZED ABOUT HIM IS
ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES
THAT THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN FACES.
>> THAT GOES TO ONE OF THE
THINGS I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR A
LONG TIME.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION
YESTERDAY, WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT THE RECENT, YOU KNOW, THE
RECENT NOT THAT OF COURSE, THAT
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FINDS
ITSELF IN IN DEALING WITH HIS
CASES, HE FLOODS THE ZONE IN
SUCH A WAY THAT THE SYSTEM
DOESN'T KNOW, K, WHAT TO DO
WITH ALL OF THE INCOMING, BUT
THEN, HE GETS SORT OF, IN THE
SPACE WHERE, OKAY, HE'S A
FORMER PRESIDENT AND WE'VE
NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE AND IT'S
ALMOST A SENSE THAT HIS TEAM IS
BANKING ON THAT, OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM, POLITICAL SYSTEM, IS
NOT BUILT TO DEAL WITH AN
ASYMMETRICAL PLAYER LIKE TRUMP,
WHO DOESN'T CARE.
HE'S GOING TO THROW IT OUT
THERE, HE'S GOING TO GO OUT AND
USE THE KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT
HE KNOWS, DELIBERATELY KNOWS
WILL OFFEND AND THAT HE'S LIKE
OKAY, I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS
NUGGET HERE FOR YOU TO WORK
OUT.
I'M MOVING ON.
AND SO, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK
WE HAVE TO NOW FIND OURSELVES
COLLECTIVELY CLEANSING THIS OUT
OF OUR SYSTEM, AND NOT FOCUSING
SO MUCH ON EVERY LITTLE BIT BUT
STAYING FOCUSED ON THE BIGGER
QUESTION OF, THE MAN SAID HE
WANTS TO BE A DICTATOR, OKAY.
>> HE SAID HE WANTS TO BE A
DICTATOR, HE SAID THERE WON'T
BE ELECTIONS AGAIN, LAST NIGHT,
HE SAID IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH,
WHETHER RATHER ECONOMIC OR
REGULAR.
HE'S TELLING US.
I THINK MICHAEL'S POINT, I
THINK THE SYSTEM COULD HANDLE
TRUMP, IT HAS DECIDED IT'S
GOING TO TREAT HIM DIFFERENTLY
BUT MICHAEL'S OVERALL POINT, I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RUSH OVER
AT ALL AND MAYBE WE ALL NEED TO
TAKE A SIP AND THINK ABOUT IT
AS AMERICANS BUT WHY, WHY, WHY,
DO WE FIND IT OH, OKAY, WE HAVE
TO MOVE ONTO THE NEXT THING.
WE CANNOT, AFTER EIGHT, 10,
TREAT HIM LIKE A REGULAR
PERSON.
HE'S NOT REGULAR.
>> AND I JUST POINT OUT
SOMETHING TO YOU, MY WIFE
POINTED OUT TO ME THE OTHER
DAY, SHE SAID, I JUST WANT A
DAY WHEN I CAN GET UP AND NOT
HAVE TO THINK ABOUT TALK ABOUT
REACT TO, OR SEES DONALD TRUMP
ON MY NEWS IN MY PAPERS IN MY
MEDIA, FOLKS, WE HAVE BEEN
INUNDATED AND CONSUMED BY THIS
ONE MAN, FOR EIGHT YEARS.
YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYONE IN
YOUR FAMILY THAT MUCH.
YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT YOUR
FRIENDS THAT MUCH.
ASK YOURSELVES, WHEN YOU HAVE A
CONVERSATION, HOW MANY TIMES
DOES SOMEONE RAISE HIS NAME OR
YOU BRING IT UP, THAT IS THE
PROBLEM WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY
RIGHT NOW.
WE NEED TO CLEANSE OURSELVES OF
THIS.
THE ELECTION IS THE WAY YOU DO
IT, IN MY VIEW.
I MEAN, HE'S TELLING US THAT
YOU KNOW, WHAT HIS WORLD IS
GOING TO LOOK LIKE, YOU EITHER
WANT MORE OF THAT, OR YOU
DON'T.
THIS IS FOR ME, A VERY
CLARIFYING MOMENT, BUT --
>> WE'VE HAD OTHER CLARIFYING
MOMENTS.
>> IT'S BEEN A CLARIFYING
COUPLE OF YEARS.
WE ARE AT THE INFLECTION POINT.
WE ARE RIGHT THERE, ELECTIONS
MATTER, TO BE CLEAR, WE NEED TO
SAY THIS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
HIM AND THE NEWS MEDIA IS
TALKING ABOUT HIM BECAUSE HE IS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND IF
PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION

[admin]

https://www.scribd.com/document/7212844 ... from_embed

No. 23-939

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
___________________________________

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
____________________________________

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
______________________________________

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN AND FOURTEEN NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

Richard W. Painter
Counsel of Record
University of Minnesota Law School
229 19th Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 626-9707
rpainter@umn.edu

Table of Contents

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................ ii
INTEREST OF AMICI ............. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............... 1
ARGUMENT ................ 3
I. Why the Principle that “No Person is Above
the Law” is the Bedrock of U.S. National
Security ............ 3
II. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts
Would Encourage Use of the U.S. Military to
Commit Crimes ............... 12
III. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts
Would Damage the Chain of Command ....... 18
IV. Petitioner’s Argument for Qualified Immunity
Is as Problematic as Blanket Immunity ....... 22
V. Lack of Immunity for Official Acts Would Not
Cripple the President in War .............. 25
VI. Conclusion ............. 30
VI. .............

CASES

Boumediene et. al. v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) .... 10
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) .............. 5
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385
(1926) ............ 2
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ........... 10
Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 (1983) ............. 2
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ........... 9
Nixon v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731 (1982) ....... 6, 2
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156
(1972) ............ 2
Trump v. Vance , 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020) ............ 5,
United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C. Va. 1807)
(No. 14,692d) ............. 5
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) ........ 5, 6
United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir.
2024) (No. 23-3228)........... 23
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
579 (1952)............... 3, 10

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES

U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6 ..........
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1 ................ 1
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, cl.1 ........... 3
U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3, cl. 5 ..........
U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2 ...............
5 U.S.C. § 3331 ...........
10 U.S.C. § 502 ...........
10 U.S.C. § 890, Art. 90 ..........
10 U.S.C. § 892, Art. 92 ............ 1, 2
18 U.S.C. § 208 ........... 2
18 U.S.C. § 592 ........... 1
18 U.S.C. § 593 ........... 1
18 U.S.C. § 1385 ................ 1
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) ............
18 U.S.C. § 2441 ................ 2

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting the Pardon Power, 63
Ariz. L. Rev. 545 (2021) ........... 16
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69 (1788) ....... 11
Brief of Petitioner President Donald J. Trump, United
States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
(No.23-3228), cert. granted, No. 23-939 (U.S. Feb.
28, 2024) ............. 1, 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27
Brief of Three Former Senior Military Officers and
Executive Branch Officials, as Amici Curiae
Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Trump, No.
23-939 (U.S. filed Mar. 19, 2024). ............ 14
Claire O. Finkelstein & Richard W. Painter, “You’re
Fired”: Criminal Use of Presidential Removal
Power, 25 NYU J. Leg. & Pub. Pol’y 307 (2023).. 17
Claire O. Finkelstein & Richard W. Painter,
Presidential Accountability and the Rule of Law:
Can the President Claim Immunity if He Shoots
Someone on Fifth Avenue?, 24 U. Pa. J. Const. L.
93 (2022).......... 4
Hearing Before the Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol, 118th Cong. (July 12, 2022) .......... 15
John Ford, When Can a Soldier Disobey an Order? ,
War on the Rocks (July 24, 2017),
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-asoldier-
disobey-an-order/ ................ 18
Manual for Courts–Martial, United States (2024
Edition) ................ 18
Oral Argument, United States v. Trump, No. 23-3228
(D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFppEuJRTO4
............. 12
Randolph D. Moss, Asst. Atty. Gen. Office of Legal
Counsel, Memorandum, A Sitting President’s
Amenability to Indictment and Criminal
Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (Oct. 16, 2000) .. 16,
28
Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Office of Legal
Counsel, Memorandum on Amenability of the
President, Vice President and Other Civil Officers
to Federal Criminal Prosecution While in Office,
Op. O.L.C. 1 (Sept. 24, 1973) .............. 16, 28
Speech by James Iredell at the North Carolina
Ratifying Convention 28 July 1788, in The Debates
in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of
the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the
General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, 4:108
(Elliot, Jonathan ed. 1888) ............... 8

INTEREST OF AMICI

Amici are national security and military
experts signing this brief in their individual
capacities.1 Amici are listed in the Appendix.
Amici are filing this brief to address the vital
national security interests that may be impacted by
the Court’s decision in this case. As national security
experts, amici have an interest in ensuring that the
Court recognizes the import of presidential
accountability for the integrity of the chain of the
command of the U.S. military.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Petitioner argues that as former President of
the United States, he is immune to all criminal
charges, even after leaving office. Brief of Petitioner
President Donald J. Trump at 10, United States v.
Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (No.23-3228),
cert. granted, No. 23-939 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2024) (“Brief
of Petitioner”). He asks this Court to embrace a theory
of presidential authority, according to which no
prosecutor or court can hold a former president
accountable for either private or official capacity
crimes committed while he is in office, and he claims
this blanket immunity should endure permanently,
including after a president has left office. As national
1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part,
and no party or counsel for a party made a monetary contribution
intended to fund its preparation or submission. No person other
than the amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to
the preparation or submission of this brief.
security professionals and military experts, amici
argue that Petitioner’s broad view of immunity would
imperil U.S. national security, weaken the authority
of the President, and throw confusion into the chain of
command of the armed forces, which the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, commands. This Court must
unequivocally reject the proposed doctrine of
presidential immunity and leave no doubt in the
minds of Petitioner, the public, and all future
occupants of the Oval Office that the President, like
all individuals subject to the reach of the U.S. legal
system, is not above the law.
Of particular concern is the potential adverse
impact of presidential immunity on the principle of
military obedience to civil authority, the foundation
for our civil-military relations since the inception of
the Republic. Allowing a president to issue orders
requiring subordinates to commit criminal acts or
omissions would wreak havoc on the military chain of
command and result in an erosion of confidence in the
legality of presidential orders. It would also create the
potential for disparate interpretations of the duty to
obey orders, thereby risking military discipline. While
the duty of obedience does not extend to patently
illegal orders, an order issued by the President himself
would exert a powerful gravitational pull and thus
even if of dubious legality would create uncertainty in
the ranks. Holding everyone in the chain of command,
including the President, to the same principles of
accountability under the criminal laws of the United
States is essential for assuring the legality of military
orders and for providing the reassurance for all levels
of the chain of command of that legality.
2
Amici also unequivocally urge this Court to
reject any doctrine of qualified immunity for which
Petitioner may now be arguing in his brief to the
Court. Any form of immunity doctrine is both
unnecessary to protect the interests of the presidency
and ultimately dangerous for U.S. national security.
This Court should reject Petitioner’s theory of
absolute criminal immunity and should resist any
temptation to adopt a weaker version of this same
doctrine in the form of a qualified immunity doctrine.
ARGUMENT
I. Why the Principle that “No Person is Above the
Law” is the Bedrock of U.S. National Security
To protect against enemies, both foreign and
domestic, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution
imbued the office of the presidency with
extraordinary powers. Important among these is the
President’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces and state militias when called into federal
service. U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, cl.1. As this Court has
recognized, it is the rare case in which it would be
appropriate for the judiciary to interfere with
exercises of Commander-in-Chief authority. This
Court has rightly adopted a broad attitude of
deference towards executive branch action in matters
of war powers. However, when that authority is
turned “inward” and exercised toward domestic ends,
federal courts have been more than willing to reject
the legality of presidential action. See Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. 579, 644-45
(1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
3
The U.S. Constitution establishes two primary
safeguards to protect against the risk of a runaway
presidency. First, a president cannot continue in
office without being reelected. Second, the
Constitution provides that a president may be
removed from office by a vote to impeach in the House
and a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate.
Yet these two safeguards are not sufficient to
protect the country from the risk of dictatorship, since
a truly corrupt president might attempt to commit
crimes to manipulate the vote as well as to deprive
the impeachment process of effect. See Claire O.
Finkelstein & Richard W. Painter, Presidential
Accountability and the Rule of Law: Can the
President Claim Immunity if He Shoots Someone on
Fifth Avenue? , 24 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 93, 105 (2022).
This suggests that the basic principle that the
President must comply with the law, on pain of
criminal sanctions following conviction for an alleged
offense, is an even more fundamental check on the
presidency than either the vote or impeachment,
since it serves as the protection for those two
constitutional safeguards. Put otherwise, the
principle that no person is above the law serves as the
ultimate protector of U.S. democracy, since it
underpins the constitutional safeguards against
destruction of the Republic by authoritarian forces
within. The concept of immunity is antithetical to that
critical principle. And while the Constitution bestows
a limited immunity from criminal prosecution on
members of Congress in the Speech and Debate
4
Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 6, it nowhere restricts
the power of Congress to enact federal criminal
statutes binding on the executive branch, including
the President.
On at least four occasions justices of this Court
have articulated the critical principle that no person,
including the President, is above the law. The first
time was in 1807 in the case of United States v. Burr ,
25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (C.C. Va. 1807) (No. 14,692d)
(Marshall, C.J.), in which Chief Justice Marshall held
that President Jefferson was amenable to criminal
subpoena issued in the treason trial of his former Vice
President, Aaron Burr. The second time was in 1974,
at the height of the Watergate crisis, where this Court
said that President Nixon must comply with a
prosecutor’s subpoena of White House tape
recordings. United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 713
(1974). The third time was in 1997, where this Court
held that the President is amenable to civil suit for
personal conduct involving sexual harassment while
the President previously held a state office. Clinton v.
Jones , 520 U.S. 681, 705-706 (1997). The fourth time
was in Trump v. Vance , 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2431(2020),
in which this Court held that a New York State grand
jury was entitled to subpoena a third party
accounting firm regarding the President’s personal
financial records as part of a criminal investigation
into possible crimes.
The current case, however, presents an issue
never previously before this Court because, as
Petitioner points out, no president before Petitioner
5
6
has ever been criminally prosecuted for official acts
allegedly committed in office. Brief of Petitioner, at 3.
The question is whether this Court will decide the
matter of criminal indictment of a former president
for official capacity crimes in the same way it has
decided the foregoing four immunity cases, or
whether it will analogize a criminal indictment to civil
suits against a former president for actions within the
“outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (holding
that a former president has absolute immunity from
civil suits for official acts).
A footnote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald emphasizes
the distinction between civil actions seeking to impose
liability for official capacity acts and the question
confronted here, namely presidential amenability to
criminal liability for official capacity acts. The
footnote points out that there is a greater public
interest in prosecuting crimes than in allowing an
individual plaintiff to sue for damages: “The Court
has recognized before that there is a lesser public
interest in actions for civil damages than, for
example, in criminal prosecutions.” 457 U.S. 731, 754
n37, citing United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 371-
373 (1980) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at
711-712, 712 n.19.
The distinction between criminal and civil
enforcement is also highly relevant for defending U.S.
national security interests. Rarely if ever would a
national security interest be protected by a private
lawsuit for money damages. But national security
interests demand that federal officials remain equally
accountable to public assertions of prohibitory norms.
Making a former president immune from criminal
prosecution could make the presidency itself a
profound threat to national security, as it would
permit a president to use the great power of the office
to further personal interests, such as securing
reelection or attempting to avoid accountability for
criminal abuse of power. As national security
professionals, we emphatically reject the sweeping
proposition that all U.S. presidents enjoy legal
immunity from criminal prosecution to the “outer
perimeter” of their official duties. It is no
exaggeration to say that this proposition is potentially
the most dangerous that has ever been advanced in
a court of law by any U.S. official. Indeed, it is
a proposition that would convert the presidency
from the greatest protector of the nation to its
single greatest threat. It is also a profoundly
unethical proposal. To establish the President as
singularly unfettered by the same generally
applicable criminal laws that apply to every other
member of society erects an example of
lawlessness among the nation’s highest officials.
Such lawlessness erodes rule of law values where
such values are most needed.
That the President of the United States is
subject to the law is clear from the Constitution
itself. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2 provides: “This
Constitution, and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . .
shall be the supreme law of the land,” thus making
clear that it is the law, not the President, that
7
8
is supreme. The Take Care Clause of Article II of the
Constitution also imposes upon the President the
obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States
are enforced. U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3, cl. 5
(the President “shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed”).
The constitutional supremacy of the law, not
the President or any other person, is consistent with
the intent of the Framers. As James Iredell explained
in his speech to the North Carolina convention
ratifying the Constitution, it was not necessary for the
United States to have a privy council imposing
constraints on the exercise of presidential power, as it
was to constrain the King in Great Britain. Unlike the
King, the President is not above the law:
Under our Constitution we are much happier
. . .. No man has an authority to injure another
with impunity. No man is better than his
fellow-citizens, nor can pretend to any
superiority over the meanest man in the
country. If the President does a single act by
which the people are prejudiced, he is
punishable himself, and no other man merely
to screen him. If he commits any misdemeanor
in office, he is impeachable, removable from
office, and incapacitated to hold any office of
honor, trust, or profit. If he commits any crime,
he is punishable by the laws of his country, and
in capital cases may be deprived of his life.
This being the case, there is not the same
9
reason here for having a council which exists in
England.
Speech by James Iredell at the North Carolina
Ratifying Convention 28 July 1788, in The Debates in
the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution as Recommended by the
General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, 4:108–
10 (Elliot, Jonathan ed. 1888)
Petitioner presents this Court with a very
different vision, according to which the President is
immune from all criminal laws enacted by Congress,
and therefore no court can constrain the President or
impose accountability on him for acts or omissions
that violate federal criminal law. See Petitioner’s
Brief, at 20.
Petitioner’s bid for presidential immunity is
not only an unprecedented assertion of presidential
authority, but also a declaration of the impotence of
federal courts with respect to matters touching
executive authority, even matters placed explicitly
within the jurisdiction of Article III courts by
Congress. Petitioner does not attempt to disguise his
disdain for Article III courts, frankly declaring that
the President’s official acts “can never be examinable
by the courts.” Petitioner’s Brief, at 3 quoting Chief
Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
at 166 (1803). The view of the role of Article III courts
Petitioner is proposing would revolutionize their core
function, taking them back to the days before Chief
Justice Marshall established the power of judicial
review in Marbury v. Madison. It is clearly within the
power of Article III courts to say what the law is, Id.
at 177, and to enjoin actions of the executive that
violate the law, Youngstown v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. at
588-589. Petitioner’s conception of immunity would
also leave individuals without a remedy even for
patently illegal violations of their constitutional and
statutory rights. Federal courts routinely hear cases
prosecuting executive branch officials for violating
federal criminal law, and unsurprisingly not a single
case cited by Petitioner even contains dicta that a
former president is immune from prosecution if he
commits federal crimes while in office.
While Petitioner insists that Article III courts
“lack authority to sit in judgment over a President’s
official acts,” Brief of Petitioner, at 11, he allows that
federal courts may review the validity of the acts of
subordinate executive officials. Id. at 16, 20. There is
no basis for restricting this Court’s authority to
actions against presidential subordinates, and doing
so would contradict basic criminal law principles of
accomplice liability. This Court has willingly told both
presidents, and their subordinates, what they may
and may not do under the Constitution and the
various laws of the United States. See Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. at 588-589;
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , 548 U.S. 557, 633 (2006)
(holding that the Guantanamo military commissions
violate the guarantee owed to each detainee under
international law to be heard by a “regularly
constituted court.”); Boumediene et. al. v. Bush , 553
U.S. 723, 792 (2008) (holding that prisoners held at
Guantanamo Bay have a right to the writ of habeas
10
corpus). The authority of this Court and other courts
to enforce federal criminal law is no different.
The President’s duty to conform his conduct to
the law is also reflected in the oath he must take
before assuming office – itself a requirement of Article
II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution – to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.” U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1. What could be a
clearer demonstration that the President must be
subject to, and not superior to, the law of the land
than this provision requiring the President to swear
allegiance to that self-same Constitution? Members of
the armed services likewise are required to take an
oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, and to obey the orders of the
President. 10 U.S.C. § 502. But only enlisted members
swear an oath to obey the orders of the President. Id.
By contrast, commissioned officers swear an oath that
does not mention the President, according to which
they promise to “support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. . ..” 5 U.S.C. § 3331.
The doctrine of substantive presidential
immunity for which Petitioner argues would exactly
reverse this constitutionally binding structure. By
Petitioner’s lights, if he, presently a candidate for the
presidency, wins the election and takes the oath of
office in January of 2025, he is licensed to do precisely
what the oath suggests he must abhor, namely to
govern the country without fidelity to the law and to
ignore the Constitution.
11
12
Any political arrangement that grants broad
command authority to a single individual, as
Hamilton says in Federalist 69, “would be
unsustainable and would risk certain dictatorship if
the same breadth of powers were extended without
the assurance of accountability under the
law.” Hamilton further says in that same Federalist
Paper: “The [President of the United States]
would be amenable to personal punishment and
disgrace; the person of the [king of Great Britain]
is sacred and inviolable.” Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist No. 69 (1788) The very extent of the
President’s power as Commander-in-Chief thus
necessitates that he be held to the same
standards as any other citizen with regard to clear
violations of generally applicable criminal laws,
absent an explicit congressional exemption.
Presidential accountability under the law is not
only compatible with broad deference to the
President in matters of war and peace; it is required
to sustain such deference.
II. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts
Would Encourage Use of the U.S. Military to
Commit Crimes
One of the most serious risks of presidential
immunity for official capacity acts arises from the
potential that the President may abuse his
Commander-in-Chief authority, thereby placing the
integrity of the armed forces at risk. Imagine a
president determined to use the U.S. military to
commit crimes against political opponents; to
constrain and control domestic civilian populations in
13
violation of federal criminal law; to coerce foreign
nations into supporting his bid for reelection by
engaging in criminally proscribed corrupt practices;
to falsify domestic election results in an effort to
criminally defraud the United States; and to coerce
the legislative and judicial branches of government
into supporting his friends and punishing his
enemies. While the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1385 forbids use of the armed forces for civilian law-enforcement
purposes unless authorized by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, the
President could issue an illegal order for this purpose
without ramification if the Petitioner’s sought-for
immunity for official acts were to be granted, and that
order might very well be considered by military
subordinates as falling within the “authorized by the
Constitution” exception to the Act.
Or consider the shocking example of the
President ordering a Navy Seal Team Six
assassination of a political rival, which Judge Pan
discussed with Petitioner’s counsel in oral argument
of this case in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. Oral Argument at 07:35, United States. v.
Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFppEuJRTO4
[https://perma.cc/KB94-V634]. Such an offense could
also be committed against members of Congress who
possess the authority and the duty to serve as a check
on executive power. What would become of
impeachment as a check and balance if a president
could order Seal Team Six to intimidate members of
Congress and then enjoy immunity unless he was
impeached by a majority of the House and convicted
14
by two-thirds of the Senate? Who in Congress would
even dare to try to impeach the President under such
circumstances? Likewise, the judiciary could be cowed
into submission and the independence of this very
Court threatened by fear of violence inflicted on its
members. The rule of law will be threatened unless
federal courts have protection against intimidation by
a criminal president in command of Seal Team Six or
any other unit of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Even the three senior military officers and
executive branch officials who have filed an amicus
brief in this case in support of Petitioner take no stand
on the presidential immunity argument made by
Petitioner, choosing to focus entirely on the illegality
of a presidential order to assassinate a political rival:
[T]he President has no authority to order the
military to assassinate someone because he is
a political rival. Nor would the military carry
out such an unlawful order. Under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), any military
officer who carried out or issued such an order
would commit the crime of murder. One such
limitation is that the President has no
authority to order the military to assassinate
someone because he is a political rival. Nor
would the military carry out such an unlawful
order. Under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), any military officer who
carried out or issued such an order would
commit the crime of murder. In addition,
Executive Order 12333 prohibits any person
employed by the U.S. government from
15
engaging in, or conspiring to engage in,
assassination.
Brief of Three Former Senior Military Officers and
Executive Branch Officials, as Amici Curiae
Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Trump, No.
23-939 (U.S. filed Mar. 19, 2024), 3. They conclude:
“Whether or not a President has the immunity
claimed by Petitioner in this case—a question amici
do not address in this brief—a President cannot order
the military to assassinate a political rival and have
that order carried out.” Id. at 1.
This conclusion is misleading for two reasons.
First, the President could certainly issue an order to
assassinate a political rival, and when vested with the
immunity sought by Petitioner, the risk he would do
so is necessarily increased. Second, there is simply no
guarantee a subordinate would refuse to obey such an
order once the President who issued it could claim
immunity from any legal consequence. And there is
no guarantee that the principle of presidential
immunity might then be mistakenly claimed as
authority by subordinates carrying out the
President’s claimed immunity.
Thus, even former military officers and
executive branch officials who purport to support
Petitioner in this case make clear that use of the
military to commit a crime such as murder would be
illegal and any military officer who carried out such
an order could be held legally accountable. Note that
these amici decline to address the question whether
the President would also be guilty of murder. They
acknowledge the illegality of such an order yet avoid
16
the obvious corollary that if the President is
emboldened by immunity to issue an illegal order, the
military command structure will be infected with
distrust and disarray.
The main body of this case, of which the current
matter is but an interlocutory appeal, concerns
criminal prosecution for an alleged conspiracy to
defraud the United States. The case therefore
highlights the very real risk of a sitting president
accused of committing crimes to remain in office. The
risk of a president who commits crimes to avoid the
transition of power is one of the gravest our
democracy may face. Here we wish to highlight the
risk that such crimes could be committed by making
use of the U.S. Armed Forces. The President might
deploy troops to control polls, for example, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 592 and 18 U.S.C. § 593 (interference
by armed forces), as the present Petitioner himself
once discussed in a December 18, 2020 meeting in the
Oval Office according to the Report of the U.S. House
January 6 Committee. See Hearing Before the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol, 117th Cong. 2d. sess. 4-5
(July 12, 2022),
https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-
117hhrg49355/CHRG-117hhrg49355.pdf
[https://perma.cc/86SN-TK3J]. A criminal president
could ignore these and other laws and use military
force to coerce voters, to coerce state officials counting
ballots, or to obstruct the official proceedings in which
state legislatures and Congress certify results of
elections. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (criminal obstruction of
an official proceeding).
17
Moreover, a president who has committed
crimes while in office has incentive to remain in office
to deter or entirely thwart the moment at which he is
brought to justice. The risk to democracy, and hence
to U.S. national security, is gravest from a sitting
president who seeks to undermine the transfer of
power, and even greater from a president already
under scrutiny for criminal acts. By removing liability
for the criminal misuse of official capacity acts, this
Court could be eliminating the last protection from
dictatorship cognized by our constitutional system.
The blanket presidential immunity Petitioner
seeks is rendered wholly unnecessary by the fact that
a sitting president is already insulated from
prosecution in numerous ways. The Justice
Department policy forbidding indictment of a sitting
president renders justice against a president who has
committed crimes in office exceedingly challenging
and cumbersome. For example, see Robert G. Dixon,
Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Office of Legal Counsel,
Memorandum on Amenability of the President, Vice
President and Other Civil Officers to Federal
Criminal Prosecution While in Office , Op. O.L.C. 1, 32
(Sept. 24, 1973) (unpublished memo) (“1973 OLC
Memo”); Randolph D. Moss, Asst. Atty. Gen. Office of
Legal Counsel, Memorandum, A Sitting President’s
Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution ,
24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 223 (Oct. 16, 2000) (“2000 OLC
Memo”). In addition, a president can pardon his
associates accused of wrongdoing and might pardon
himself, even if self-pardon is of dubious legality. See
Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting the Pardon Power , 63
ARIZ. L. REV. 545, 553-560 (2021) (discussing self18
pardons). Finally, the President as head of the
executive branch appoints, and can remove, senior
officials in the Department of Justice, although his
firing a prosecutor with the intent to obstruct a
criminal investigation of himself or his associates
could itself constitute a crime such as obstruction of
justice. See Claire O. Finkelstein & Richard W.
Painter, “You’re Fired”: Criminal Use of Presidential
Removal Power , 25 NYU J. LEG. & PUB. POL’Y 307,
347 (2023).
III. Presidential Immunity For Criminal Acts
Would Damage the Chain of Command
Presidential immunity for official capacity
crimes would create an untenable dilemma for every
member of the military chain of command ordered to
execute an order, particularly if officers disagree as to
its legality under criminal law. Because any order
issued by a president carries with it a presumption of
legality and exerts a powerful gravitational force on
its recipients, the risk of such disparate
interpretations of the duty to obey, even if the order
appears on its face to violate federal criminal law,
would be exacerbated if the President were
unrestrained in the orders he could issue and could
therefore violate the law with impunity.
Failure to obey a lawful order for any
individual in the military chain of command whose
duty it is to obey such order is a serious offense,
subject to prosecution by general courts martial. 10
U.S.C. § 890, Art. 90 10 U.S.C. § 892, Art. 92 (in
the
19
case of a willful violation). In times of war, willful
failure to follow certain orders can result in a sentence
of death. § 890, Art. 90; § 892, Art. 92. Yet the absolute
duty to follow orders is predicated upon the
lawfulness of such orders. Any soldier receiving
illegal orders has a duty to refuse to carry out those
orders, and no one committing atrocities against a
civilian population, for example, can hope to achieve
an acquittal at court-martial on the basis of following
orders.
At the same time, the illegality of a military
order is an affirmative defense to a refusal to obey. It
is presumed that orders are lawful, and a defendant
charged with disobeying orders bears the burden of
establishing illegality. See Manual for Courts–
Martial, United States (2024 Edition), pt. IV, para.
16.c.(2)(a)(iv,
https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2024%20MCM%20f
iles/MCM%20(2024%20ed)%20(2024_01_02)%20(adj
usted%20bookmarks).pdf [https://perma.cc/DQ3VMDYR];
see also, John Ford, When Can a Soldier
Disobey an Order?, War on the Rocks (July 24, 2017),
https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-asoldier-
disobey-an-order/ [https://perma.cc/984YV68V].
Any subordinate inclined to disobey an order
issued by the President assumes a grave risk of
prosecution with a heavy burden to establish the
order was in fact illegal.
Furthermore, obedience to an order that is in
fact unlawful is a complete defense in military law
unless the illegality is known to the subordinate or so
patently clear that the subordinate must have known
20
it was illegal. In the case of an illegal order, the mere
fact that it was issued by a president would guarantee
uncertainty as to its legality, with the result that
obedience could provide a complete defense to any
criminal prosecution arising therefrom. This sharply
reduces the likelihood that a subordinate officer will
refuse to obey a president’s orders, even though
immunity from prosecution increases the incentive of
the President to issue illegal orders. Military
personnel who instinctively rely on the validity of an
order that is passed through the chain of command
can nonetheless be prosecuted for obeying the order if
it turns out to be illegal.
The foregoing taken together suggests that the
presidential immunity from criminal prosecution
asserted by Petitioner would create multiple
problems for the command function and good order
and discipline of the armed services. First, if
subordinates in the chain of command are aware that
the Commander-in-Chief is immune from
prosecution, some may assume this renders any order
legal for purposes of their duty to obey. Others may
reach a different conclusion, especially as senior
officers in the chain of command will tend to rely on
legal advisors to determine legality. This could easily
result in chaos, with different commanders in the
same chain reaching disparate conclusions as to their
duty to obey or disobey. Second, the mere knowledge
that the President enjoys immunity may lead
subordinates to question their duty to obey
presidential orders, something that almost never
normally occurs. In short, the expectation that the
President’s duty to the Constitution necessitates that
21
all orders comply with the law and the accountability
the President would face for legal violations provides
the basis for the near absolute trust subordinates
place in the legality of presidential orders.
Third, because Petitioner emphasizes that the
immunity he asserts would in no way protect
subordinates who commit crimes in obedience to
presidential orders, they may fear liability for
executing illegal orders, thus causing hesitation to
execute other lawful commands of the President and
civilian officers. Often there is little time to assess
whether an order is legal; a subordinate must be able
to rely on the legality of all presidential orders, yet
this reliance would be unavailable were Petitioner’s
theory to hold sway. Worry within the command chain
about unconstrained presidential crime could thus
have devastating consequences for discipline within
the ranks.
Finally, there are always those who will follow
presidential orders even if they believe doing so will
violate federal criminal law, an inevitable
consequence of the extremely powerful presumption
of obedience to the Commander-in-Chief. Illegality
from the top does not come with a label marking it as
such. Knowledge that the President is immune from
criminal prosecution for official acts, even after he
leaves office, would add weight to this presumptive
obligation of obedience. Obedience could be justified
as consistent with the oath to support and defend the
Constitution as the order emanated from a
constitutionally designated president who was
permitted to issue the order even if inconsistent with
other laws. Military and civilian officers might see
presidential immunity as a constitutional blank check
to issue any order, even orders requiring subordinates
to commit crimes, including crimes that endanger
national security.
Absolute or qualified immunity of a president
could also be mixed with improper use of
the pardon power to enable a corrupt president to use
the military to accomplish otherwise unlawful
objectives. For example, in the Seal Team Six
assassination scenario, the team members would not
need to fear the consequences of committing murder
if the order to commit the murder were coupled with
the promise of a pardon. Many other scenarios,
including torture of prisoners and detainees, could be
realized in which the pardon power is used by a
legally unbound, immunized president to subvert the
military’s allegiance to the Constitution, the rule of
law, and military discipline.
IV. Petitioner’s Argument for Qualified Immunity
Is as Problematic as Blanket Immunity
Petitioner proposes, as a second-choice
alternative to absolute immunity, a burdensome and
unnecessary standard of qualified immunity that
once again seeks to place the President above
ordinary citizens with regard to “generally applicable”
criminal law. Brief of Petitioner, at 37-40. This
argument attempts to import into the criminal arena
22
23
the holding of cases immunizing the President from
civil suit for actions extending to the “outer
perimeter” of official capacity. Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. at 756. Petitioner further argues, as a
second-best alternative, for a “functional” view of
immunity, according to which officials with a broad
range of duties should have broader immunity from
criminal prosecution than officials with less
responsibility and less discretion. Brief of Petitioner,
at 46, citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247
(1974). The primary case he cites for this, namely
Scheuer, is only tangentially relevant to the current
case, given that it is a civil damages case against a
governor. Amici are not aware of any legal precedent
applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to public
officials in criminal cases.
Second, Petitioner claims that as President he
is entitled to a “qualified immunity” in the sense that
to hold a president criminally liable, there must be a
clarity in the law above and beyond the exacting
standard of clarity that courts already impose in
criminal cases. Brief of Petitioner, at 46-47.
Petitioner offers little support for this proposition,
however, citing only civil cases brought against public
officials, not criminal cases. Petitioner also does not
advance a coherent argument as to why the
President, or any other public official, is entitled to
insist on greater clarity in the criminal law than that
required in the criminal trial of any other citizen.
Ambiguous criminal statutes already are void for
vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Kolender v. Lawson,
461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); Papachristou v. City of
Jacksonville , 405 U.S. 156 (1972); Connally v.
General Construction Co. , 269 U.S. 385 (1926).
Another possible form of “qualified immunity”
would be to allow for such immunity generally but
then deny it only in those cases in which the
President’s motive was to remain in office. Petitioner
argues that inquiring into a president’s motive for an
official act is impermissible, Brief of Petitioner, at 42,
45, and then claims that the D.C. Circuit Court held
that he was not immune from prosecution because he
was “determined to remain in power.” Id. at 48-49. But
the D.C. Circuit Court opinion does not once refer to
a president’s motive as a factor in ruling on whether
he is immune from criminal prosecution after leaving
office. Rather, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s
theory of absolute immunity from prosecution for
official acts “is unsupported by precedent, history or
the text and structure of the Constitution.” United
States v. Trump , 91 F.4th 1173, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
(No. 23-3228), cert. granted , No. 23-939, 2024 WL
833184 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2024). Contrary to Petitioner’s
contention, the Court of Appeals did not consider the
fact that Petitioner’s motive for his actions was to
remain in power beyond the expiration of his term,
however dangerous for democracy such a motive for a
president’s crimes might be.
Just as with the absolute immunity approach
for which Petitioner argues, qualified immunity from
prosecution based on the President’s office is a
dangerous doctrine to adopt, even if more selective
than absolute immunity. Perhaps more importantly,
the interests Petitioner claims would be advanced by
24
25
qualified immunity are already addressed by
traditional limitations on criminal liability. Thus,
there is no credible justification to support
Petitioner’s argument that a different and higher
level of clarity as to a federal criminal statute must be
required when the law is applied to the President
than when the same law is enforced by the
Department of Justice against an ordinary citizen.
The proposed standard, which would require
Congress to speak with specificity as to whether a
criminal statute applied to the President in every
case, would import chaos into both the legislative
drafting process for federal crimes and would
effectively nullify dozens of existing crimes where
Congress had no advanced knowledge of the need to
expressly say the statute applies to the President. It
is inconceivable that there would be one standard of
constitutional due process in cases brought against
the President and his subordinates and a different
and lower standard for cases brought against
everyone else. This could raise complex issues of equal
protection and due process for any other citizen
prosecuted for violating the same statutory provision.
V. Lack of Immunity for Official Acts Would Not
Cripple the President in War
Petitioner suggests that in the absence of
immunity for official acts, any number of presidents
throughout history might have been prosecuted for
war crimes, based on political accusations that they
were committing “crimes.” Brief of Petitioner, at 22 &
ff. However, being “prosecuted” is not the same as
being convicted. Even setting aside the exaggerated
nature of Petitioner’s argument, a conviction for war
crimes requires both the judgment of a grand jury
that a crime was committed, denial of a motion to
dismiss by an Article III judge, and a unanimous
finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by trial
jury. But if these prosecutorial burdens are satisfied,
there is no plausible reason a president should be
immune from the criminal consequences of ordering a
war crime, a conclusion reinforced by the fact that the
federal War Crimes Act makes no exemption for the
President or any other high-ranking federal official.
Examples cited by Petitioner are inherently
misleading, as none involve orders that were so
clearly unlawful as to support criminal prosecution.
Pointing to President Roosevelt’s relocation and
detention of Japanese Americans during World War
II; President Clinton’s launching of military strikes in
the Middle East on the eve of critical developments in
the scandal involving his affair with a White House
intern; the Bush Administration providing what
was subsequently understood to be false
information to Congress about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq; and President Obama’s
targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad based on
a determination they were enemy belligerent
operatives, among others. Brief of Petitioner, at 23.
Petitioner points out that “In all of these instances,
the President’s political opponents routinely accuse
him, and currently accuse President Biden, of
'criminal' behavior in his official acts. In each such
case, those opponents later came to power with
ample incentive to charge him. But no former
26
27
President was ever prosecuted for official acts—until
2023.” Brief of Petitioner, at 23-24. For this reason,
Petitioner is convinced that criminal prosecution of a
president of any sort “presents a mortal threat to the
Presidency’s independence.” Id. at 25.
Yet in trotting out this parade of horribles,
Petitioner completely ignores the fact that there is a
difference between acts that are actually criminal and
acts that are merely said to be criminal by political
adversaries. None of these decisions resulted in
criminal indictment or prosecution for the obvious
reason that there was a substantial gap between
political hyperbole and evidence indicating violation
of federal criminal law. Moreover, it is not necessary
for the President to have blanket immunity to be
protected from criminal prosecution for acts ordered,
solicited, or committed in times of war. Nor would
such blanket immunity be desirable. The My Lai
massacre in which U.S. troops killed as many as 500
unarmed villagers in Vietnam in 1968 is a reminder
that U.S. troops have committed atrocities in warfare
and that criminal liability is a critical part of holding
anyone accountable who would engage in such acts.
Any president who ordered or encouraged a massacre
of civilians would rightly be subject to prosecution for
his role in such a heinous act. Furthermore, any
subordinate who acted on such orders should not be
able to claim a “following orders” defense—a defense
that has been consistently rejected, including
famously at the Nuremberg trials. See 10 U.S.C. §
892, Art. 92.
Indeed, the War Crimes Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2441, imposes liability on U.S. military personnel
for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or
Common Article III of that Convention, for acts
committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. This provision addresses cases in
which crimes come to light only after the individual
separates from the armed forces and is no longer
subject to military criminal jurisdiction. Liability
under such circumstances is consistent with national
security interests, and absolute or qualified immunity
for the President would contradict this important
principle. Such an asymmetry of criminal
accountability is not justified and is not supported by
the tradition of command authority as restricted to
lawful actions. While a president should be tried in a
federal court, rather than a court martial, for his
crimes, the principle remains that no person is above
the law.
Presidential powers under Article II, moreover,
can be accommodated in the drafting and
interpretation of criminal statutes. Blanket immunity
is not necessary. A president, for example, has the
power to share classified information with a foreign
power in furtherance of U.S. national security
interests. A president who shares classified
information with a foreign power in return for a bribe,
however, may violate both the Espionage Act and
bribery statutes. The fact that some criminal statutes
must be construed to be consistent with lawful use of
Article II power does not mean that the President has
absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes
committed in office.
28
29
Furthermore, Congress can exempt the
President from criminal statutes if it believes a
criminal statute imposes an undue infringement on
Article II power. For example, the President and Vice
President are exempt from the criminal financial
conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, which
makes it a crime for executive branch officials to
participate in a government matter in which they or
their spouse have a financial interest. If this Court
believes that a specific criminal statute
unconstitutionally intrudes upon exclusive Article II
powers of the President, the Court can hold that the
statute in all or in part does not apply to the
President. The absolute immunity theory proposed
by Petitioner is wholly unnecessary.
As Petitioner notes, not once has a criminal
indictment against a former president been
submitted to a grand jury or even contemplated for
crimes committed in wartime. Brief of Petitioner at
6-7. The current prosecutions of Petitioner are
similarly unrelated to the Commander-in-Chief
function of the President, as none of the acts for which
the former President has been indicted were
performed in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
The Department of Justice has several times
examined the risk of meritless criminal charges being
filed against a president, and never even hinted that
lifetime immunity from prosecution was necessary.
Instead, the Department reached the conclusion that
a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office.
The Office of Legal Counsel memoranda opining that
a current president cannot be indicted specifically
30
point out that a president can be prosecuted after
leaving office . See 1973 OLC Memo, at 32; 2000 OLC
Memo, at 255-256, 259. Prohibiting indictment and
trial during the term of office sufficiently protects the
President’s interest in ensuring the focus of his or her
duties will not be unduly burdened by having to
mount a defense to a criminal accusation while in
office, while protecting society’s interest in a fair and
impartial adjudication of alleged criminal misconduct
at a point in time when it will have no such adverse
impact on the nation.
The appropriate response to politicized
prosecutions is judicial oversight. Courts oversee
criminal cases to prevent prosecutorial abuses,
including selective or discriminatory prosecution,
indictments that are not based on probable cause or
fail to properly allege an offense, insufficient evidence
of guilt, and unethical prosecutorial conduct.
Members of Congress, cabinet members, and federal
judges all could be exposed to baseless criminal
charges, yet none is entitled to absolute immunity for
their official acts. Indeed, this argument for making
the President exempt from criminal process has
already been presented before this Court by this very
same Petitioner, Donald Trump, and it was rejected.
Trump v. Vance , 140 S. Ct. at 2427-2429.
VI. Conclusion
Amici urge this Court to strengthen, not
weaken, the legal and moral authority of the
President, particularly as Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces, by holding the President like every
other American accountable under the criminal laws
of the United States. Amici recognize that
construction and application of federal criminal laws
should take into account the powers and
responsibilities of the President under Article II of the
Constitution, but that is a case specific
determination. Amici urge this Court to reject
Petitioner’s absolute and qualified immunity theories
which would be exceedingly dangerous for both our
constitutional framework and for U.S. national
security.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard W. Painter
Counsel of Record
University of Minnesota Law School
Walter F. Mondale Hall
229 19th Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 626-9707
rpainter@umn.edu
31
APPENDIX
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI CURIAE..........1A
APPENDIX
List of Amici Curiae
Claire O. Finkelstein, Algernon Biddle Professor
of Law and Professor of Philosophy; Faculty
Director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of
Law, University of Pennsylvania
John D. Altenburg, Former Deputy Judge Advocate
General of the Army, Major General, (ret.)
James E. Cartwright, U.S. Marine Corps; Former
Vice Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General (ret.)
Gary Corn, Staff Judge Advocate (General Counsel)
to U.S. Cyber Command, Deputy Legal Counsel to
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colonel
(ret.), Director, Technology, Law & Security Program
and Adj. Professor of Cyber and National Security
Law, American University College of Law
Geoffrey S. Corn, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of
Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military
Law and Policy, Texas Tech University School of
Law, Lt. Colonel (ret)
Donald J. Guter, Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.),
President and Dean Emeritus, South Texas College
of Law
James W. Houck, VADM, JAGC, U. S. Navy
(Ret.), Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Penn
State Law and School of International Affairs
John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the
Navy, Rear Admiral (ret.), former dean and president
of the University of New Hampshire School of Law
Alberto Mora, Former General Counsel, Department
of the Navy
Richard W. Painter, Counsel of Record for Amici; S.
Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University
of Minnesota Law School; Former Associate Counsel
to the President and chief White House ethics lawyer
for President George W. Bush.
Harvey Rishikof, Former Director of Military
Commissions and Convening Authority and the
Department of Defense, General (ret.)
Manuel Supervielle, SJA (General Counsel) US
Southern Command, Special Counsel to the General
Counsel U.S. Army, SJA (General Counsel) US
Forces in Afghanistan, Colonel (ret.)
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Distinguished
Fellow, Atlantic Council, Former Assistant Secretary
of Defense, former Ambassador to NATO and Russia,
former NATO Deputy Secretary General.
Joseph Votel, General (ret.) U.S. Army, Former
Commanding General of US Central Command and
US Special Operations Command; Member of the
Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule of
Law, University of Pennsylvania.
Stephen Xenakis, M.D.. U.S. Army, Brigadier
General (ret.)

[admin]

Secret Service MAKES PLAN for Trump GOING TO PRISON
MeidasTouch
Apr 23, 2024

The glass ceiling has been broken: The Secret Service IS IN TALKS with Law Enforcement & PRISON OFFICIALS about HOW TO JAIL TRUMP! Michael Popok breaks down the logistics being discussed either if Trump is jailed for contempt OR is sentenced to jail or prison for a criminal conviction. It is getting real….



Transcript

this Michael popak legal AF hot-take well

the glass ceiling has been broken the

Secret Service is talking about the

possibility that Donald Trump could be

jailed or imprisoned as a result of one

of his criminal trials we always thought

they were talking about it behind the

scenes but the New York Times reports

that yes the Secret Service is in talks

with law enforcement under a scenario

where Donald Trump would be jailed let

me uh make a distinction here jail is

likely a possible result for Donald

Trump being found in contempt of court

by judge Maran for violating the gag

order if that happens yeah there's a

jail in the back of the

courthouse it's like a it's like a

cooling off tank but there's actually a

jail in New York called Riker's Island

which if it were longer than a short

amount of time I think you would be

transported to but talk about what the

New York Times is reporting as the

logistics that the Secret Service who

has Donald Trump as a requirement their

remit to defend him meaning the secret

service is going to jail too or prison

now let me talk about prison if he is

sentenced in a state system like the New

York state supreme court jury right now

considering the election interference uh

uh business fraud

case then Donald Trump is not sent to a

prison per se he's sent likely to

Riker's Island at least that's where the

average Garden variety convicted

criminal goes in New York York it's not

a fun place it's not a nice place it's

one of the worst jails in the country

and let's just hold that thought for a

minute if he gets convicted in the

federal system then he's under the

control of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

the bop and the bop and the director of

the Bureau of Prisons has to decide

sometimes in consultation with the judge

um and the uh uh parole and sentencing

uh Department of the of the um

Department of Justice as to which

facility is right for Donald Trump that

we generally refer to as a prison the

secret service has to get their arms and

Minds around the possibility that Donald

Trump is going to jail or prison the New

York Times reports the thing that

instigated it it took it out of the

world of conjecture and speculation into

the world of Donald Trump potentially

wearing a jumpsuit meaning the that the

Secret Service who didn't sign up for

this per se is going to jail too is the

contempt hearing going on in New York we

don't have a ruling yet we will maybe by

the time this hotti goes up about

whether judge Maran first in an exercise

of progressive discipline fines Donald

Trump up to $1,000 a day that's the

maximum in New York after that it would

be jail time in the courthouse there's a

jail or in Riker's Island so how to

protect the guy running for the

presidency who already has a secret

service detail and under on the off

chance that he Were Somehow sent back by

the American electorate back to the

white house uh Heaven de Betsy shutter

to think then what would happen so they

got to think about these eventualities

now the secret service is going to stay

with Donald Trump even if he goes if

he's incarcerated in one of these

facilities I just outlined prison jail

he won't be in the general population

they're already talking and that's the

new reporting law enforcement the the

the directors of the jail and prison

system in New York and Secret Service

leadership is talking about how to

protect Donald Trump inside right how do

you do it because there's no talk yet of

of allowing him to serve out his time in

some other facility like a uh

decommissioned army base or a hospital

of some sort so if he's going to go in

he's going to have to be separated from

general population because even the

Trump supporters think he'll be murdered

in prison how do I know that Alan dtz a

leading lawyer for Donald Trump big

supporter of Donald Trump constitutional

scholar uh somebody who got OJ off and

not be convicted he said exactly that on

news TI a listen his wife and his

children real quickly uh Professor I

want to ask you one question here this

was news over the weekend former head of

the January 6 committee Congressman

Bernie uh Benny rather Thompson he wants

to strip Trump of his secret service

protection uh that uh he gets and that's

if he's convicted of this crime so he

would not have Secret Service if he's

Behind Bars what do you make of this

well that's ridiculous that means that

they want him killed uh because he's

obviously a Target we live in an age

where everybody is in danger look Bobby

Kennedy ought to be getting uh uh Secret

Service protection but certainly Donald

Trump needs to get a secret service

protection look he's not going to jail

um but if he goes to jail obviously the

law requires Secret Service Secret

Service protection uh we had a

presidential candidate once running from

prison he got over a million votes

that's not going to happen here the

judge is going to Bluff and fine and

regret but he's not going to throw

Donald Trump in jail okay so let's

assume as a country we'd rather Donald

Trump not being murdered in prison which

means he's going to have to have

separation from the general population

that means solitary

confinement that's what it means he's

going to have his own wing and the in

the adjoining cells I guess they'll take

the doors off and make them into little

apartments is going to be secret service

and the Secret Service is going to have

guns and weapons now you may not know

this from all the movies and television

out there but you're not generally

allowed to have a weapon unless you're a

guard but the secret service is going to

have to be given special dispensation to

protect the former president and

candidate for office Donald Trump so you

got Secret Service in there they're

going to jail with their weapons in a

segregated area for Trump and this is

all being considered I mean there's

already a

quote from uh uh Martin horn who's with

the New York prison system like this is

unchartered

territory that is the understatement of

at least the day yes this is unchartered

territory uh on the uh that that the

leadership of the prison systems law

enforcement and Secret Service are

talking about the the possibility that

Donald Trump can be jailed I know

there's a huray going out in the

audience right now they're finally

talking about it um but I wanted to

bring it to your attention now because

frankly the New York Times broken at the

story it's it's already out there and I

want to give it to you from my

perspective will this weigh on the mind

of Judge Maran when he makes his

decision about contempt slightly um you

know there there's a piece of me and

I've said it on legal AF that thinks

don't make him a bigger martyr than he

already is don't he he's he's he's he's

inviting it the prosecutors have said it

in the courtroom during the contempt

hearing judge he's inviting you he he's

he's uh he wants you to send him to jail

uh do it but you know what would happen

among mag red if he were sent to jail

for a couple of days I'm not saying

that's the condition he should be

treated like anybody else although we

have to recognize he hasn't been treated

like anybody else to date so we'll leave

it to judge Maran who's been doing the

right thing all this time about what to

do with him but if he is sent away there

is a let's just put it this way he takes

a lot of luggage and baggage along with

him he needs to be protected he needs to

be have Secret Service they have to have

guns those people have to be housed and

fed they have to be rotated out right

unless they create a super max prison

just for Donald Trump I guess they could

build that you know if you listen to the

Republicans they think you know we're on

the road to all former presidents

eventually being prosecuted convicted

and jail maybe we need a special prison

built just for former elected officials

and and uh and presidents who knows I

I'm I'm I just as you could probably

tell from from my tongue in cheek but

you know what I take away from this is a

certain amount of comfort that they're

even talking about it and as I I

jokingly started the hotti this is a um

glass ceiling that has been broken you

know sort of a seal that has been broken

much the way for me when Alvin Bragg and

the Manhattan DA got the first

indictment against Donald Trump

everybody said not in our audience but

in general everybody said oh we'll never

see the day when Donald Trump is brought

to Justice and then when then when he

was indicted and arraigned it was oh

that's the wrong case we' rather it be

another case okay so then was Georgia it

sort of Alvin brag gave permission to

other prosecutors to show that a former

president could be indicted Alvin Bragg

also gave permission and broke the glass

ceiling and signaled to other

prosecutors and attorney generals around

the country that you could um in uh

convict uh for financial fraud entities

close to Donald Trump when he got a 17c

count criminal conviction of his two MA

Trump's two major companies two years

ago you know this is the signal this is

the tone from the Top If you will having

given that permission broken that

ceiling then came fonny Willis Fon

County district attorney and her more

sprawling sweeping racketeering

indictment of Donald Trump and

arraignment along with his Co

conspirators then you had Jack Smith

following behind as the special counsel

indicting twice Mara Lago and in the DC

election interference case so but we

still have naysayers he'll never be

brought to Justice you are watching him

being brought to Justice right the

revolution may not be televised but

parts of the criminal case against

Donald Trump are and if they're not

televised we're doing what we can on

YouTube and on our podcast legal AF uh

to bring this information to you searing

information that it is in real time with

the analysis alongside and so that's

what we do on this on this network so

now we're talking about a new glass

ceiling broken people can say that un

that that secret love language about

Donald Trump how will he be housed and

protected in jail or prison and now and

now we're off and running once you can

make that leap across that Rubicon and

you can start actually talking about

that then it normalizes the issue and we

can stop on other media I won't call

them mainstream I think we're mainstream

uh you can they can stop saying he'll

never be jailed because it's too hard

it's so hard we can't figure it out out

popac they're figuring it out that's the

reporting here I'm in New York that's

not a siren to take Donald Trump away

yet uh but they're working it out

they're professionals I'm sure I would

have loved to have been a fly on the

wall Secret Service calling law

enforcement calling a prison director

about hm this is becoming more of a

reality how do we what what do we do

next I almost did my Bane voice from

Batman when he was in prison what do we

do now Batman

man I'll continue to report with or

without uh bad impersonations on legal

AF every Wednesday and Saturday at 8:00

pm Eastern Time right here on the Midas

touch Network you want to know why we

call it legal AF join the show join the

audience you'll know why we curate and

Cate and whatever other word I can think

of um and cultivate and curate the best

five stories at the intersection of Law

and politics I don't know why I'm so

Punchy today I was down at the

courthouse maybe that's what did it um

and we bring it to you with analysis uh

Wednesdays with me and Caren Freeman

nifo Saturdays with me and Ben my Salis

then on hot takes just like this one as

we follow Trump on trial so until my

next hot take until my next legal AF

until my next patreon exclusive video

about law and politics this is Michael

popac reporting

[admin]

Bette Midler HUMILIATES Trump with New Jingle Exposing His Courtroom Secret
Written by Eric Kornfeld
Music by Marc Shaiman
Vocals by Bette Midler
MeidasTouch
April 26, 2024



Transcript

[Music]

[Bette Midler] You can smell just like a big fat loser;
You can reek like a repulsive fool;
With a hint of sexual abuser,
And toxic notes of universal ridicule.
If you like a fragrance that's psychotic;
Infused with rage and defamation too;
A litany of lies so pathologic;
Eau de Trump is certainly the stench for you.
May cause diarrhea, shingles, constipation, stupidity, incessive whining, adultery, halitosis, fat head, fat ass, teeny weeny peeny, deceit, disgust, disgrace, treason and comb overs.
Eau de Trump is certainly the stench for you.

[Donald Trump] Because every dictator starts with a dick.

[admin]

Doomscroll
by Progress North
Apr 25, 2024

We’ve made history before. And we’ll do it again. Join the fight for #OurFreedomsOurFutures and become a Progress North 4WRD voter!



Transcript

[News] In today's news --

[Girl] No!

[News] Corporate price gouging.

[Man] Oh!

[News] New abortion ban.

[Man] Ugh!

[Corporate Chieftain] Yes! Doom! That's all there is. Nothing can stop it. Doom!!!

[Narrator] We know things feel bleak right now.

[Woman] Uh!

[Corporate Chieftain] We can all feel --

[Republican Politician] Hopeless! Useless! I will suck them into despair! Ha ha ha!

[Canvasser] [Knocks phone out of woman's hand; Man's hand; other man's hand.] But buck the fuck up!

[Corporate Chieftain] Wait! I need the [inaudible]

[Canvasser] Come on! [Gives petition drive papers to everyone]

[Woman] Oh!

[Boy] Thanks!

[Canvasser] We decide what comes next. We have made history before, and we will do it again.

Ohio voters pass abortion rights.
Thursday, November 9, 2023

Auto Workers Win Biggest Raises in Decades
Monday, November 6, 2023

IRA: Biggest Climate Bill Passed in U.S. History
Tuesday, August 2, 2022

[Buck the F#&k Up Canvasser knocking on doors]

OUR FUTURES ARE IN OUR HANDS

SPREAD THE WORD

[Woman] Let's do this!

[admin]

Trump’s Body SHUTS DOWN as Cohen TESTIFIES at Trial
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
May 13, 2024

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump knocking out and falling asleep during the key moment at his criminal trial when Michael Cohen is testifying.



Transcript

0:00
Michael Cohen is currently testifying

0:02
and by all accounts his testimony is

0:05
powerful he's calm he's confident he's

0:08
in command and he's just going through

0:11
the facts as the prosecutors with Susan

0:14
hoffinger from the DA's team questioning

0:16
him going through corroborating

0:18
documents one after another it's also

0:21
being reported by multiple sources in

0:24
the courtroom that as Michael Cohen is

0:26
testifying against his former boss

0:29
Donald Trump

0:30
Donald Trump sits just a few feet away

0:34
his eyes appearing to be closed there's

0:37
multiple reports of Donald Trump falling

0:40
asleep in the courtroom and closing his

0:43
eyes for significant periods of time

0:46
this is from another source so that was

0:48
Katie Fang talking about Donald Trump

0:51
falling asleep while Michael Cohen's

0:53
testifying right here is Harry Litman

0:56
talking about uh uh his role in campaign

1:00
was to be an unofficial outside

1:02
surrogate referring to the testimony of

1:04
Michael Cohen um he made public

1:07
appearances as well and then Harry

1:10
Litman who's part of the mightest touch

1:12
Network who's in the courtroom right now

1:13
says Trump seems to be out necklace

1:18
seems to be concerned about it referring

1:21
to Donald Trump's lawyer Susan necklace

1:24
trying to wake Donald Trump up as he

1:26
continues to fall asleep in the

1:29
courtroom room while Michael Cohen is

1:32
testifying or Donald Trump simply can't

1:34
look Michael Cohen in the eyes as Cohen

1:37
goes through fact after fact after fact

1:41
here is the Mueller she wrote account

1:44
right here um she's in the courtroom as

1:46
well Trump's head is now fully resting

1:50
on his right shoulder he's out like a

1:54
light just full-fledged sleeping going

1:57
on by Donald Trump during my Cohen's

2:01
testimony uh another source right here

2:04
is saying how they have a friend sitting

2:06
in the courtroom in Manhattan watching

2:08
the Trump trial and says that Trump is

2:10
falling asleep over and over for real

2:14
his head often rests downwards towards

2:17
his right shoulder a main symptom of

2:20
people with advancing dementia is that

2:23
they sleep way more than others and one

2:26
of the things we know as well with

2:27
everything Donald Trump accused the

2:30
other side of that which you have accuse

2:33
them project your own issues on them and

2:37
so it's becoming very clear why they

2:38
would call Donald Trump why Donald Trump

2:41
would be calling President Biden sleepy

2:43
Joe and obviously Trump has some serious

2:46
issues here going back to the testimony

2:49
of Michael Cohen while Donald Trump is

2:52
falling asleep Cohen is just

2:54
methodically going through point after

2:57
Point Cohen started working for the

2:59
Trump organization in 2007 he was

3:03
introduced to Donald Trump by Don Jr

3:05
Cohen talked about an initial deal that

3:08
he was brought on where he helped Donald

3:10
Trump uh not pay an invoice for several

3:15
hundred, that endeared him to Donald

3:18
Trump uh Donald Trump then offered him a

3:22
role at the Trump

3:23
organization Cohen said that he was paid

3:26
around

3:28
$325,000 and with bonuses he made around

3:31
half a million dollar each year for

3:33
about the 10 years he worked at the

3:35
Trump organization from 2007 to

3:39
2017 Cohen was asked questions about

3:42
whether or not you ever emailed with

3:44
Donald Trump Cohen's response was Mr

3:47
Trump never had an email address and

3:50
asked to elaborate on that Cohen quotes

3:52
Donald Trump saying quote emails are

3:55
like written papers there are too many

3:58
people who have gone down because

4:00
prosecutors gained access to their

4:03
emails look Cohen's been honest about

4:05
his past he didn't shy away from it

4:08
referring to Michael Cohen's threats to

4:10
journalists on behalf of Donald Trump

4:12
the prosecutors asked Michael Cohen did

4:15
you do that in a strong and threatening

4:17
manner sometimes to which Cohen

4:19
responded

4:21
calmly I would say so not all the time

4:24
but I would do so often um they talk

4:28
about what Cohen's role were

4:30
renegotiating bills and

4:33
invoices Cohen said he didn't believe

4:36
referring to Trump didn't believe that

4:37
an invoice was fair reasonable and

4:39
Justified I would get the task of

4:42
renegotiating the specific bills for him

4:45
Coen was asked how it made him feel when

4:47
he was doing this task Cohen said it

4:49
made him feel like uh he was on top of

4:53
the world and then he talked about how

4:56
he would threaten to sue companies on

4:58
Donald Trump's behalf

5:00
um and the kind of tactics that he would

5:02
take on behalf of Donald Trump Cohen was

5:05
asked whether Donald Trump was a

5:07
micromanager Cohen replied yes ma'am to

5:10
Susan hoffinger the prosecutor asking

5:12
questions Cohen says he would call him

5:15
boss and Mr Trump working for him was an

5:18
amazing experience in many many ways he

5:21
says when he was working there he

5:23
described the company as a big family so

5:26
just pause there andan Cohen here is

5:28
establishing significant credibility

5:31
that he enjoyed working for this company

5:33
that he was doing what he was told to do

5:35
for this company and then ultimately

5:37
things changed and then he goes into

5:40
that part of his uh

5:42
testimony um Cohen talked about how he

5:45
was task oriented and how he would try

5:47
to uh you know get these tasks done um

5:51
he was asked during the time you worked

5:53
for Mr Trump how frequently did you

5:56
speak to him which Cohen responded every

5:58
single day

6:00
and multiple times a day I would speak

6:02
to him generally we'd get in touch in

6:05
person or phone call the prosecution

6:08
team has the phone logs of all of the

6:10
phone calls remember on is it last

6:13
Friday or

6:15
Thursday when uh the prosecutor had to

6:18
call a custodial witness from AT&T and

6:21
Verizon to authenticate phone records

6:24
Donald Trump's lawyer Emil Bo was asking

6:27
them so is it possible that these were

6:30
butt dials have you heard of pocket

6:32
dials which to me just seems to be you

6:34
know a completely like absurd thing to

6:37
even say and just I mean how do you even

6:41
like treat the jury that way um Cohen

6:45
goes on to authenticate his email

6:47
address he authenticates his phone

6:49
records he starts talking about his

6:52
relationship with David pecker he starts

6:54
talking about Trump's relationship with

6:56
David pecker. When Donald Trump

6:59
decided to run for office, Cohen recalls

7:02
that Donald Trump said to him, "You know,

7:03
we're going to have to deal with a lot

7:06
of women -- [a lot of women] are going to be coming out and

7:08
telling stories about me. I want to

7:11
warn you there's going to be a lot of

7:12
women coming forward.

And then they went

7:15
into how they created uh the uh LLC

7:20
shell company for Cohen to then make the

7:23
payments Cohen was asked why he uh well

7:27
Cohen was played the voice recording

7:29
with him and Donald Trump um where

7:32
Donald Trump and he were discussing

7:34
making the payments uh to the women who

7:37
Donald Trump was paying the hush money

7:39
payments to. Trump suggested that Cohen

7:42
pay them in cash. And Cohen was asked, "Why

7:45
did you go back to Donald Trump and say,

7:47
'Don't do it in cash?'" And Cohen said, "It's

7:49
because we wanted to at least make it

7:52
appear and look like it was a legitimate

7:54
transaction when we did it, because we

7:56
were trying to conceal it. So we went

7:59
over that audio recording that

8:01
Cohen had. Cohen was

8:06
asked some additional questions um he

8:09
was asked about the creation of

8:11
resolution Consultants LLC how they

8:14
created it when they created it and just

8:18
very methodically going over oh there

8:20
was the one issue with the audio

8:22
recording about why the audio recording

8:25
end the audio recording of trump seems

8:27
to kind of end abruptly at a certain

8:30
point and Cohen was asked why'd you stop

8:31
recording it there Cohen said I actually

8:34
got a phone call at that exact moment

8:37
the prosecution then has the

8:39
corroboration of Cohen receiving a phone

8:42
call at that exact moment that's why the

8:45
recording ended at that specific moment

8:47
so that's what was going on so far and

8:50
as all of that's happening Trump is

8:52
slouched over

8:55
sleeping um and as lots of people in the

8:58
courtroom including my sources in the

9:00
courtroom corroborate the sources in the

9:02
courtroom Trump's lawyer Susan necklace

9:05
keeps on turning to him trying to like

9:08
wake him up and trying to do something

9:10
to keep him alert because it's like a

9:13
it's so obviously like sleeping while

9:16
Cohen's on the stand and so it's just a

9:19
very bizarre look by Donald Trump also

9:22
bizarre Donald Trump brought with him uh

9:26
senators from Alabama Maga Republican

9:28
Tommy bville and the senator from Maga

9:31
Republican senator from Ohio JD Vance

9:36
let me just show you here like so so

9:38
what Donald Trump's new strategy is is

9:41
because Trump doesn't want to violate

9:43
the gag order um he now brings in

9:46
surrogates like Senators he brought in

9:50
uh Senator he brought in senator from

9:51
magga Republican senator from Florida

9:54
Rick Scott on Friday now he brings in

9:57
tuberville so he has the Senators attack

9:59
the witnesses and then has Fox broadcast

10:02
that that's Trump's strategy here here

10:05
is what Tommy tuberville said as he just

10:08
exited Court moments ago play this clip

10:10
a month he's been here a month I am

10:13
disappointed in looking at the American

10:15
supposedly American citizens in that

10:17
courtroom that the Da comes in and he

10:20
acts like it his his Super Bowl and I

10:23
guess it is to be noticed but that's

10:26
what's happening in this country me you

10:28
hear what he says to supposedly American

10:31
citizens by the way as Bradley Moss says

10:34
on this next clip I'm about to show you

10:36
never tell folks like Tommy tuberville

10:39
that this is exactly what Americans deal

10:41
with when they're in court every day

10:43
like this is just what court is here's

10:46
Tommy tuberville whining to the press

10:48
play this clip respect here's what I'm

10:51
seeing too it is depressing that

10:53
courtroom is depressing this is New York

10:57
City the icon of our country

10:59
and we got a courtroom that's the most

11:02
depressing thing I've ever been in

11:04
mental anguish is trying to be pushed on

11:08
Republican candidate for the president

11:10
of United States this year that's here's

11:12
Tommy tuberville whining one more time

11:14
play the clip and I guess it is to be

11:16
noticed but that's what's happening in

11:18
this country Republican candidate for

11:21
president of the United States is going

11:23
through mental anguish in a courtroom

11:26
that's very depressing very depressing

11:29
and that's the thing folks it's just

11:31
they they constantly are whining it's

11:33
just a whining and playing the victim

11:35
and it's so depressing I mean that's the

11:38
modern day that's just how they behave

11:39
anyway inside the courtroom I see a lot

11:42
of other commentators saying as of now

11:44
look this could change but if you were

11:46
to like rank Cohen right now like a b

11:50
CDE e you know AB b c DF like how would

11:53
Cohen doing like right now Cohen's at

11:55
you know he's doing like a a minus a

11:58
probably a most people are saying as a

12:01
professor I don't give all that many A's

12:03
but I give some so right now I'll say a

12:06
um but that's what a lot of people are

12:08
that's what a lot of people are saying

12:09
he's doing very well we'll keep you

12:11
posted we'll we'll find out more and

12:13
we'll give we'll keep you updated

12:14
throughout the day and we'll let you

12:16
know what's up um but Cohen's handling

12:18
business he's doing he's telling the

12:19
truth going through the facts simple as

12:21
that I've been my sell this from the

12:23
mest touch Network H subscribe let's get

12:26
to 3 million together thanks for

12:27
watching love this video make sure you

12:29
stay up to date on the latest breaking

12:31
news and all things midest by signing up

12:33
to the midest touch newsletter at mest

12:35
touch.com newsletter

[admin]

Trump Propaganda Movie ABRUPTLY YANKED When Lies EXPOSED
by Dave Aronberg
MeidasTouch
Jun 6, 2024

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The media group behind Dinesh D’Souza’s election denial propaganda film ‘2000 Mules’ issued an apology this week and claimed it would remove the film from all platforms for falsely depicting events of the 2020 election. MeidasTouch contributor Dave Aronberg reacts.



Transcript

the final hold out has fallen. the book

2000 mules turned into a movie espousing

the big lie about the 2020 election has

taken its last breath as the company

behind the book has issued an apology

and has announced that it is halting the

distribution of the book and the film

let's discuss I'm Dave aronburg state

attorney for Palm Beach County aka the

Florida law man here on the midest touch

Network you've probably heard of two

th000 mules that's the conspiracy fueled

book turned into a movie by right-wing

provocator denesh desuza who is an

Exelon pardoned by Donald Trump and

whether was to pay Trump back or whatnot

he wrote a book describing all this

election fraud and this is the book

turned into a movie that was distributed

widely and if you talk to your

conspiracy fueled former friends they

this is the the one book they will turn

to say well yeah all this other stuff

you know these other people may have

changed their minds but not danessa Suza

this book proves that there was illegal

ballot harvesting and with cell phone

data that showed there was this huge

conspiracy to drop illegal ballots off

in all these dropboxes All Over Georgia

this proves there was election fraud and

every time you try to show them the

facts they would say but but 2,000

mules well 2,000 mules is no more

thoughts of some

prayers it even went up to Bill bar

attorney general Bill bar who was a

trump sycophant and then couldn't go

along with the election lies he was

asked during the January 6 select

committee depositions he was asked about

2,000 mules and here's what he had to

say about it uh the election was not

stolen by

fraud and uh I haven't seen anything

since the election that changes my mind

on that including the 200 mules

movie with 2 maybe you can assess that

2,000 mules and people are talking about

that well I mean just in a nutshell you

know I just think the gbi was

unimpressed with it and I was similarly

unimpressed with it because I think if

you

because uh I was holding my fire on that

to see what the photographic evidence

was cuz I thought well hell if they have

a lot of photographs of the same person

dumping a lot of ballots in different

boxes you know that's hard to

explain um so I wanted to see what the

photographic evidence was but the uh

cell phone data is is singularly

unimpressive I mean it basically if you

take 2 million uh cell phones and and

figure out where they are physically in

a big city like Atlanta or wherever just

by definition you're going to find many

hundreds of them have passed by and

spent time in the vicinity of these

boxes and the premise that you know if

you go by a box you know five boxes or

whatever it was you know that that's a

mule is just indefensible it it it by

definition you're going to have a lot

hundreds of this well one of those

Georgia voters who the book and movies

said was illegally dropping off multiple

ballots sued the company behind 2,000

mules and is now won and this is just

his latest Victory but now the victory

is complete the guy's name is Mark

Andrews and after the allegations that

were made by 2000 mules he was

investigated by the Georgia Bureau of

Investigations in fact Bill bar

mentioned gbi in his comments well

according to NPR the Georgia Bureau

Investigation cleared Andrews of

wrongdoing and found he was legally

dropping off ballots for members of his

family Andrews filed a lawsuit against

Salem that's the distributor of the

movie that's the company behind it it's

a conservative company that now wants no

part of desesa Souza or the book as well

as a team behind the movie right-wing

commentator desesa Souza and the group

true the

vote according to a court filing in a

related case Salem settled the lawsuit

brought by Andrews for an undisclosed

significant amount in the statement on

its website Salem wrote it was never our

intent that the the publication of the

2000 mules film and book would harm Mr

Andrews we apologize for the hurt the

inclusion of Mr Andrews image in the

movie book and promotional materials

have caused Mr Andrews and his family

yeah they they're not remorseful about

doing it they're remorseful about

getting caught and getting sued Salem

said that it relied on representations

Made To Us by desesa Souza and true the

vote okay well Tessa Souza is an

ex-felon so you're relying on his

representation plus he's extraordinarily

partisan yeah so he's not exactly a

truth teller and true the vote well I

did a previous video for Midas Touch

about true the vote where true the vote

is this group in Georgia that was going

to prove that election fraud existed and

what they did was they had made all

these accusations and then finally Brad

raffensberger the Secretary of State

Republican he said put up a shut up man

you know you guys are spreading all

these lies and Brad rburg went to court

to force true the vote to come up with

its names it information because they

said they had names they had actual

sworn statements from people who could

showed that there was

fraud and guess what happened yeah

according to the Associated Press a

conservative group has told a Georgia

judge that it doesn't have evidence to

support its claims of illegal ballot

stuffing during the 2020 general

election and a runoff 2 months later

Texas Bas TR the vote filed complaints

with Georgia Secretary of State Brad

raffensberger in

2021 including one in which it said it

had obtained a detailed account of

coordinated efforts to collect and

deposit ballots in drop boxes across

Metro Atlanta during the November 2020

election and a January 2021 runoff

Fulton County Superior Court judge in

Atlanta signed an order last year

requiring true the vote to provide

evidence it had collected including the

names of people who were sources of

information to state election officials

who were frustrated by the group's

refusal to share evidence with

investigators in their written response

attorneys for True the vote said the

group had no names or other documentary

evidence to

share yeah shocker it reminded me of

that scene in Seinfeld where George

castanza had told the parents of his

fiance who passed away that he owned a

house in the Hamptons which is further

down the road further up the hill and so

the parents kept calling George's Bluff

and kept saying all right let's see it

keep driving keep driving until they

went out on foot and George then broke

down and had to admit that no the house

doesn't exist that's true the vote yes

we've got all this fraud until of course

we have to provide the information under

oath then like yeah uh yeah the

Hampton's house doesn't exist there's no

house it's a lie so that's why it's no

surprise that you know there's no honor

among Thieves and these guys are all

pointing the fingers at each other other

true the vote denesa soua the Salem

company and in fact this was not the

first Rift among the makers and

distributor of 2,000 mules when dusza

published the book version of the film

and made allegations of illegal ballot

trafficking against specific nonprofit

groups true the vote issued a statement

saying that the group had no

participation in the book and has no

knowledge of its contents TR the vote

added this includes any allegations of

activities of any specific organizations

made in the book we made no such

allegations that version of the book was

abruptly recalled after already reaching

store shelves and replaced with a

version that omitted multiple

significant

allegations yeah you you know it's going

bad when the conspiracy groups are

turning on each other because they don't

want to be associated with the

conspiracy anymore they see what's

happening to those purveyors of the big

lie I mean 2024 really is the year of

accountability just as Rudy Giuliani the

spokesman for the big lie the biggest

Pusher of election fraud well he's now

bankrupt he's been indicted multiple

jurisdictions and he got served with his

indictment yeah he got served at his

80th birthday party here in Palm Beach

it was from the state of Arizona they

traveled to my backyard here in Palm

Beach and served him at his 80th

birthday apparently the party goers at

the birthday party were in

tears yeah well don't celebrate someone

who tries to destroy our democracy then

there's Jenna Ellis Sydney pal the my

pillow guy all these folks were either

indicted disbarred or hanging by a

thread financially and they only have

themselves to blame and then there's

Donald Trump who was just convicted of

34 felony counts in New York and

although they are unrelated to the big

lie he's got other criminal cases

hanging over his head related to his

false claims

of election fraud and the only one that

could possibly go before the election

now is the one in Washington DC on

Election interference but so far the

Supreme Court has put its thumb on the

scale and tried to to delay the matter

and we'll see if they decide ultimately

to give the green light so judge shutkin

and Jack Smith can go or they'll push us

till after the election When Donald

Trump possibly could get elected and

then end all of these

cases yes I know he can't off in the

state case but uh he will stay in the

White House surround himself with Secret

Service agents and challenge the Das of

Georgia and New York to come and get me

so this is why this election in November

is the most important one in our

lifetimes and that's why it's up to all

of you mightest mighty to go out make a

difference keep speaking up and keep

sharing these videos I'm Dave aronburg

AK the Florida law man if you like this

video share it like it And subscribe and

I'll see you next time.

***********************

‘2,000 Mules’ Producer Apologizes to Man Depicted Committing Election Fraud: Salem Media Group, which co-produced the 2022 film, issued the apology to a Georgia man who was falsely depicted as stuffing a ballot box near Atlanta.
by Ken Bensinger
New York Times
May 31, 2024

The conservative media company Salem Media Group has apologized to a Georgia man who was falsely depicted as having committed election fraud in the film “2,000 Mules,” which Salem co-produced and released in 2022.

The documentary, written and directed by the right-wing commentator Dinesh D’Souza, claimed that Democrats had conspired with nonprofit groups to rig the 2020 election in favor of President Biden by using “mules” who stuffed ballot boxes in swing states.

More than a million people watched “2,000 Mules” in just the first two weeks after its release in May 2022, and the film grossed over $10 million. Its unfounded allegations became an article of faith for an untold number of Americans convinced that the election had been stolen. Five months later, Salem released a companion book.

The film features surveillance video of the man from Georgia, Mark Andrews, as he places ballots into a drop box near Atlanta, along with voice-over commentary by Mr. D’Souza calling the action “a crime” and adding, “These are fraudulent votes.”

Although Mr. Andrews’s face is blurred in the images, the film’s producers used unblurred versions of the same video to promote the film on a variety of conservative news outlets, including Tucker Carlson’s former show on Fox News and a show hosted by Charlie Kirk, a founder of Turning Point USA, and produced by Salem.

The Spread of Misinformation and Falsehoods

Mr. Andrews sued Mr. D’Souza, along with Salem and two individuals associated with the right-wing election-monitoring group True the Vote, for defamation in October 2022. State investigators in Georgia have since found that Mr. Andrews committed no crime and that he had legally deposited the ballots for himself and several members of his family.

“It was never our intent that the publication of the ‘2,000 Mules’ film and book would harm Mr. Andrews,” Salem said in a statement on Friday. “We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’s image in the movie, book and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family.”

Salem, one of the largest radio broadcasters in the country, with 115 stations, also syndicates radio and podcast content, operates several websites and publishes a number of conservative Christian-themed magazines. It said on Friday that it had taken “2,000 Mules” off its platforms and that it would no longer distribute the film and the book.

As the 2022 midterm elections approached, the film became a touch point for a variety of institutions and individuals alleging that the presidency had been stolen from Donald J. Trump, who for his part called it “the greatest and most impactful documentary of our time.”

Several advocacy groups, inspired by “2,000 Mules,” formed to stake out ballot boxes — at times with individuals carrying firearms — and to warn voters against voting early.

But some of the film’s staunchest promoters, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, who attended a screening at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, Fla., and Fox News, which aired several segments about the film, later admitted that they had peddled lies about the election. In February, a lawyer for True the Vote told a Georgia court that it had no evidence to support its allegations of election fraud in the state.

Despite such admissions, many Americans continue to believe that the 2020 election was rigged. A poll conducted last August by CNN found that more than two-thirds of Republican voters did not believe that President Biden had won fairly.

Mr. D’Souza did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, did not answer a phone call or reply to an email seeking a response.

“2,000 Mules” relied heavily on cellphone location data provided by True the Vote, which Mr. D’Souza claimed showed ballot mules approaching ballot boxes several times a day, as well as attending Black Lives Matter protests. The film claimed to provide evidence of fraud in battleground states that were critical to the outcome of the 2020 election, including Georgia and Arizona. True the Vote officials claimed that they had turned over proof of fraud to the F.B.I.

But subsequent investigations have debunked the documentary’s claims, and Arizona’s attorney general referred True the Vote to the F.B.I. and the Internal Revenue Service for investigation, noting that the group had provided no evidence to substantiate its fraud claims.

In September, a federal judge in Georgia rejected efforts by defendants to dismiss Mr. Andrews’s defamation case. The case is pending.

Ken Bensinger covers right wing media and national political campaigns for The Times. More about Ken Bensinger

[admin]

Trump NDA Killer Denson Delivers FATAL MESSAGE to Trump | Lights On with Jessica Denson
MeidasTouch
by Lights On with Jessica Denson
7/5/24

xxx

Lights on! This state of discourse is a national disgrace! Former Trump aide Jessica Denson calls on Donald J. Trump to drop out of the race, setting straight the narrative in a week of unhinged media gaslighting on President Biden’s fitness for office, when the Supreme Court’s upending of nearly 250 years of freedom from a would-be felon monarch should be the story of the century. In a MUST-SEE episode for the media, concerned citizens, Democrats, the Biden Campaign, and yes, Donald Trump, Jessica sheds light on real voter sentiment, what history teaches us about the absurd Biden replacement frenzy, and how we must (and will!) stand united to get to another Independence Day in America.

Support Jessica Denson’s legal fund here: http://thejessicadenson.com/donate
Subscribe to Jessica's Youtube: https://youtube.com/@JessicaDenson07



Transcript


United We Stand I'm Jessica Denson and

this is lights on President Biden has

not lost his mind but the American Media

sure has if you're here you're in for a

much needed dose of Sanity of proper

placement of outrage and alarm course

correction after this past week and

frankly dignity and respect for our

country our freedom and those who have

sacrificed so much for it my message

today is for the media it's for

Democrats who unfortunately can be so

skilled at self-sabotage sometimes it's

for the Biden campaign who I think knows

but we have a lot more messages of how

much support they really have out there

and yes a message I do have today for

Donald J Trump you know it took me less

than one minute less than one minute

after that debate last week to know how

I felt and that was more energized and

motivated than ever before to help

President Biden defeat a wouldbe

dictator in America and I know because I

have seen I have seen the response I

know that millions of Biden supporters

are with me on this less than 24 hours

after that I did this show and I called

out what was already an obscene frenzy

over possible Biden Replacements Biden

Replacements not Trump Replacements

Biden Replacements and the media's

failure to apply the same scrutiny to

the danger decline evident decline on so

many occasions and outright deceit of

Donald J Trump in what has been nothing

short of a National Disgrace the media

has continued this Firestorm of their

own creation for over a week and not

just any week my God a week in which the

Supreme Court of the United States argu

arguably the most illegitimate corrupt

Supreme Court this country has ever

seen has attempted to upend nearly 250

years of freedom from monarchy by

declaring that presidents can enjoy

absolute criminal immunity we are in

extra constitutional

territory and this is in an election

year where if convicted felon is running

to become dictator from day one I mean

this is the Five Alarm story from now

until election day what is wrong with

anyone with a platform who is not

reporting the stakes this way I've got

to say it I not hold any pull any

punches here if the nation Falls and I

don't believe it will and you're going

to hear a lot more about that today but

if it does the blood of democracy will

be on the hands of the people who had an

opportunity to create this narrative

properly and did

not now for better Better or For Worse

mainstream media in many ways does

create the narrative in this country um

I know as well as anyone because I have

been shadowed by the mainstream media I

as you know if you are watching the show

for if you are a loyal viewer and if

you're not I'll give you the two-minute

version I was a staffer on Donald

Trump's campaign I was brainwashed by

right-wing media into supporting him it

is something I'm very transparent about

regretting and coming clean about I

once I came to my senses in the early

years of Donald Trump's presidency I

fought back as a citizen who's being

censored who was being held to an

illegal non-disclosure agreement which

demanded that I give a lifetime of

allegiance to Donald Trump this was a

dictator Playbook that I was living

firsthand from this man and I fought

back initially with no help with no

lawyer and I in the end invalidated

hundreds of his non-disclosure

agreements these authoritarian

weaponized uh apparatus that he used to

try to silence critics and punish them

and make examples of them and the media

has essentially not reported my

story so I know how wrong the media can

get it believe me um but I got to tell

you in this past week they have really

outdone

themselves we are literally in extra

constitutional territory as I mentioned

with the Supreme Court and I also want

to talk today about a little bit about

the self-sabotage of Democrats I mean I

think if there's anything that we can

learn from the Republicans it's how to

fraking take control of a narrative and

um you know not pull any punches and be

United that's why I opened with united

we stand for goodness sakes you you're

the guy on the other side is Donald

Trump and your guy misses a couple words

and doesn't call out every lie One Night

in a de baate and you're calling for him

to to drop out of the race I mean my

friends my friends get a grip get a

grip um but I have a very very important

message today we are dealing with an

unthinkable threat to our democracy that

I do think that I do think we absolutely

have the tools to defeat and you are in

a treat for a lot of the the right

messages

I basically went through the

week and I garnered everything

all of the clarity all of the logic all

of the history um voter sentiment um you

know real real the real heartbeat of the

country not of the commentators the

experts of the pundits you know one of

the um one of the things that I think

kind of Separates Me From A lot of

people out there in the media is I I

didn't come to any of this I didn't come

to the Trump campaign I didn't come I

don't come to this show is some

political expert or political you know

Politico that's not who I am I really

always just come to this as a citizen

who cares and I have felt such a you

know common cause over the past week

with all the citizens out there because

it seems like they're being just ignored

it what what the media is reporting is

so freeking detached from how people

actually

feel but um speaking speak of how people

actually feel I want to address one man

and you see it in the headline of this

show that man of course is Donald J

Trump I worked very closely with him uh

on some occasions in 2016 he would often

he would often make a beine to my desk

in the War Room of Trump Tower he came

there one day after he had uh come from

a speech where his teleprompter wasn't

working and he was worried because that

campaign had put Donald Trump on

teleprompter for the the fall after

Labor Day knowing knowing how dangerous

and and destructive to himself he was

when he didn't have the control of a

teleprompter and one day his

teleprompter didn't work and he came in

that war room walked straight to my desk

and asked me how was I how was I the my

prompter didn't work and you know I was

drinking the Kool-Aid by then so I I I

said you Mr Trump you were great you

were great and on another occasion I

wrote on his his plane you know Trump

Force One the day after a debate when

when every single one of those uh Lackey

that you see out defending him today

knew they knew what a disastrous

performance he had done in that first

debate uh Steph Miller and Steve Bannon

were in the lobby of Trump Tower

discussing how they had a candidate who

didn't listen and how how afraid they

were and um Donald Trump that day that I

rode on his plane pulled me aside to

speak with him and I like I said I was

drinking the Kool-Aid and I said Mr

Trump you did a great job I showed him

you know some some

Rosy uh news stories that had been

written about him just to give him what

he wanted to hear and that's the

environment that surrounds him people

telling him what he wants to hear it's [7:54]

really really really pathetic it's

really really sad and you know I want to

kind of frame this in the context of

what happened today where Donald Trump

is trying to distance himself from

Project 2025 now we know this is a lie

because Donald Trump is uh going to

enact 20 project 2025 just the way he

put in conservative justices to roll

back Decades of women's rights and

freedom in this country he'll do

whatever will keep him in power but it's

so fraking pathetic isn't it him having

to use people that he doesn't care about

who don't love him who don't care about

him who were just latching on to him for

power one thing that I experienced in

the campaign was utter sabotage of my

work of my worth as a woman in the

workplace from the people that

surrounded Donald Trump and it took me

time because of

presumably kind interactions with Donald

Trump the man to realize that the rot

was coming from the top but I will tell

you something one thing I did learn and

has not changed from then till now and

those people that I worked with in 2016

are the very people that will be

instituted in a project

2025 one thing that I learned is that

these people don't give a about

anything but their own power they don't

give a about Donald Trump excuse my

language they don't get care about about

the country they don't care about

anything they have no moral guard rails

no legal and ethical guard rails and

they it would only take it would only

take as pathetic of a character as you

Mr Trump to allow them to accomplish

their goals I mean how sad is that this

parasitic

self-destructive symbiotic relationship

that you have with the people that

surround you that have no real respect

or dignity for themselves and most

certainly not when it comes to you just

telling you what you want to hear to get

what they

want how pathetic propping you up as

they watch you go out on rallies and

ramble about batteries and sharks and uh

lose your words talk call say or origins

or oranges and you forget the names of

Tim Cook the the head of apple and say

that uh you know on when we had the

Declaration of Independence there were

airports you're you're losing it Donald

Trump you need some serious serious

serious

help get some love get some Grace get

some dignity in the in the latter years

of your life you know

what you can be surrounded all day by

people who tell you what you want to

hear people are literally planning to

flee this country because of you flee

this country people are making plans to

get the hell out of here if Don if you

Donald Trump become president again

think about that think about how much

you are hated in this country think

about how much you are hated around the

world is that who you want to is that

who you want to be I mean you are

literally becoming the Adolf Hitler of

2024 that's who you're going to go down

in history as if God forbid God forbid

these sad forces that surround you help

you get back into the presidency which I

know cuz I know the look on your face

that you had when you walked into that

Hilt non election night I know the look

on your face when you walked out of the

capital to take that oath of office in

2017 you weren't happy you did not want

that

job are you going to carry this forward

and become the Adolf Hitler of American

History bow out have some dignity for

once in your life accept some love

accept some real love that you've never

known or felt you could be a hero do you

understand Donald Trump how much of a

hero you could be that adoration and

acceptance and and love from people that

you respect because we all know the kind

of people that support you you really

can't stand we know that you would have

nothing to do with them they're actually

really really embarrassing to you but

you would have respect from the kind of

people you have always wanted love and

adoration for them if you stepped out of

this race

so have some dignity Donald Trump you

might even get a

pardon drop out of this race get the

help you need get the love you need for

once in your

life and be an American

hero let us know that we will never deal

with a felon Monarch in this country and

and save us all from that concern

all right

everybody it's it's me today we are live

live and you have just me with some as I

mention excellent clips from this week

what we need to hear um I'm going to

play in a few minutes a clip from Biden

at a rally uh calling out the decline of

Donald Trump that I think should be the

subject of every media report everyone

who has the gall to focus on a few

missed

words and

a lackluster performance in a debate

which in historical terms have no actual

bearing on who wins an election every

single one of them should be playing

these gaffs of Donald Trump this mental

decline this complete unfitness for

office not to mention the rest of the

danger that he poses as a

candidate um but I want to start off

with just acknowledging the people who

have got it right in the past week um

major props to the Philadelphia inqu

Philadelphia inquir editorial board we

had that up on the screen a minute ago

they came out out of the gate last

weekend and said to serve his country

Donald Trump should leave the race they

of course outlined all of the plethora

of reasons why he is a completely unfit

candidate two impeachments convicted

felon led a de deadly Insurrection he

denigrates our our servicemen as suckers

and losers this is someone who took five

deferments had his Rich daddy uh help

him get five deferments so he had didn't

have to serve in Vietnam um claiming

that he had bone spurs you know I was I

was a little bit I got to be honest

yesterday um with the state of the media

and everything a little bit dismayed not

feeling very you know like I wanted to

celebrate Independence Day and then I

watched the capital forth which is

usually like my favorite favorite thing

to watch PBS puts on at the capital or

in DC on the mall and you look at those

um some D-Day veterans that were there

um people who have served this country

who have given their all and you just

you regain that sense of patriotism and

realize there's no way in hell we're

letting this fall on our watch no way in

hell um anyway back to the Inquirer

piece a record number of cabinet

officials were fired left off as I of

course have mentioned on the show many

times how 40 out of 44 of his of his

former um cabinet members have not

indorsed him you of course remember the

daily chaos I mean like every single day

we woke up almost afraid to turn on the

news because of what kind of Hell had

broken loose In The West Wing what kind

of chaos and infighting was spewing out

into this country from Donald Trump's

Administration um of course many many

many Trump appointees including ones

that I know very well very very well

exited under cloud of corruption

grifting ethical scandals his children

his children made Millions off of the

white house uh Jared Kushner of course

got2 billion dollars from the Saudi

government for a fledgling investment

firm even though he never managed money

before his management Trump's management

of the

pandemic abhorent management of a Health

crisis resulted in tens of thousands of

needless

deaths so uh needless to say the calls

for Biden to step aside are are um

obscene I I don't want to I don't want

to completely discredit people's concern

that's not what I'm attempting to do

we're going to just do some some course

correction and understand why why that

would be wholly wholly impractical so

unnecessary and the deflection is just

frankly ridiculous I want to um go right

now to a clip from historian Alan

lickman he has successfully predicted

past presidential elections I think it's

something like I don't know 13 or past

presidential elections I think he got

one wrong and he does it based on key

characteristics none of them are debate

performance by the way and um he was

very out out of the gate clear on this

last weekend again this should have this

should have been the end of this the

fact that we are dealing with this

conversation a week later is is of seen

um on on why it would be a complete

mistake to replace Joe Biden as the

nominee um here's Alan lman all of these

pundits and pollsters and analysts that

you see on all the cable channels and

all the networks have no track record in

predicting elections and yet they come

on and they claim they know how this

debate is going to affect the outcome of

elections they have no idea it's Sports

Talk Radio it may be entertaining but it

has no scientific basis so what what is

the impact you

think

zero debates are not predictive of

outcomes Hillary Clinton won all three

debates still lost John carry when all

the debates still lost Barack Obama got

trounced 72 to 20% in the poll worse

than Biden and went on to win that's why

we rely on the 13 Keys which tap into

the structure of how elections really

work and they show that Democrats really

only chance to win contrary to

everything you've heard is with Biden

running look at the incumbency key Biden

checks that off the contest key he

checks that off he was uncontested it

takes six keys to count out the White

House party that means of the remaining

11 keys six would have to fully finish

Biden doesn't run they lose the contest

key they lose the incumbency and only

four more keys would have to fall I

think that that's actually kind of what

I was trying to get at here is that the

the problem right now is that the

Democratic party is considering

replacing

Biden mostly because it's an unclear

whether or not he actually physically

can carry out the rest of this campaign

and and put up a fight against his

opponent so that's seems like a

fundamentally different thing than some

of the items that you have in your

rubric

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 remember a lot of

folks were saying the same thing about

Ronald Reagan who was you know 73 and

age was very different then and they

said you know he's not capable of

carrying out another term he won

49 states so this is all full hearty

nonsense the same pundits and posters

who led us down the Primrose path and

two 2016 are giving the Democrats

horrible advice this proves what I've

been saying for years Republicans have

no principles Democrats have no spine

Republicans are sticking with a blatant

liar who lied for every one minute and

20 seconds of that debate Donald Trump

put out a lie and by the way lies stick

debate performances can be overcome and

now the first sign of of you know

adversity the spineless Democrats want

to throw under the bus their own

incumbent president my

goodness my goodness you hear that

Democrats Republicans have no principles

Democrats have no spines now I've had

the pleasure and honor of interviewing

some excellent Democrats on this program

that do have spine and I not putting you

all in that bucket but to the extent

that that statement is true get your act

together Democrats grow a Fran spine you

know this is something I've shared on

this program before I always with my

team in this fight you know when I went

from being proide to getting a growing

legal team I have always shared with

them they are pulling out all the stops

with lies with corruption with with

absolute malice why shouldn't we pull

all the out all the stops with

truth do it don't be afraid for God's

sakes I mean you have the truth on your

side and you're

afraid come on come on but uh Alan

lickman there um thank you thank you for

that Clarity um I of course wanted to

bring out one we're going to go through

so many things that should be being

discussed right now but if there was any

debate story that was worth a

weeks long uh coverage frenzy it was the

amount of lies that Donald Trump spoke

in that debate and I had this clip to

play last week we didn't end up playing

it I'm going to play it now because this

is the story of of that debate how many

times Donald Trump lied and as President

Biden said it's hard to debate a liar if

you're sick if you're off game if you're

being subjected to hypnotism and

mesmerism and mental malpractice which I

don't think is off the table as far as

what these uh and very much on the table

as far as what these Trump for uh

acolytes and Trump himself tries to

employ against his opponents um it's

it's understandable you might be a

little bit off your game so um here's

the real story Trump lies clip that that

CNN of all networks who enabled this who

ran this debate starting off with a

freaking question about the economy

instead of the state of our democracy or

that a felon a convicted felon is the

candidate for one of our major parties

they had a they had a fact Checker they

should have this fact checker on every

single day if they're ever going to talk

about this debate again here's the clip

the Trump list it is way way longer so

deep breath he said some Democratic

states allow people to execute babies

after birth an egregious lie that is

illegal in every state he said everybody

even Democrats wanted Ro V way overturn

roow was supported by 2third of

Americans even more Democrats he said

every legal scholar wanted row return

abortion return to the states legal

Scholars have told me directly this is

not true he said the US currently has

the biggest budget deficit ever no that

happened under Trump in 2020 he said the

US currently has a record trade deficit

with China that also happened under

Trump in 2018 he said Biden personally

gets a lot of money from China zero

evidence of this he said said there were

no Terror attacks during his presidency

in fact there were multiple attacks he

said Iran didn't F Hamas Hezbollah other

Terror groups under his presidency Iran

in fact did he said Biden wants to

quadruple people's taxes that is pure

fiction he said the US has provided way

more Aid to Ukraine than Europe had it's

actually the opposite he said the US

Prov has provided about 200 billion in

Ukraine Aid it's closer to 110 billion

he said 18 or 19 million people have

crossed the border under Biden that is

millions too high he said many of these

migrants are from prisons or mental

institutions his own campaign cannot

corroborate this he said Biden has only

created jobs for illegal immigrants

total nonsense he said Nancy Pelosi

turned down his offer of 10,000 National

Guard troops on January 6 there's no

evidence she even got such an offer it

was the president not Pelosi who had the

power to deploy the DC guard he said

Pelosi now acknowledges she turned down

the troops no her office tell me tells

me this claim is still a lie he said he

deployed the National Guard to

Minneapolis in 2020 actually that was

the Democratic governor he spoke of

quote ridiculous fraud in the 2020

election zero evidence of any widespread

fraud he said NATO was going out of

business before he took office

completely clearly absurd he said the US

was paying 100% of NATO before he came

along the US made up about 71% of NATO

defense spending not 100 he said he not

Biden is the one who lowered insulin

prices in Medicare he did it for some

seniors but Biden did it for far more he

said Biden indicted him again no

evidence Biden has had a personal role

in any of these four prosecutions he

said Europe takes no Us cars just not

true he spoke of food prices quadrupling

under Biden that's a while exaggeration

though they are up he said Biden made up

the idea he called Dead service members

suckers and losers no the Atlantic

magazine reported that and then former

Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly

corroborated it he said Biden called

Black people quote super Predators for

10 years Biden never once deployed that

phrase let alone for 10 years though he

did at least one speak of quote

Predators without specifying as about

black people he said his Trump tax cut

was the largest in US history not true

though In fairness bid Biden also said

this Trump said China and others stop

buying from Iran under him China never

stopped he revived his pet lie I don't

know how many times I've done it that he

signed the veterans Choice program into

law Barack Obama did that in 2014 Trump

signed an expand inversion in 2018 and

finally Trump said Biden got rid of that

veterans program Biden has not done

that okay there's the debate

Story another um correction that needs

to be made here I mean there's been so

much false reporting out there about

this kind of seismic shift in voter

sentiment after the debate well that's

just not true here's some polls uh that

were taken pre and post debate um if we

can put them up on the screen there's an

average of a one point difference one

point difference in the pre and post

debate polling um only because by the

way of a New York Post poll that is

skewed heav heavily Pro Trump obviously

one point is within the margin of error

uh this is virtually no difference in

the polling if uh polls even matter

which they were by the way drastically

wrong in 2016 polls don't elect

presidents elections elect presidents uh

another poll that you know might have

been a story that we should have carried

for weeks on end is a poll that came out

after Donald Trump was convicted of

those 34 counts 34 felony counts 49% of

Independents thought that Trump should

have dropped out post guilty verdict

where was the constant questioning by

the media of

Republicans in office of Republican

congressmen of Republican governors of

Republican commentators on their shows

why are you allowing this man to go

forward as your nominee why are you not

demanding that this convicted felon drop

out of the race Why by the way do

Democrats that are posed the questions

they are now posed about President Biden

not immediately pivot to that question I

think it's the first first rule you

should learn if you ever want to be a

politician is to learn how to Pivot

learn how to Pivot Democrats pivot to

the real

story I want to continue with some more

um education from historians uh we have

next up Heather Cox Richardson who has

studied uh Republican politics for many

years um she's interviewed here by

Christian amanor one of the best

reporters CNN has they're very fortunate

to have her by the way this kind of a

sidebar but I I think some of the best

reporting on CNN is in the overnight

hours I'm I'm giving a a window into my

sometime insomnia here but uh at night

on CNN you get the international hosts

and the international um programs and

and some of the best report stories that

you'll never hear during the day are on

CNN overnight um but here's here's

Heather Cox Richardson with Christian

manur uh linking linking that scotus

decision and then this absolutely

abysmal media landscape that we've been

dealing with in the last week look out

for the word coup it's important to

remember two things first of all by

delaying that decision as long as they

did they made sure that in fact former

president Donald Trump would not see a

trial before the upcoming election

putting a really big thumb on the scale

for that election so that's an important

thing to remember it's also important to

remember that it comes after two other

big decisions one that threw out the

Chevron Doctrine and one that

essentially okayed bribery so long as

the exchange of money or favors came

after an official had decided something

so in the space of a week we've had the

idea that essentially bribery they call

it gratuities but essentially it's

bribery after the fact uh was

established by the Supreme Court and

next we got what is essentially the

throwing out of the modern State the

regulatory American state which will

dramatically benefit the very wealthy

and and corporations and now we have the

idea that in fact the president is

immune from uh prosecution for things he

did as what he calls official acts this

is a coup uh it's a coup and that's a

legal coup in our system and it is as

you say interesting that it's happening

right before July 4th when of course the

founders of the United what would become

the United States uh uh published the

Declaration of Independence that said

that the United States would not have a

king what really has has frightened me

in the last week more even than the

Supreme Court decision was the reaction

of the American Media to the event that

happened on last Thursday in Atlanta

that was televised by CNN and what the

problem for me about that was was not

that Biden was stumbling over his words

as he tried to get out the different

things that his administration had done

and it was not even that Trump showed us

who he was because those of us who've

been paying close attention for a while

knew that he has deteriorated in the in

the time since he's been in office knew

that people didn't know how bad he was

know that he is a pathological liar and

that he is refusing to accept the Norms

or the guidelines of our democracy

we knew that what shocked me was the

degree to which the American Media

looked at those two people and rather

than saying this is what is happening on

that stage we have these two characters

or even worse than saying what is

happening on that stage is looking at a

former president uh talking about

destroying American democracy what they

did was they presented to the American

people that the central problem of what

happened on that stage was Jo Biden's

age when he's three years older than the

man on the other side who wants to

destroy American

democracy

absolutely unbelievable that they would

frame it the way they've framed it uh

we're going to jump around a little bit

here but I do want to stay on the on the

subject of the Supreme Court I mean

absolutely abysmal abhorent abhorent

ruling from the Supreme Court this week

um of course

as uh Heather Cox Richardson was saying

there they already granted him a win

with the delay we all knew that much but

I do not think any of us were prepared

for just

how obscene their ruling actually was I

want to quote uh justice soda mayor's

descent pulling it up here she said

never never in the history of our

Republic has a president had reason to

believe that he would be immune from

prose ution if he used the trappings of

his office to violate the criminal law

with fear for our democracy I

desent there was a uh there was a tweet

that went viral this week um from

someone who brought out how in March of

1933 the enabling act became law in

Germany giving the chief executive power

to enforce his own laws without checks

and balances the passing of the ACT

marked the formal transition from

Democratic Republic to totalitarian

dictatorship 6 months later it was a

onep party

State you might say that Nazi history is

repeating itself but that's where we

come in that's where we the voters come

in and that is also where we the voters

understand what we are dealing with we

the voters are so much smarter than

these fraking pundits out there we

understand the stakes I'm going to pull

another clip um in just a minute from

CNN because they were trying to frame

you know they're trying to to build on

this narrative that Biden had to to drop

out and everybody was you know so

alarmed with his performance but even

even in that

reporting they managed to get clarity

from the voters who really do understand

the stakes and what this woman had to

say about who she would vote for after

Donald Trump I think speaks for every

single one of us out here and that the

Democrats need to know this the Biden

campaign needs to know this as much as

we

are expectant and and uh behind a

vibrant Don uh Joe Biden continuing

throughout the duration of this campaign

and a second term as president even if

he could not here's the sentiment from

one one

dismayed never Trumper after last

month's or last week's debate this is

how she feels about who she'd vote for

regardless he's done a great job he did

a great job the last four years right

now if these are the two options that we

have in November I'll vote for Joe

Biden's head in a jar before I'll vote

for Donald

Trump I'll vote for Joe Biden's head in

a jar before I will vote for Donald

Trump how many of us does she speak for

there

um Joe Biden in spite of continuing his

Norm campaign activity this week has

continued to get slammed by the media

for I don't know I mean I guess he

hasn't gone off prompter enough he

didn't like you know turn enough and

like go come out and start doing

cartwheels on stage maybe we should have

like a bicycle uh riding competition

because I would really like to see

Donald J Trump on a bicycle can we start

demanding that Donald J Trump come out

and ride a bicycle because I've never

seen it and I don't think it would turn

out very well for

him one thing we know our 81-year-old

President Biden can do quite well is

ride a bicycle um but what he has been

doing is uh carrying on with his

campaign very rigorous schedule um and

oh I just want to like Drop in here that

one thing that I have shared on this

program before and that's that Donald

Trump was falling asleep on the 2016

campaign all the time one of the early

stories that I got when I got promoted

and started to rise in the ranks was

from senior advisers who were with him

in boardroom meeting meetings in the

morning and they would say to me he

falls asleep he literally falls asleep

in these meetings uh one of them said to

me one day when we were trying to brief

him for the commander-in-chief Forum

which was uh that first one on not

oneon-one but first kind of De

pre-debate event with Matt low on the

Intrepid in uh in New York city hosted

by NBC news we were trying to prep him

on all kinds of military and foreign

policy issues and one of the advisers

came back to me and said he's hard to

pin down than a wet noodle so that's

your that's your candidate Republicans

you got a wet noodle running for

president um but back to uh back to what

Biden's been doing very normal heartfelt

engaged campaigning this week um he went

and spoke to I love this he spoke to a

local radio host in Philadelphia going

to where it matters um having respect

for so many of the black voters who um

my God the disrespect for the people who

have put Joe Biden here is so so

disgusting um but the Biden campaign uh

knows knows where that respect and

dignity lies they're going to speak to

the people who he cares about who he has

worked so hard for and um this is Phil

Philadelphia wur radio host Andrea

lawful Sanders um speaking with CNN

after She interviewed Biden this week um

again you know reiterating a point that

I made last week which is that God

forbid anything happened to Biden we're

still in safe hands and you know just

reiterating why his record is such a

much needed contrast to what Donald

Trump offers for her community here's

the clip my people you know as I'm

talking to them are saying things to me

like Andrea I don't care if they have to

roll him in a wheelchair I'm voting for

Joe Biden I don't care we are seeing our

freedom taking away as black people he

has helped to create black wealth as he

told me 60% of of black wealth grew 60%

since the uh covid he says he we have to

do more he's talked about you know debt

uh student debt relief he's talked about

uh put pouring money into uh creating

spaces for blackowned businesses so that

we can grow our wealth he's talked about

you know uh putting $16 billion dollar

into HBCU the man is one of the few

people and that includes uh Barack Obama

uh our former president Barack Obama who

has just really honed and focused in on

people of color in this country and then

he went further to create spaces where

we have the most black justices the

black judges federal judges he's the

only person that has creaded that many

black judges in the country so we have

to look at his record right not just

look at his Frailty and as someone who's

from the island of Jamaica I tell people

all the time we we have to stop

discarding our elderly right they

they've not lost their minds they've not

done you know they've worked so hard to

get to

win got respect our elderly I I just um

okay we're going to we got some breaking

news from our our producer Jeremy so I'm

going to share that with you in a minute

um but just to stay on this you know the

respect for elders apparently the media

has respect for some elders but not

others um and just to call out the

disparity here I um you know I can't

help it I just we have to do this we

have to draw out these contrasts um in

the Republican party it's actually not

just Donald Trump that um has some

serious decline issues that are evident

in every single rally that he does that

were evident when he was in the Oval

Office that um are evident in every

deranged truth social post untruth that

he puts on his social media platform but

you've also got a figure like um Mitch

McConnell who is the Senate majority

Senate minority leader Senate minority

leader Mitch McConnell currently serving

a term through

2026 let's just play a clip if you case

anybody's forgotten about the the

condition um God help him you know I'm I

think he's an utter disgrace politically

but God help whatever he's dealing with

in this regard um here's Mitch McConnell

for you hard and

cooperation and a string of uh

are you good Mitch okay

Mitch anything else you want to say I'm

sure just go back to your office do you

want to say anything else to the

Press I'll take let's go back to go

ahead John

so I missed uh I missed the media frenzy

um calling on Mitch McConnell to drop

out after that very alarming episode um

after that alarming episode and going

from a man who said that Donald Trump

can and should be prosecuted for his

crimes on January 6 to saying he would

once again support this man uh as

president of the United States as a

candidate for president of the United

States and that's not all it didn't end

in there um here's here's Mitch

McConnell

again what are my thoughts about what

running for reelection in

2026 did you hear the question Senator

running for re-election in

2026 all right I'm sorry you all we're

going to need a

minute Senor Benny

okay somebody else have a question

please speak

up yeah no weeks long end during media

frenzy after that one um the next one I

honestly I just I just asked my producer

to pull it for some uh some comic relief

and because I think we all we all

deserve this after a week like this that

abs absolutely disgraceful Republican

senator from Alabama Tommy tuberville um

who had made a comment about Joe Biden

falling downstairs oh oh up oh oh there

he goes oh Tommy tuberville missed a

step oh there tuberville goes down the

stairs ah human Frailty human Frailty

none of us are exempt from it ah damn

[Laughter]

it anyway guys um it's it's so serious

it's so serious what this supreme court

has done this week what a man like Mitch

McConnell in in Coalition with Donald

Trump has done to our rights and our

freedom I hope back in the theme of

Democrats growing a spine that they

campaign on expanding the court

expanding the court this is not packing

the court the court has already been

packed by

corrupt extreme right regressive forces

this is balancing the court we they need

to campaign on that they need to be

willing to do it they need to be willing

to use every single tool that they can

to hold these corrupt justices

accountable which should in many cases

involve impeachment these justices have

lied under oath um they put in a line of

that majority decision chief justice

Roberts did no president is above the

law as and then he went on to ex

basically explain how that decision put

president like Donald J Trump Above the

Law sorry one line doesn't correct your

actions um that decision speaks for

itself but here here is both Kavanaugh I

want to play both Kavanaugh and chief

justice Roberts for you lying under oath

about what they thought the limits of

the presidency were no one's Above the

Law in the United States that's a

foundational principle that I've talked

about coming from Federalist 69 coming

from right the structure of the

Constitution we're all equal before the

law in the United States of America the

foundation of our constitution was that

as Hamilton explained in Federalist 69

the presidency would not be a monarchy

and and it specified all the ways that

under the Constitution the president is

not above the law no one is above the

law um in the United States of America

the Constitution is um not above the law

no no one's Above the Law in the United

States uh secondly the president uh

serves a term in office not an unlimited

term in office uh again specified in

Federalist 69 uh the president is uh

subject to the laws no one's Above the

Law in the United States including the

president of the United States and

that's something that is made clear in

Federalist 69 even in the National

Security context where the Constitution

gives the commander and chief power to

the president the president remains

subject to the law a president is not

above the law with respect to the

criminal process no one is above the law

in our constitutional system Federal 69

Hamilton makes clear all the ways that

the executive branch has designed by the

framers of the Constitution was

different from the

monarchy here's Federalist 69 Alexander

Hamilton quote the the president of the

United States would be liable to be

impeached tried and upon conviction of

treason bribery or other high crime or

misdemeanors removed from office and

would afterwards be liable to

prosecution and Punishment in the

ordinary course of law the person of the

King of Great Britain is sacred and

inviolable there is no constitutional

tribunal to which he is amendable no

punishment to which he can be subjected

without involving the crisis of a

national Revolution that is what our

declaration of independence from this

King was all about avoiding that

scenario subjecting the chief executive

to the same laws that the rest of us are

subject to so there's Brett Kavanaugh

lying under oath because we're a little

bit I didn't think first time I'm doing

a show by myself I was worried about

filling the time but we're not We're not

gonna have any shortage of content so

I'm going to skip the Chief Justice

Robert's clip but be known that it's out

there he says the same thing

no president is above the law here is

how dangerous here is how we're going to

get back to the Federalist Papers in a

minute speaking of the Federalist

Society who uh purports to adhere to all

of those um founding documents of our

country and these justices totally

running rough shot over them we're going

to come back to Federalist 70 in a

minute here but I want to play a clip

from secretary Trump's Secretary of

Defense Mark esper one of those 40

cabinet members who has refused to

endorse him speaking about

what the commanderin-chief was wanting

to do to protesters in the streets of

our nation capital I want to make clear

this behavior that he is describing what

Trump wanted to do is what the Supreme

Court has just said would fall under

immunity has just said would be immune

from Criminal prosecution this is how

scary and and alarming this is this is

what we're dealing with here's Mark

esper he's going to finally give a

direct order to deploy uh paratroopers

into the streets of Washington DC and

I'm thinking with weapons and bayonets

and this would be horrible What

specifically was he suggesting that the

US military should do to these

protesters he says can't you just shoot

them just shoot them in the legs or

something and he's suggesting that

that's what we should do that we should

bring in the troops and shoot the

protesters the commanderin-chief was

suggesting that the US military shoot

protesters yes in the

of our nation's capital that's

right that's that's what the Supreme

Court this illegitimate Supreme Court

just gave permission structure for now I

mentioned at the top how this project

2025 which you don't believe for a

second that Donald Trump won't won't be

like this with project 2025 that project

2025 is bringing in all kinds of people

who know they can do whatever the hell

they want because Donald Trump is

checked out because he really he really

has lost it so these people themselves

will have no no guard rails here is the

author the uh the architect of project

2025 Heritage Foundation president Kevin

Roberts on Steve bannon's podcast Steve

Bannon who is sitting in a prison

federal prison in Danbury Connecticut

right now for avoiding a subpoena I know

how much he doesn't want to be in prison

because after we tracked him down for

failing to comply with subpoena in my

case he damn well sat under oath for six

hours for me on camera under oath so

that's how much Steve Bannon doesn't

want to be in prison he's in prison

right now got someone running his

podcast here's the Heritage Foundation

president Kevin Roberts talking about

the plans that these people have we're

in the process of taking this country

back no one in the audience should be

despairing no one should be discouraged

we ought to be really encouraged by what

happened yesterday and in spite of all

of the Injustice which of course friends

and audience of this show of our friend

Steve know we are going to Prevail

number two to to the point of the clips

and and of course your preview of the

fact that I am an early American

historian and love the Constitution

that's that Supreme Court ruling

yesterday on immunity is vital and it's

vital for a lot of reasons but I would

go to Federalist number 70 if people in

the audience are looking for something

to read over Independence Day weekend in

addition to rereading the Declaration of

Independence read Hamilton's number 70

because there along with some other

essays in some other essays he talks

about the importance of a vigorous

executive you and I have both been parts

of faculties and faculty senates and

understand that the left has taken over

our institutions the reason that they

are apoplectic right now the reason that

so many anchors on MSNBC for example are

losing their minds daily is because our

side is winning and so I come full

circle in this response and just want to

encourage you with some substance that

we are in the process of the second

American Revolution which will remain

bloodless if the left allows it to

be they are preparing for war be

clear I'm not apoplectic but I do read

and since he gave me some great reading

tips I went ahead and read Federalist 70

and went back and read the Declaration

of Independence because you know as much

as um Maga likes to tell their

supporters to go read things they know

that they won't actually read them so

here's what Federalist 70 says in it

Hamilton argues for the singularity it's

he's talking about numer osity of who

holds the chief executive Post in a

country not

immunity it's it's it's he's saying we

shouldn't have an executive Council we

should have one at most Two Chief

Executives and this is what he says the

ingredients which constitute energy in

the executive are first Unity second

duration thirdly an adequate provision

for its support fourthly competent

Powers the ingredients which constitute

safety in the Republican sense are first

a due dependence on the people secondly

a due responsibility and then he goes on

to explain why a single executive and a

numerous legislature is what is needed

it has nothing to do with the type of

broad immunity that Mr Roberts uh is

talking about there in feder as a spin

on what Hamilton um wanted in Federalist

70 it has to do with numerosity and of

course Alexander's Hamilton's arguments

were rooted in accountability to the

people giving a president immunity from

the law is completely at odds with our

founding document our Constitution and

that document that you see on the screen

right now the Declaration of

Independence you know Mr Roberts I'm so

glad for the suggestion to go back and

read the Declaration of Independence

because it is unbelievable how timely it

is today nearly 250 years later it of

course starts that we hold these truths

to be self evident that all men are

created equal that they are endowed by

their creator with certain unalienable

rights that among these are life liberty

and the pursuit of happiness that to

secure these rights governments are

instituted among men deriving their just

powers from the consent of the

governed that whenever any form of

government becomes destructive to these

ends it is the right of the people to

alter AB or abolish it and to Institute

new government laying it foundation on

such principles and organizing its

powers in such form as to deem them as

as to them shall seem most likely to

affect their safety and happiness

Prudence indeed will dictate that

governments long established should not

be changed for light and transient

causes on and on about what the function

of a government that serves the people

is for and in this declaration of

independence oh my goodness oh my

goodness how relevant and instructive it

is for us today it talks about the

grievances against the king of England

and why they that was forming that just

cause that I just read to you to

separate and form a new government that

was initiated with our Declaration of

Independence here are some of those

grievances against the king you ready

you're going to be you're going to be

just like oh my God how similar do these

sound to what we're dealing with here's

one he has refused his Ascent to laws

the most wholesome and necessary for the

public good for taking away our Charters

abolishing our most valuable laws and

altering fundamentally the forms of our

governments he has made judges dependent

on his will alone for the tenure of

their offices and the amount and payment

of their

salaries hello Supreme Court he has

excited domestic

insurrections amongst us straight out

of the Declaration of Independence

against a monarch from which we declared

our freedom Donald Trump save yourself

save your name in the anals of History

drop out of this race so many of the

commentators today are so wrong about I

think where we are going we are so in it

to win it in it to save

every unbelievable sacrifice that has

been made for Freedom are we going to

let that fall on our watch I think not

and here was a little indication one

indication of Donald Trump's victory in

2016 a kind of canary in the coal mine

was brexit and what has happened in the

UK has followed here in some senses well

what just happened in the UK last night

Landslide victory for the labor party

basically the the UK's version of

Democrats they won 410 seats to the

conservatives 131

they are taking back the power they have

had enough I'm going to end today on a

clip from a woman named ker vman on

Britain's Channel 4 as exites uh

predicted a labor landside Victory

taking power back after 14 years listen

to what she says about why people are

going to take it no more here's the

clip Landslide 14 years of corruption

and lies and gaslighting you got two ex

disgraced chancellors Tory chancellors

in this Studio you've got Nadine Doris

you know a woman who barely turned up

for as a last year as an MP and

everybody out there is thinking no more

of this no more of the lies of the

deceit of the corruption of the viip PPE

Lane Scandal the betting Scandal I mean

who could ever have thought that a

government would be as utterly utterly

benal and ridiculous as this one so

let's get the party started because they

have gone I'll Drink To That cheers

there we go y

cheers okay let's let's do all the work

for that party in November of

2024 I I want to let you guys go on time

today because President Biden is giving

his live interview in just a few minutes

now and I want you to be able to go

watch that it's not a make or break

moment for three and a half years

President Biden has been making it for

us so sorry folks um he already made it

and he's going to make it in this

election ction um I just want to thank

you all for joining me I want to share

one comment of thousands of comments

that I got after last week show this is

from one of our viewers he said I'm 58

years old I've never voted for President

of the United States in my entire life

but I know I'm voting for President

Biden 100

per. thank you so much everybody for

joining me on this live episode of

lights on this is the first time I've

ever done it by myself and I'm so

honored to be joined by you if you want

to support my work we need it we are uh

still fighting the forces of Donald

Trump to hold him accountable and have

been doing V so victoriously for years

despite not being shared with the

American people you can do that at the

Jessica denon.com

donate the Jessica denon.com donate you

can always also support this show by

subscribing to lights on with Jessica

Denson wherever you get your audio

podcast and leaving a review and a

comment there and by subscribing to

Jessica Denson on YouTube where you get

all of these shows and bonus content I

love you all so much I'm so inspired I I

really just I mean I can't help but

leave this abyss of wrong narratives

with inspiration to correct it and do it

do what's right and take our place in

American history to make sure that

democracy does not fall on our watch

love you all so much God bless you God

[admin]

Opinion: He is Dangerous in Word, Deed and Action; He Puts Self Over County; He Loathes the Laws We Live By: Donald Trump is Unfit to Lead
by The Editorial Board
New York Times
July 11, 2024

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

[Donald Trump] Happy Fourth of July to all, including to our highly incapable "President", who uses Prosecutors to go after his Political Opponent, who choked like a dog during the Debate but tried to pretend it was "international Travel" (only 12 days rest!) and, when that gig was up, he blamed it on a "cold." Therefore, why would anyone say he's cognitively challenged? Also, respects to our potentially new Democrat Challenger, Laffin' Kamala Harris. She did poorly in the Democrat Nominating process, starting out at Number Two, and ending up defeated and dropping out, even before getting to Iowa, but that doesn't mean she's not a "highly talented" politician! Just ask her Mentor, the Great Willie Brown of San Francisco. Someone else that I have to compliment is a Deranged Biden Prosecutor named Jack Smith, who has become a Legend in his own mind for all of those cases he has lost. The Corrupt ...

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.

It is a chilling choice against this national moment. For more than two decades, large majorities of Americans have said they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and the post-Covid era of stubborn inflation, high interest rates, social division and political stagnation has left many voters even more frustrated and despondent.

[x]

The Republican Party once pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems, to building “the shining city on a hill,” as Ronald Reagan liked to say. Its vision of the United States — embodied in principled public servants like George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — was rooted in the values of freedom, sacrifice, individual responsibility and the common good. The party’s conception of those values was reflected in its longstanding conservative policy agenda, and today many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr. Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election are not fundamentally about policy disagreements. The stakes are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.

The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness. This debate is so intense because of legitimate concerns that Mr. Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character — and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power. It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence.

That task now falls to the American people. We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails.

I. MORAL FITNESS MATTERS

[x]

Presidents are confronted daily with challenges that require not just strength and conviction but also honesty, humility, selflessness, fortitude and the perspective that comes from sound moral judgment.

If Mr. Trump has these qualities, Americans have never seen them in action on behalf of the nation’s interests. His words and actions demonstrate a disregard for basic right and wrong and a clear lack of moral fitness for the responsibilities of the presidency.

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists, abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty.

This record shows what can happen to a country led by such a person: America’s image, credibility and cohesion were relentlessly undermined by Mr. Trump during his term.

None of his wrongful actions are so obviously discrediting as his determined and systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of elections — the most basic element of any democracy — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office. He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center.

To vest such a person with the vast powers of the presidency is to endanger American interests and security at home as well as abroad. The nation’s commander in chief must uphold the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” It is the closest thing that this secular nation has to a sacred trust. The president has several duties and powers that are his alone: He has the sole authority to launch a nuclear weapon. He has the authority to send American troops into harm’s way and to authorize the use of lethal force against individuals and other nations. Americans who serve in the military also take an oath to defend the Constitution, and they rely on their commander in chief to take that oath as seriously as they do.

Mr. Trump has shown, repeatedly, that he does not. On numerous occasions, he asked his defense secretary and commanders in the American armed forces to violate that oath. On other occasions, he demanded that members of the military violate norms that preserve the dignity of the armed services and protect the military from being used for political purposes. They largely refused these illegal and immoral orders, as the oath requires.

The lack of moral grounding undermines Mr. Trump even in areas where voters view him as stronger and trust him more than Mr. Biden, like immigration and crime. Veering into a kind of brutal excess that is, at best, immoral and, at worst, unconstitutional, he has said that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” and his advisers say he would aim to round them up in mass detention camps and end birthright citizenship. He has indicated that, if faced with episodes of rioting or crime surges, he would unilaterally send troops into American cities. He has asked aides if the United States could shoot migrants below the waist to slow them down, and he has said that he would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protesters.

During his time in office, none of those things happened because there were enough people in military leadership with the moral fitness to say “no” to such illegal orders. But there are good reasons to worry about whether that would happen again, as Mr. Trump works harder to surround himself with people who enable rather than check his most insidious impulses.

The Supreme Court, with its ruling on July 1 granting presidents “absolute immunity” for official acts, has removed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s worst impulses: the threat of legal consequences. What remains is his own sense of right and wrong. Our country’s future is too precious to rely on such a broken moral compass.

II. PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP MATTERS

[x]

Republican presidents and presidential candidates have used their leadership at critical moments to set a tone for society to live up to. Mr. Reagan faced down totalitarianism in the 1980s, appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and worked with Democrats on bipartisan tax and immigration reforms. George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act and decisively defended an ally, Kuwait, against Iraqi aggression. George W. Bush, for all his failures after Sept. 11, did not stoke hate against or demonize Muslims or Islam. [???!!!]

As a candidate during the 2008 race, Mr. McCain spoke out when his fellow conservatives spread lies about his opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Romney was willing to sacrifice his standing and influence in the party he once represented as a presidential nominee, by boldly calling out Mr. Trump’s failings and voting for his removal from office.

These acts of leadership are what it means to put country first, to think beyond oneself.

Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for these American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope.

During his four years in office, Mr. Trump tried to govern the United States as a strongman would, issuing orders or making decrees on Twitter. He announced sudden changes in policy — on who can serve in the military, on trade policy, on how the United States deals with North Korea or Russia — without consulting experts on his staff about how these changes would affect America. Indeed, nowhere did he put his political or personal interests above the national interest more tragically than during the pandemic, when he faked his way through a crisis by touting conspiracy theories and pseudoscience while ignoring the advice of his own experts and resisting basic safety measures that would have saved lives.

He took a similar approach to America’s strategic relationships abroad. Mr. Trump lost the trust of America’s longstanding allies, especially in NATO, leaving Europe less secure and emboldening the far right and authoritarian leaders in Europe, Latin America and Asia. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, leaving that country, already a threat to the world, more dangerous, thanks to a revived program that has achieved near-weapons-grade uranium.

In a second term, his willingness to appease Mr. Putin would leave Ukraine’s future as a democratic and independent country in doubt. Mr. Trump implies that he could single-handedly end the catastrophic war in Gaza but has no real plan. He has suggested that in a second term he’d increase tariffs on Chinese goods to 60 percent or higher and that he would put a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods, moves that would raise prices for American consumers and reduce innovation by allowing U.S. industries to rely on protectionism instead.

The worst of the Trump administration’s policies were often blocked by Congress, by court challenges and by the objections of honorable public servants who stepped in to thwart his demands when they were irresponsible or did not follow the law. When Mr. Trump wanted an end to Obamacare, a single Republican senator, Mr. McCain, saved it, preserving health care for millions of Americans. Mr. Trump demanded that James Comey, his F.B.I. director, pledge loyalty to him and end an investigation into a political ally; Mr. Comey refused. Scientists and public health officials called out and corrected his misinformation about climate science and Covid. The Supreme Court sided against the Trump administration more times than any other president since at least Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A second Trump administration would be different. He intends to fill his administration with sycophants, those who have shown themselves willing to obey Mr. Trump’s demands or those who lack the strength to stand up to him. He wants to remove those who would be obstacles to his agenda, by enacting an order to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with those more loyal to him.

This means not only that Americans would lose the benefit of their expertise but also that America would be governed in a climate of fear, in which government employees must serve the interests of the president rather than the public. All cabinet secretaries follow a president’s lead, but Mr. Trump envisions a nation in which public service as Americans understand it would cease to exist — where individual civil servants and departments could no longer make independent decisions and where research by scientists and public health experts and investigations by the Justice Department and others in federal law enforcement would be more malleable to the demands of the White House.

Another term under Mr. Trump’s leadership would risk doing permanent damage to our government. As Mr. Comey, a longtime Republican, wrote in a 2019 guest essay for Times Opinion, “Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.” Very few who serve under him can avoid this fate “because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites,” Mr. Comey wrote. “Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values. And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.” America will get nowhere with a strongman. It needs a strong leader.

III. CHARACTER MATTERS

[x]

Character is the quality that gives a leader credibility, authority and influence. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump’s petty attacks on his opponents and their families led many Republicans to conclude that he lacked such character. Other Republicans, including those who supported the former president’s policies in office, say they can no longer in good conscience back him for the presidency. “It’s a job that requires the kind of character he just doesn’t have,” Paul Ryan, a former Republican House speaker, said of Mr. Trump in May.

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.

His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him, “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense secretary, said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.”

Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

These are hardly exceptions. In any other American administration, a single cabinet-level defection is rare. But an unprecedented number of Mr. Trump’s appointees have publicly criticized his leadership, opposed his 2024 presidential candidacy or ducked questions about his fitness for a second term. More than a dozen of his most senior appointees — those he chose to work alongside him and who saw his performance most closely — have spoken out against him, serving as witnesses about the kind of leader he is.

There are many ways to judge leaders’ character; one is to see whether they accept responsibility for their actions. As a general rule, Mr. Trump abhors accountability. If he loses, the election is rigged. If he is convicted, it’s because the judges are out to get him. If he doesn’t get his way in a deal, as happened multiple times with Congress in his term, he shuts down the government or threatens to.

Americans do not expect their presidents to be perfect; many of them have exhibited hubris, self-regard, arrogance and other character flaws. But the American system of government is more than just the president: It is a system of checks and balances, and it relies on everyone in government to intervene when a president’s personal failings might threaten the common good.

Mr. Trump tested those limits as president, and little has changed about him in the four years since he lost re-election. He tries to intimidate anyone with the temerity to testify as a witness against him. He attacks the integrity of judges who are doing their duty to hold him accountable to the law. He mocks those he dislikes and lies about those who oppose him and targets Republicans for defeat if they fail to bend the knee.

It may be tempting for Americans to believe that a second Trump presidency would be much like the first, with the rest of government steeled to protect the country and resist his worst impulses. But the strongman needs others to be weak, and Mr. Trump is surrounding himself with yes men.

The American public has a right to demand more from their president and those who would serve under him.

IV. A PRESIDENT’S WORDS MATTER

[x]

When America saw white nationalists and neo-Nazis march through the streets of Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and activists were rallying against racism, Mr. Trump spoke of “very fine people on both sides.” When he was pressed about the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 debate, Mr. Trump told them to “stand back and stand by,” a request that, records show, they took literally in deciding to storm Congress. This winter, the former president urged Iowans to vote for him and score a victory over their fellow Americans — “all of the liars, cheaters, thugs, perverts, frauds, crooks, freaks, creeps.” And in a Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire, he used the word “vermin,” a term he has deployed to describe both immigrants and political opponents.

What a president says reflects on the United States and the kind of society we aspire to be.

In 2022 this board raised an urgent alarm about the rising threat of political violence in the United States and what Americans could do to stop it. At the time, Mr. Trump was preparing to declare his intention to run for president again, and the Republican Party was in the middle of a fight for control, between Trumpists and those who were ready to move on from his destructive leadership. This struggle within the party has consequences for all Americans. “A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech,” we wrote.

A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that faction, Mr. Trump’s MAGA extremists, now control the party and its levers of power. There are many reasons his conquest of the Republican Party is bad for American democracy, but one of the most significant is that those extremists have often embraced violent speech or the belief in using violence to achieve their political goals. This belief led to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and it has resulted in a rising number of threats against judges, elected officials and prosecutors.

This threat cannot be separated from Mr. Trump’s use of language to encourage violence, to dehumanize groups of people and to spread lies. A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, released in October 2022, came to the conclusion that MAGA Republicans (as opposed to those who identified themselves as traditional Republicans) “are more likely to hold extreme and racist beliefs, to endorse political violence, to see such violence as likely to occur and to predict that they will be armed under circumstances in which they consider political violence to be justified.”

The Republican Party had an opportunity to renounce Trumpism; it has submitted to it. Republican leaders have had many opportunities to repudiate his violent discourse and make clear that it should have no place in political life; they failed to. Sizable numbers of voters in Republican primaries abandoned Mr. Trump for other candidates, and independent and undecided voters have said that Mr. Trump’s language has alienated them from his candidacy.

But with his nomination by his party all but assured, Mr. Trump has become even more reckless in employing extreme and violent speech, such as his references to executing generals who raise questions about his actions. He has argued, before the Supreme Court, that he should have the right to assassinate a political rival and face no consequences.

V. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS

The danger from these foundational failings — of morals and character, of principled leadership and rhetorical excess — is never clearer than in Mr. Trump’s disregard for rule of law, his willingness to do long-term damage to the integrity of America’s systems for short-term personal gain.

As we’ve noted, Mr. Trump’s disregard for democracy was most evident in his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to encourage violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power. What stood in his way were the many patriotic Americans, at every level of government, who rejected his efforts to bully them into complying with his demands to change election results. Instead, they followed the rules and followed the law. This respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is what has allowed American democracy to survive for more than 200 years.

In the four years since losing the election, Mr. Trump has become only more determined to subvert the rule of law, because his whole theory of Trumpism boils down to doing whatever he wants without consequence. Americans are seeing this unfold as Mr. Trump attempts to fight off numerous criminal charges. Not content to work within the law to defend himself, he is instead turning to sympathetic judges — including two Supreme Court justices with apparent conflicts over the 2020 election and Jan. 6-related litigation. The playbook: delay federal prosecution until he can win election and end those legal cases. His vision of government is one that does what he wants, rather than a government that operates according to the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution, the courts and Congress.

As divided as America is, people across the political spectrum generally recoil from rigged rules, favoritism, self-dealing and abuse of power. Our country has been so stable for so long in part because most Americans and most American leaders follow the rules or face the consequences.

So much in the past two decades has tested these norms in our society — the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the failures that led to the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that followed, the pandemic and all the fractures and inequities that it revealed. We need a recommitment to the rule of law and the values of fair play. This election is a moment for Americans to decide whether we will keep striving for those ideals.

Mr. Trump rejects them. If he is re-elected, America will face a new and precarious future, one that it may not be prepared for. It is a future in which intelligence agencies would be judged not according to whether they preserved national security but by whether they served Mr. Trump’s political agenda. It means that prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be judged not according to whether they follow the law to keep Americans safe but by whether they obey his demands to “go after” political enemies. It means that public servants would be judged not according to their dedication or skill but by whether they show sufficient loyalty to him and his MAGA agenda.

Even if Mr. Trump’s vague policy agenda would not be fulfilled, he could rule by fear. The lesson of other countries shows that when a bureaucracy is politicized or pressured, the best public servants will run for the exits.

This is what has already happened in Mr. Trump’s Republican Party, with principled leaders and officials retiring, quitting or facing ouster. In a second term, he intends to do that to the whole of government.

Election Day is less than four months away. The case against Mr. Trump is extensive, and this board urges Americans to perform a simple act of civic duty in an election year: Listen to what Mr. Trump is saying, pay attention to what he did as president and allow yourself to truly inhabit what he has promised to do if returned to office.

Voters frustrated by inflation and immigration or attracted by the force of Mr. Trump’s personality should pause and take note of his words and promises. They have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are.

The Republican Party is making its choice next week; soon all Americans will be able to make their own choice. What would Mr. Trump do in a second term? He has told Americans who he is and shown them what kind of leader he would be.

When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.

From top, photographs and video by Damon Winter/The New York Times (2) and Jay Turner Frey Seawell (5).

[admin]

Supreme Court Renders Constitution Unconstitutional: My Chat With Constitutional Law Prof Kim Wehle
by Glenn Kirschner
Jul 13, 2024

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court quite literally ruled that portions of our Constitution are unconstitutional. This is a gross abuse of judicial power by six Supreme Court justices.

Kim Wehle is a law professor, a constitutional law and separation of powers expert, an ABC News legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor and the author of three books (links below), and a fourth book set to be release on September 2, that could not be more timely: "Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works - And Why."

This video is part 1 of our 3-part conversation about the precarious and dangerous state of the rule of law in today's America.



Transcript

[Music]
so friends I am thrilled to have my
friend Kim wh with me here today on
Justice matters she is a tenur law
professor at the Baltimore School of Law
she is a renowned constitutional law
expert a separation of powers expert
she's an ABC News legal analyst she's
also served as a federal prosecutor and
importantly she's the author of three
great books and another one that
literally could not be more timely they
are how to read the Constitution and why
what you need to know about voting and
why how to think like a lawyer and why I
love that Kim's books are not just how
to books but why to books why these
matters are important for you know the
health of our democracy and her upcoming
book which literally couldn't be more
timely given what we are now contending
with in the aftermath of this new
supreme Court opinion and it is titled
pardon power how the pardon system works
and why and it will be out on September
2nd so with that let me welcome our
friend Kim back to Justice matters great
to be here Glenn always such a pleasure
to talk to you and to your listeners all
right Kim if I could ask you to start by
just giving our viewers a sense of your
Topline takeaways or concerns regarding
the new Supreme Court opinion in Trump
versus United States well hyperbolic is
I think an important footnote uh this
might sound hyperbolic but the Supreme
Court basically rewrote the foundational
concept of government by We The People
Under the United States Constitution
that is the Supreme Court held that one
of the three branches of government has
essentially licensed to use the massive
powers of the federal government to
commit official crimes using official
power and there's no accountability
through the criminal justice system so
this really is rewriting the
foundational separated powers of the
Constitution No More Kings there's not
one branch that has all the power a
Revolutionary War was fought over that
people died uh blood was shed in the
streets so that we could throw off the
Yoke of a monarchy where there is no
checks and balances because the power
came from the Divine after
237 years the Supreme Court who is
unelected and does not have this
Authority Under the Constitution to
amend it essentially turned our
three-part system of government into one
in which there's a single person with
unlimited power to uh to entrench their
own power you directed me to a piece
that was written by one of the
preeminent constitutional Scholars up at
Yale Akil Reed Omar and I instantly read
it after you recommended it to me and I
wonder if you agree with his assessment
I know I do that essentially it's like
the Supreme Court amended the
Constitution and then I think he kind of
finished up by saying the Supreme Court
declared that the constitution at least
in part is
unconstitutional which as as a you know
as a simple gutter kid from Jersey it's
very hard for me to wrap my head around
the Supreme Court declaring the
Constitution unconstitutional I was
wondering what your take is on those
assertions by Professor Akil Omar I
agree with him uh and they they did it
in a cute way that is they didn't come
out and say it he's saying that's his
Topline takeaway and let me explain why
he is saying that they essentially said
when the president is doing presidential
things the president can commit crimes
and so long as the president is doing
presidential things using official power
he can commit crimes and there's nothing
anybody can do about it at least through
the criminal justice system even when
he's a private citizen the reason
Professor Amar said that the court
essentially declared the Constitution
unconstitutional is in article one which
defines the congress's powers it has
some language in there about impeachment
we we I know you talked a lot about
impeachment we had two impeachments of
Donald Trump the the the Constitution is
really old and it's very short so every
word really matters it's very tur and in
that provision and I'm paraphrasing the
framers of the Constitution in
1787 when it was originally drafted said
if someone is impeached they can still
be investigated tried convicted and
sentenced
under the criminal laws essentially what
the Supreme Court did is take out a
Sharpie and cross that part out of the
language of the actual Constitution and
these are quote conservative justices
who claim to live and die by the text
and they just ignored it again there is
a logic disconnect when I know that the
constitution not only says that anybody
including a president even if he's
impeached and convicted by the Senate
can still be prosecuted for the exact
same conduct that's one logic disconnect
and the other to me is the
Constitutional obligation of the
president to take care that the laws of
the nation be Faithfully executed which
in the Supreme Court's estimation means
he can violate the laws of the nation
with impunity and Immunity again that is
something I don't understand and to me
when you read the Constitution it seems
like in at least those two places what
they did the Supreme Court was they went
rogue it's not an a textual decision by
the Supreme Court it's an anti- textual
decision the way I look at it you rais
an important piece of article two which
gives the president the president's
powers and that is the take care clause
and I think the word that is important
here is Faithfully Faithfully execute
what the court did it used that language
and it said okay that means you're the
top prosecutor that's what that means to
execute the law you're the top police
officer for the federal government and
you're the top prosecutor so when you're
exercising those Powers no one can
second guess you the court was explicit
if you're talking to your justice
department and saying Hey I want you to
investigate arrest a political opponent
or you're talking to your law
enforcement and say hey there are
peaceful protesters that are objecting
to me at Lafayette Square I want you to
shoot them in the leg that is executing
the law and no one can second guess that
but I think you make a really good point
the word Faithfully assumes that means
you're doing it within the letter and
the spirit of the law but I do want to
make one point clear just so you know
our viewers can understand how the
Supreme Court Justified this but also
how it's being covered frankly by a lot
of people in the media the Supreme Court
said well so long as you're using
official power you're immune president
if you use unofficial power you can
still be criminally prosecuted so when I
say people in the media well meaning
people are saying oh the Supreme Court
didn't give absolute immunity to
presidents there still is a space that
they can be prosecuted and so it's being
covered as oh they they kind of went
somewhere in the middle they split the
baby they found a bit for Jack Smith and
they found a bit for Donald Trump but
you know impeachment High crimes and
misdemeanors is about official power I
mean you could I supposed be impeached
for some private conduct but it's not
the private conduct that abuses threaten
democracy right it's not whether a
president lies in a deposition in a
divorce proceeding it's when the
president uses the commander-in-chief
power of the military in a corrupt way
which the president uses law enforcement
in a corrupt it's exactly the official
power abuses of the official power that
the framers wanted to constrain through
the separation of powers when what does
that mean it means every Branch gets
their papers graded by the other two
branches and by the rule of law that no
one gets to go Scott free in making that
distinction between unofficial and
official the court got a little bit cute
threw people off the trail but what they
really did was I agree with Professor
Omar essentially rewrote article two of
the Constitution you know and the whole
unofficial versus official the way trial
court judges are to figure that out for
themselves with very little guidance
from this Supreme Court opinion I'm not
even going to get into the sort of new
rules of suppressing evidence that they
set out in this opinion which is just
bizarre to me like we're living in the
legal upside down but there is something
that they call presumptive immunity
which has to be overcome by the
prosecutor and to me the test they set
out is going to be very defendant
friendly and very difficult for the
prosecution to kind of satisfy that
evidentiary hurdle can you just talk a
little bit about presumptive immunity
yeah so a presumption under the law
means that whoever gets the presumption
has the benefit of the doubt and so
essentially what they're holding is that
when it comes to the line between
official and unofficial we're going to
assume the president took actions in His
official capacity that's out of the gate
you already have that hurdle to overcome
and then if you want to try to put
something in the unofficial bucket even
if it feels unofficial you prosecutors
to overcome this presumption have to
persuade the judge that if you allow
that action to give rise or to produce
some kind of criminal investigation or
prosecution it wouldn't affect a
president's sort of sense of his
presidency it wouldn't somehow chill his
ability to have you know the kind of
massive power that we're saying he has
so I me you know this better than anyone
it's so difficult even if it were if
there were no presumption or I me that
even if it weren this official
unofficial overcoming that presumption
is so
herculan that it it's hard to imagine
how that burden of proof would actually
ever be demonstrated and then you have
to say would a prosecutor even bother if
there was a crime cuz it's going to be
so difficult and then here's The
Clincher the Supreme Court made two
kings really made the president a king
but also made themselves the king too
because even if a prosecutor were to say
I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm
going to prosecute a president and
overcomes this insane you know very
difficult presumption with unofficial
conduct it the Supreme Court still left
open the door for an appeal to go to
them and they would strike it down the
test that they set out that it would
have no chilling effect metaphysically
anything is possible it could always
have some chilling effect and there are
a lot of creative lawyers out there who
will come up with arguments about why it
would have some chilling effect it's
almost like presidential immunity plus
they really gave very little to the
prosecutors who will endeavor to hold
just runaway criminal presidents
accountable for the crimes they commit
in violation of our federal laws in a
very real sense against the American
peoples I'm just wondering if an example
would be helpful for people on this idea
of unofficial verus official so you take
the January 6 investigation and the four
counts against Donald Trump the Supreme
Court said okay if you're calling up
state legislators and asking them to
fraudulently find votes or if you're
calling up a a fake electors and say
produce a fake slate of electors for me
they said that might be unofficial okay
because State stuff is not within the
scope of the presidency but you could
imagine an argument where a president
would say what but if I can't talk to
state legislators how can I do my job
because we're a big government and
sometimes I have to talk to Governors
and I so there's one example where then
it would be on the prosecutor to
overcome that argument and say no a
president is not going to be chilled in
his ability or the sense of I can call a
governor or I'll get prosecuted I just
think it's a losing argument for the
prosecutor it's going to be very easy
for presidents to to basically stick
that presumption and one of the bright
spots here a little bit of Silver Lining
which we are always looking for is that
judge Tanya chuckin will be the federal
judge presiding over these hearings and
she'll have to determine what's official
what's unofficial and I'll tell you
having known her for decades I used to
try murder cases against her when she
was a public defender in the courts of
Washington DC and I was a federal
homicide prosecutor I have the utmost
regard and respect and confidence in her
to do this right to go hard in the name
of Justice to the extent you know she
has the opportunity to do that while
still trying to remain loyal to the
Supreme Court opinion which I think will
be more challenging for trial court
judges then ordinarily remaining loyal
to a supreme court opinion is I'm
looking forward to these evidentiary
hearings I I believe they will be
evidentiary hearings and you know I
would even call it something of a mini
trial on some of these issues so the
people will get to learn about at least
some of the evidence of crime by Donald
Trump