First, some business. I appeared this week on the Politics Girl Podcast, which you can see here or, if you prefer to read a (rough) transcript, it’s here. Also, my website got a beauty makeover. I now have a separate landing page and other fancy stuff. (My technical support staff—my husband—has been busy.)
And now for fun with criminal procedure.
Trump’s Absolute Immunity from Criminal Prosecution Appeal
Interesting things have been happening this week with Trump’s absolute immunity appeal.
Last week, I wrote about Trump’s far-fetched and creative argument for why he has absolute immunity from criminal liability for any actions taken while president.
Short explanation: He doesn’t have absolute immunity from criminal liability because there is no such thing. He made it up and it’s nonsense. His argument (which you can read here) based on reading of the impeachment clause, is that if a sitting president isn’t impeached and removed, he cannot later be indicted.
Remember, with claims of immunity, special rules apply: Under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 (1985), an order denying immunity is a final, appealable order, which means Trump can bring an interlocutory appeal now. Most appeals have to wait until after the trial.
Here is the other hitch: If Trump brings a nonfrivolous claim of immunity, the lower court has no jurisdiction to bring him to trial. Therefore, once a non-frivolous claim is raised, the trial court loses jurisdiction to proceed with the trial until the matter is resolved.
Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution is nonsense but not legally frivolous because it is a first impression and Trump’s argument is based on a reading of the Constitution. (A twisted reading, but a reading nonetheless.)
We know that Trump filed this appeal in the hopes that an interlocutory appeal would derail the January 6 trial until after the election. How do we know this? Because major newspapers (that should have known better) reported Trump’s hopes as if what he hopes is news.
This is from The New York Times:
This is from The Washington Post:
Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial
Former president would like to push back election obstruction trial in D.C. as he seeks another term in White House
Then we had lots of pundits rushing forward to tell us that Trump might get his delay. This is also from The Washington Post:
Trump’s galling immunity stunt is doomed. But it may delay his trial.
Notice the headlines are not announcing that “Trump and his lawyers hope the Court will find that he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.” They’re saying “They hope this will delay the trial.” In other words, they don’t really think he has absolute immunity, but they think, given that this is an interlocutory appeal and raises immunity issues, they can push the trial until after the election. He’s hoping to win the presidency and take steps to quash the trial by staffing the DOJ with prosecutors who will comply with his wishes.
Well, Teri? Will it delay his trial?
Let’s take a look at what happened this week, then the answer should be obvious.
After Trump filed his appeal, instead of going the usual route (which would be ask the appellate court to hurry, and then after getting a decision from the appellate court, asking Supreme Court to hurry) the DOJ instead filed a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment with the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to consider a writ of certiorari before the appellate court renders the judgment.
A Writ of Certiorari is what you file with the Supreme Court when you ask the Supreme Court to hear your case.
A Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment is when you ask the Supreme Court to hear your case before the appellate court hears it.
Usually the progression is Trial Court ➡️ Appellate Court ➡️ Supreme Court. The DOJ wants to do this: Trial Court ➡️ Supreme Court.
To take a famous example of a Writ of Certiorari Before Trial, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certioriari before judgement in Nixon v. U.S. because (1) the matter was of national importance and (2) the matter needed to be decided quickly. Writs of Certiorari Before Judgment are supposed to be rare but they are becoming more common.
Also on Monday, the DOJ filed a second motion with the Supreme Court: a request that the DOJ’s Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment be expedited.
Then, to hedge its bets in case the Supreme Court denied a writ of Certiorari before judgment and the matter goes next to the appellate court, the DOJ also asked the D.C. Appellate court to expedite the appeal.
Thus, on Monday, the DOJ filed 3 motions, two in the Supreme Court and one in the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Getting a Supreme Court ruling up front would not only mean avoiding delays in the DC / January 6 criminal trial, it would also mean that the issue is settled nationwide, so Trump won’t get to try his delay tactics in Florida or Georgia. (Yes, Georgia is a state case, but a Constitutional issue is a federal issue).
Here is what happened after the DOJ filed its 3 motions: Within hours (hours!) the Supreme Court responded and granted Smith’s application for his request to be expedited. Specifically, the Court said this:
Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and respondent is directed to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023
The same day, also on December 11, the Court of Appeals set a schedule for briefing on whether to expedite the appeal. They gave Trump 2 days to respond. (2 days!)
On December 13, two days later, the Court of Appeals granted an expedited schedule in case the Supreme Court kicks the matter back to them. Moreover, this is the same Court of Appeals that recently said this when denying Trump’s attempt to delay the trial:
See why I said that the answer to the question, “Will the courts allow Trump get the lengthy delays he wants?” answers itself once we look at what has been happening. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are moving lightening fast. It seems to me that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are sending Trump the same message: Sorry buddy. We are not going to help you with your delays.
But Teri! Judge Chutkan put the proceedings on hold!
Correct, because she is supposed to. The law says that until a nonfrivolous claim of immunity is resolved, the court lacks jurisdiction. So, on December 13, Judge Chutkan (the judge in the trial court) granted in part Trump’s motion to put the trial proceedings on hold. She paused the matters but ruled that all protective and other orders remain in place and what is happening is mere abeyance.
What if the Supreme Court grants Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution?
Before we pause to consider how absurd this would be, recall that, since November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against Trump. They ruled against him in his election fraud cases. They had the chance then to create delays past January 6 or help keep him in office, but they refused. They rejected his claims of executive privilege each time he raised that claim. The executive privilege claims he tried in the past are a watered-down version of what he is now claiming: Absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
There is no reason to believe, from what the Supreme Court and appellate courts have done since November 2020 that they would help him derail these criminal proceedings.
Okay, so, what if the Supreme Court held that the Constitution gives Trump, as a former president, absolute immunity from criminal liability for anything he did while in office? That would mean that any sitting president can commit any crime, and, as long as either the House refuses to impeach or the Senate refuses to remove, the president would be untouchable.
Consider the possibilities. A president + 34 Senators could enter a crime pact: The Senators agree to vote against removing the President from office, and the President, in turn, promises to pardon them for any crimes. Then, they could do almost anything without fear of prosecution. The next time a president tried to overturn an election and stay in power, the plan would succeed because the president and his partisan Congress members could freely break laws.
“Absolute immunity from criminal liability” is nonsense in a rule of law government. What makes it particularly absurd in this case is that Trump has been indicted by a grand jury for trying to overturn an election, and he is running again to be president. He wants to avoid prosecution for trying to overturn an election and he wants to get back into the White House.
As an aside, the reason the drafters of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the right to indictment by grand jury is to put prosecution into the hands of ordinary people. A grand jury indicted Trump. The Supreme Court is not going to announce to the country that grand juries are powerless to indict a former president.
This is why the media is reporting that Team Trump hopes the procedural requirements will derail the proceedings and they’re not reporting that Trump hopes he will be granted absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
The Other Important Appeal
And, another Washington Post headline:
Here’s what that is about.
Lots of the January 6 defendants were convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c) and two of Trump’s criminal charges in the D.C./ January 6 case were brought under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c).
18 U.S.C. §1512(c) makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so. To get a conviction (and when deciding whether to bring charges) prosecutors look to see if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support each element of a crime. Here are the elements of 1512(c):
- Whoever corruptly
- obstructs, influences, or impedes
- any official proceeding or attempts to do so . . .
This seems straightforward enough, right? The people who stormed the Capitol did so because they wanted to disrupt the workings of Congress (and, in fact, did disrupt the workings of Congress) and corruptly obstructed the Congressional proceedings.
The defense, however, came up with a creative argument based on the reasons the statute was enacted.
The defense argument is that 18 U.S.C. §1512(c) was enacted in 2002 after Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, launched what prosecutors called a “wholesale destruction” of documents. Later, the Arthur Anderson accountants defended the shredding of documents on the grounds that under the law as it then stood, destroying evidence was illegal only if an official proceeding was pending.
So Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which included 18 U.S.C. §1512(c) as a comprehensive revision of corporate accounting practices. Since then, the statutory language has been used to preserve evidence in investigations of white-collar crime and penalize those who destroy such evidence.
Given this background, Jan. 6 defendants have argued that an “official proceeding” under this statute is limited to hearings where evidence is being presented and facts or rights are being determined. The counting of electoral votes, they argue, was a “ceremonial and administrative event” and not an “official proceeding” under the law. Therefore, they argue, charges brought against the insurrectionists for obstructing the counting of electoral votes should be dismissed.
Thus the defense lawyers are arguing that “obstructing an official proceeding” doesn’t apply to something like the counting of votes in Congress.
The defendants have been losing on this argument. Appellate Courts have been saying, “nice try” and finding that the Congressional vote is an “official proceeding.”
Now the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Will the defense win?
If the defendants win it will be because criminal laws should be narrowly rather than broadly construed. If the defendants lose it will be because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute to indicate that the proceeding has to be one in which evidence is presented.
If I had to guess, I’d say the defendant loses because come on. Surely trying to disrupt an official proceeding of Congress = trying to disrupt an “official proceeding.”
If the defense wins, what happens?
Convictions based on this statute will be overturned. Most defendants were convicted under more than one statute, so it may reduce some of the penalties. I don’t have the stats, but I doubt there are any defendants who were convicted only on 18 U.S.C. §1512(c), but there may be some whose only other convictions are misdemeanors.
Trump’s indictment was for four counts:
- 1 count: Conspiracy to defraud the United States (gives the various methods he and co-conspirators used to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election.)
- 2 counts related to efforts to obstruct the vote certification proceedings (one count for obstructing the January 6 proceedings and one count for conspiring to do so) This is the one brought under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)
- 1 count: Conspiracy to violate civil rights (Trump’s attempts to reverse election results in states with close elections in 2020.)
This means 2 counts are at issue. The first count, conspiracy to defraud, is probably the easiest for prosecutors to prove.
The prosecution knew all along that defendants would be challenging and appealing the application of 18 U.S.C. §1512(c) to the events of January 6, which is probably why the DOJ indicted Trump under other statutes as well.
Remember all through 2021, when people were saying, “WE NEED INDICTMENTS NOW” as if indictments were some sort of magic thing that punishes a person and dispenses justice? I warned you all that indictments are the beginning of a harrowing process.
One way to look at what is happening now is that we are in that harrowing process. Another way is to acknowledge that criminal procedure is endlessly fascinating and is a good thing because procedures = due process and rule of law.
Fun Reading Legal Documents
If you want some fun reading a legal document, check out this one. The DOJ is giving Trump notice of 3 expert witnesses it intends to call at the trial.
If you’re a tech person, you can have fun trying to figure out what motion says about the evidence the DOJ has against Trump.
Expert Witness #1 understands how to track visual representation of geographic location data on a phone. Specifically, “Expert 1 plotted the location history data for Google accounts and devices associated with individuals who moved, on January 6, 2021, from an area at or near the Ellipse to an area encompassing the United States Capitol building.” Also, “His/her testimony will describe and explain the resulting graphical representations of that data, and it will aid the jury in understanding the movements of individuals toward the Capitol area during and after the defendant’s speech at the Ellipse.”
Expert Witness #2 will testify to the same thing as Expert Witness #1 (I guess on the theory that 2 expert witnesses are more believable than 1)
Do I have this right: The phone Trump used was in communication with people moving around the Capitol on January 6? Or something like that? In other words, does the prosecution have electronic evidence directly tying the Trump White House to the people on the ground on January 6? If so = 🔥.
Expert Witness #3 knows how to analyze “cellular phone data, including the use of Twitter and other applications on cell phones.” Here’s what Witness #3 can testify to:
This seems to have something to do with information gleaned about what was going on during the post-election period, including on and around January 6.
This is what is called, “Getting all the evidence before filing an indictment.” This is also the part in the plot where the defense lawyers say, Uh oh, now what do we do?
Liz Cheney’s Book
I started reading Cheney’s book, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning. I’m just a few chapters in, so I don’t have much to report yet, other than to say it is clear that she wrote this book to make sure Trump isn’t reelected and to shame the Republicans who are supporting him.
What makes it fun are the details she offers as she seeks to shame the Trump-supporting Republicans.
You may not like her politics (I don’t, either)—but it’s important to keep in mind what Cheney is doing and why.
The explanation lies in Harvard Professors Ziblatt and Levitsky’s book, How Democracies Die. In the old days, autocrats generally came to power through military coups. Modern autocrats are more likely elected through legal means and then, once in power, set to work demolishing democratic institutions. If you’ve been following any of Trump’s recent public statements, you know he is campaigning on a promise to dismantle American democracy. In 2016 he knew nothing about government. It took him a few years to learn how to abuse the power of the presidency. He was just getting warmed up in 2020, when he lost the election and was forced to leave the White House.
Now he knows how to do it. So the important thing is to keep him out of office.
Ziblatt and Levitsky explain that when a would-be autocrat is trying to get elected, the most efficient way to keep him out of power is for members of his own party to cross party lines and vote against him. The authors give an example of this happening: In 2017, defeated French conservative candidate Fillon called on his partisans to vote for center-left candidate Macron to keep nutcase Le Pen out of power.
The idea is not that the Republicans crossing over to vote against Trump give up conservatism and become Democrats. The idea is that they switch over and accept short-term political sacrifice for the good of the nation. This requires short-term sacrifice.
The way she has been speaking out against Trump since November 2020 is precisely what Ziblatt and Levitsky said partisans need to do to save the country when one of their own presents a unique danger. She has no intention of giving up her conservatism or her belief that Biden’s policies are bad for Wyoming. But she is willing to make a short-term sacrifice to keep Trump, who she recognizes as uniquely dangerous, out of office.
How Democracies Die was widely read on the Capitol. Biden read it. I’d bet Liz Cheney read it. So go ahead. Be angry at the Cheneys for their politics–but recognize that she is willing to endorse her ideological rival—and anger her own base and colleagues—to keep Trump from returning to power. She is also calling out the Republicans who continue to kiss Trump’s ring as moral cowards.
Finally, this comment came in response to last week’s blog post:
I am concerned about JJ since there have been no recent postings about him. Even just a recent picture of him on guard duty in his favorite chair would be appreciated!
Here you go. JJ continues to offer 24-hour guard dog service. He diligently lets us know about every squirrel, pigeon, skateboarder, delivery truck, mail carrier, person pushing a baby stroller, and any other danger.
In return, JJ asks only one thing: Take me with you wherever you go.
Image #2: This is the look I get when I say, “But I can’t take you with me because you’re a dog.”
“He doesn’t have absolute immunity from criminal liability because there is no such thing. He made it up and it’s nonsense.”
Vendors of whole cloth must be doing a land office business.
Teri,
Will you be commenting on Colorado’s ban on Trump? I know you have said something about the 14th Amendment in the past, and I wonder if the current ban will change anything.
Thank you for your wonderful explanations of the law. I always look forward to your emails!
Julie
Second that! I’m particularly wondering if there is an appeal to the US Supreme Court, would that court have to make a finding on the 14th amendment point, and if so would that bind all state jurisdictions (which ever way they went)? Or could it find that this is a state by state issue?
I am enjoying the way that Liz Cheney skewers her fellow representatives by contrasting what they said following January 6 and how they behaved after January 20. Especially Kevin McCarthy; he’ll be lucky to get out of DC without scars.
Great post, Teri, thanks. So fascinating. And that last photo of JJ is priceless.
We are lucky to have you explaining things for us. Thank you.
Thanks so much Teri_Kanfield. Your writing style combines information with analogies and humor … something we ALL need lately. Great writing.
Keith Olbermann points out that if Republicans agree with Trump’s claim of immunity, that eliminates the rationale for impeaching Biden.
Awesome point…but hypocrisy is their motto.
Thank you once again, Teri, for your clear legal explanations. I feel much more hopeful having read your post.
I took Calculus 101 in ’71 from Dr. Maher and thoroughly earned the “F” that I received. I took the class again the following summer from Dr. Appling and aced it. He explained it so well that I felt as if I could have invented Calculus myself as easily as Newton or Leibniz.
Teri, you are Dr. Appling.
On the “Jack“ podcast McCabe and Gill discuss the implications of the court granting a narrow view of 1512. Even if the court does so it will help the lower echelon defendants, but not necessarily Trump, because he had contact with the documentary basis for the charge, much more than Fisher and the lower level defendants.
The scenario I like is that, the court having ruled the President to be immune from prosecution in perpetuity before the election, current president Biden buys a mob hit on Trump and upon success pardons the perpetrator.
Or he could just make sure Trump is informed of this possibility and offer to call off any possible hit if Trump agrees to step down as candidate for the Republicans.
Nah. If SCOTUS creates immunity, Biden invites them to dinner at WH. Once there, those who voted for immunity relinquish their phones and are whisked off to a waiting jet where they get their preference of remaining seats amongst the Trump Org officers, all House and Senate members who voted against certifying election results, others who asked for pardons and /or defied Congessional subpeonas, fake electors and all named and unnamed co-conspirators in all current Trump cases. They are all informed that their wealth, if any, is subject to civil and criminal asset forfeiture, and that their destination will be determined by their simple majority vote: Gaza Strip conflict areas or Ukraine/Russia conflict areas.
After the vote, those willing to accept the plea deal can walk off the plane and those not willing depart. The plea deal: Public declarations of guilt in all charges made on all major news channels, immediate resignations from any elected offices or party positions, acceptance of civil asset forfeitures, and agreement to not participate as candidates in any future elections. Any attempts to wiggle out of plea results in application of earlier conditions.
Thankfully, I believe this is totally outside of anything Biden would ever even briefly consider, as it should be when decent folks are leading the country.
lol
I love this one too. It amazes me the would-be autocrats don’t understand if immunity wins, Biden can basically do… WHATEVER HE WANTS. Trump supporters don’t get that. ♀️
I like your plan!
OR
At the least, the House Republicans would then have to call off any impeachment proceedings vs Biden. Because, absolute immunity. ; )
As I was reading the section about the interpretation of absolute immunity for a current President, it occurred to me that Biden is the current President. If the SCOTUS were to grant absolute immunity to Trump, the same concept would apply to Biden. Right? Since there are 48 Democratic senators, he (Biden) could enter into a pact with them to enact measures to save the Republic. I realize this is crazy-making extended another hundred miles or so but it’s just another layer of protection when I consider this insane scenario.
YES absolutely! Like I said, would-be autocrats can’t think past their own goals and don’t understand it would also apply to the PRESENT PRESIDENT … aka BIDEN!
Many thinks to your husband! Your excellent blog is so much easier to read now. I’ll be readership goes up on account of the new look!
Thank you Teri,
I wait for your clear and knowledgeable explanations.
I will watch your chat with PoliticsGirl later today.
Thank you for your sharing of all this legal info and making it easy to understand.
Your updated site is nice. Happy Holidays!~! JJ is cute as ever.
It has been a while since I read Ziblatt and Levitsky’s “How Democracies Die,” but in my notes on the book I summarized one of their guiding theses as follows:
A democratic republic cannot survive unless (1)its politicians for the most part speak the truth on pivotal issues; (2) unless they make at least some effort to educate voters, rather than manipulate their negative emotions to ensure the politicians’ election and reelection; (3) unless they are dedicated to sense of fair play grounded in two fundamental principles: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.
“Mutual toleration refers to the idea that as long as our rivals play by constitutional rules, we accept that they have an equal right to exist, compete for power, and govern.”
“Institutional forbearance…means ‘patient self-control; restraint and tolerance,’ or ‘the action of restraining from exercising a legal right.’…[It] can be thought of as avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit.”
GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell provided an emblematic violation of institutional forbearance in his hypocritical handlings of the Garland and Coney Barrett nominations as justices of the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump and his media enablers fail on all three counts. A second Trump administration would be exhibit new lows in mendacious manipulation and would be shamelessly devoid of any sense of fair play.
Thank you for the excellent explanation! I love that little pup!
Thank you for always taking time to explain things to us. I was thrilled to hear you on Politics Girl once again.
Thanks for your commentary on all of this. IANAL and rather pleased to find out my take on these events mesh well with what you’re explaining.
My other take is the new website is much improved. Thanks! Just one point i’d like to bring up is that the archive list from the old site was my deep dive point to read back issues that you wrote before i found your site. Please bring it back. Would it help if i asked your Mr. web guy nicely?
Keep up the flow. Thank you.
Everything should be here.
While you read Liz’s book, replace the word “democracy” with “the Republican Party”. Her goal is to prevent Trump from driving the Party over a cliff Herbert Hoover-style, not a heroic quest to slay the Orange Dragon. She is all-in on the Party’s long-term plan to gradually smother democracy with the perfectly legal means of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and classic ratfucking. Her problem with Trump is 2-fold: he’s incompetent (by her standards) and he cares not a whit for the Party or the people who fund it. Pitching her crusade as about saving democracy is for the rubes in the media and the liberals who donate money to the Lincoln Project for feel-good do-nothing ads.
I’m reading Cheney’s book right now as well, and I do keep appreciating her frankness and her certitude in not compromising once she “saw the truth”. Cheney is doing important work. But, aside from her general politics that do not share my values, her vote for Trump in 2020, justified as “I was voting for what my constituents wanted”, just makes me feel she is so, so late to this, and I haven’t seen in the book her owning of her own role in using Trump the fool to advance her agenda. She too, thought she could handle the leopard. She knew exactly who he was and she voted for him anyway. I’m glad she’s doing what she’s doing and I hope it gives space for more late converts but – she’s not above being transactional.
Thanks for this, your reply matches some of my thoughts about Cheney. Her participation (and Kinzinger’s) on the Jan 6th Committee was maybe the most important thing she has done to “accept short-term political sacrifice for the good of the nation.” Her continuing to speak out and her book (which I’ve only just cracked) are so very crucial as well. But do I completely trust her? I wish I could say I do but… It’s not because of her politics. Of course she will always be a conservative and I can accept and respect that. My hope is that enough other conservatives will hear and listen to her and see things for what they are concerning Trump. But does she truly, truly have the good of the nation in her heart over the *long-term*?
Teri, in your post you say we should “recognize that she is willing to endorse her political rival.” Is she, though? Has she actually done that? Maybe I’ve missed it but I haven’t heard her say that she is endorsing Biden. Nor have I heard her say that she will definitely not run as a 3rd party candidate. I simply can’t squash the feeling of the other shoe hanging in the air waiting to drop when it comes to Liz Cheney.
Teri, I also want to thank you and JJ for this and all of your posts 🙂 They are so appreciated and needed right now. And congrats on the book and website.
You are correct. Cheney has not endorsed Biden. I wrote the following as a comment to one of Teri’s mastodon posts a few days ago in which she used that same phrase you quoted about Cheney’s willingness to endorse her political rival:
While Cheney is now “Never Trump,” she has not really committed to voting for Biden in 2024 either. I admire her speaking out against her GOP colleagues who continue to support Trump, & she MAY be willing to endorse her ideological rival but she hasn’t explicitly done so yet. I think it was in her interview with Rachel Maddow that when asked if she would vote for Biden, Cheney said “whatever it takes.” To me that was a carefully constructed non-endorsement.
More concerning to me is that in an interview with Charlie Sykes a few days later (link below), she opened the door to vote for a 3rd party candidate rather than Biden. If Liz were to throw her support to a 3rd party candidate, I can’t see that helping anyone other than Trump. I’m baffled as to why she introduced this idea. I can understand her “non-endorsement” of Biden because Trump could croak & she might vote for Christie or Haley, but the 3rd party thing is weird.
https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-episode/liz-cheney-a-clear-and-present-danger-2/
I completely agree with you: She hasn’t endorsed Biden. However, we don’t have nominees yet.
I was not aware of her floating a third party candidate.
If Trump is the nominee, and if she doesn’t endorse Biden, then I will be furious.
But endorsements for the general before primaries have started is premature, right?
Thank you for your time & efforts to “‘splain in common English” what is going on, and your insightful analysis/observations of the same. I wish my lawyer son had you as a prof. in law school.
The site updates look great! Andy really outdid himself.
Small typo:
“What makes it particularly absurd in htis case is that Trump has been indicted by a grand jury for trying to overturn an election, and he is running again to be president.”
“htis” should be “this.”
It does seem kind of crazy that Trump’s absolute immunity claim is non-frivolous in a legal sense, but the fact that both the DC Appeals Court and SCOTUS are expediting their hearings is very encouraging. The need for a quick decision certainly meets all the requirements that make it in the public’s interest to do so. And assuming that SCOTUS rules on this one decisively, he can’t keep bringing this one up again.
As an aside, I enjoyed your chat with PoliticsGirl. Granted, you covered most of that material in various posts, but it’s nice to have the video pulling it all together so cleanly.