We may or may not be able to get TRUMP into jail, but there ARE things that can be done at least for the future. My thoughts as posted on The Big Picture today--particularly about a loophole I see in the Court's ruling on what evidence can be used. The result is to get out the vote for an administration that has a hope of passing the laws I suggest. That means voting Dem in the down-ticket races, to.
****
It seems to me that Chutkan would be quite within the opinion to find that the presumption of immunity is overcome for charges of trying to overturn the election because no executive power is impacted, there being no executive power to overturn elections. Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act, the argument was the VICE president had the power, not the president and that potential "executive power" is now gone bye bye.
Same goes for the suborning of state officials. No executive power to interfere with state elections so no presumption. And as for evidence: what is prohibited if I recall is using motive and "executive privilege" kinds of things to decide WHETHER the immunity exists. Don't think it said anything about using that kind of evidence where it does not exist.
The thing I can see here is that the dreadful reasoning gives sane lower courts a whole lot of reasons to distinguish this opinion from whatever they have in front of them.
As for the altering docs case: The bad behavior and most of the plotting was BEFORE he was elected. Trump wasn't convicted of being the main planner of how Cohen got paid; agreeing to it was an acceptable jury inference from all the other facts presented; there is no special relationship of executive power to the CEO of your own corporation nor any presidential duty involved in writing person checks on your personal account. Any testimony about what happened while he was president was testimony about what OTHER people did. Go Merchan.
Can Congress make a law that makes the DOJ independent of the president other than a) confirming the appointment after advice and consent or b) firing for just cause? After all, they GET to the broad powers by looking at his power to execute the laws and if there's a law, he's gotta execute it.
Further the court relies heavily not just on Article 2 but on the powers Congress has given to the president. Why not make a statute that says that any powers given to the president have an exception--when he uses those granted powers for corrupt purposes, and evidence of motive and similar is admissible for determining when the exception applies. Nothing about "immunity"--just a removal of a granted power. So come on in, evidence.
Finally, besides enlarging the court, Congress should look at its powers to limit jurisdiction of the court; remove jurisdiction for deciding on questions of immunity not granted explicitly by the Constitution. Also, when a court decision CONTRADICTS the Constitution's clear statements (like the part about criminal acts in the impeachment statute) the court immediately loses jurisdiction to enforce its holding in any way that so contradicts, as having no jurisdiction to decide on an unconstitutional basis. The whole power of judicial review is NOT in the Constitution--the court invented it in Marbury--and we certainly don't want to limit that power entirely--but one could carefully craft a statute that limits the KINDS of judicial review the court has power to do
Yes, indeed! Vibrant expanded labor unions should unite with The Poor Peoples' Campaign to (1) defend what we have left, (2) articulate leadership and civic goals, and (3) create a strategy equal to the task, such as a general strike.
We may or may not be able to get TRUMP into jail, but there ARE things that can be done at least for the future. My thoughts as posted on The Big Picture today--particularly about a loophole I see in the Court's ruling on what evidence can be used. The result is to get out the vote for an administration that has a hope of passing the laws I suggest. That means voting Dem in the down-ticket races, to.
****
It seems to me that Chutkan would be quite within the opinion to find that the presumption of immunity is overcome for charges of trying to overturn the election because no executive power is impacted, there being no executive power to overturn elections. Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act, the argument was the VICE president had the power, not the president and that potential "executive power" is now gone bye bye.
Same goes for the suborning of state officials. No executive power to interfere with state elections so no presumption. And as for evidence: what is prohibited if I recall is using motive and "executive privilege" kinds of things to decide WHETHER the immunity exists. Don't think it said anything about using that kind of evidence where it does not exist.
The thing I can see here is that the dreadful reasoning gives sane lower courts a whole lot of reasons to distinguish this opinion from whatever they have in front of them.
As for the altering docs case: The bad behavior and most of the plotting was BEFORE he was elected. Trump wasn't convicted of being the main planner of how Cohen got paid; agreeing to it was an acceptable jury inference from all the other facts presented; there is no special relationship of executive power to the CEO of your own corporation nor any presidential duty involved in writing person checks on your personal account. Any testimony about what happened while he was president was testimony about what OTHER people did. Go Merchan.
Can Congress make a law that makes the DOJ independent of the president other than a) confirming the appointment after advice and consent or b) firing for just cause? After all, they GET to the broad powers by looking at his power to execute the laws and if there's a law, he's gotta execute it.
Further the court relies heavily not just on Article 2 but on the powers Congress has given to the president. Why not make a statute that says that any powers given to the president have an exception--when he uses those granted powers for corrupt purposes, and evidence of motive and similar is admissible for determining when the exception applies. Nothing about "immunity"--just a removal of a granted power. So come on in, evidence.
Finally, besides enlarging the court, Congress should look at its powers to limit jurisdiction of the court; remove jurisdiction for deciding on questions of immunity not granted explicitly by the Constitution. Also, when a court decision CONTRADICTS the Constitution's clear statements (like the part about criminal acts in the impeachment statute) the court immediately loses jurisdiction to enforce its holding in any way that so contradicts, as having no jurisdiction to decide on an unconstitutional basis. The whole power of judicial review is NOT in the Constitution--the court invented it in Marbury--and we certainly don't want to limit that power entirely--but one could carefully craft a statute that limits the KINDS of judicial review the court has power to do
Yes, indeed! Vibrant expanded labor unions should unite with The Poor Peoples' Campaign to (1) defend what we have left, (2) articulate leadership and civic goals, and (3) create a strategy equal to the task, such as a general strike.