berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 15,120
- 12,511
- 2,320
As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.
www.nbcnews.com
There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.
With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.
She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.
The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.
At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument
Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.
At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument
Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.
www.nbcnews.com
There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.
With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.
She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.
The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.
