WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2024
CERTIORARI GRANTED
23-939 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES (23A745)
CERTIORARI GRANTED
23-939 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES (23A745)
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.
___
The "question presented"—
"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"
The question not at this point explicitly presented in the above, but clearly the one that matters—
"To what extent (if any) do the behaviors, incitements, and directives (express or implied) of now-former President Donald Trump relating to the 2020 Presidential election result dispute which culminated in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol constitute 'official acts'?"
Game on...
Fundamental to Donald Trump’s argument on this self-serving immunity claim is that whole “chief law enforcement officer of the United States” assertion. In order to fulfill his sacred Article II Outer Perimeter obligation that he “faithfully execute the laws,” it was Officially imperative that he continually reviewed the 2020 election to verify its legitimacy (which, of course, would never be found)..
Never mind his blatant personal conflict of vested interest in the outcome. His constitutionally proper response would have been to appoint a beat-to-Quarters DefCon5 DOJ special counsel and staff (via AG Barr) to independently review the 2020 election results. It continues to irritate the stew out of me that the various national media legal pundits don’t pound on this centrally salient point.
250 days to go until the 2024 U.S. national elections, folks.
ONE VOTE FOR BLANKET INDEMNITY AT THE OUTSET?
DIFFERENT VENUE, SAME FATUOUS IMMUNITY ASSERTION
“Trump’s argument is conclusory. No evidence was presented to support it, and Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty. Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty. Trump is not immune from the People’s prosecution in New York Supreme Court. His argument of immunity is not a colorable defense.”—NY State Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Trump pornstar “Stormy Daniels” hush money criminal fraud case.
Might it help to paraphrase from Justice Roberts’ Feb 28th cert words?
NONE of the behaviors, incitements, and directives (express or implied) of Trump relating to the 2020 Presidential election result dispute which culminated in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol constitute any elements of “presidential duty.” In fact, they were plainly and wholly to the contrary, resulting in destructively violent mayhem, injuries, and deaths—leaving a black civic moral stain glaringly unworthy of the honorable self-governing republic we claim to be.
__________