January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[CU88a]

Jack Smiths 12.30.23 brief on 2xIMPOTUS o d "immunity claim"

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -23-23.pdf

INTRODUCTION

For the first time in our Nation’s history, a grand jury has charged a former President with committing crimes while in office to overturn an
election that he lost. In response, the defendant claims that to protect the institution of the Presidency, he must be cloaked with absolute
immunity from criminal prosecution unless the House impeached and the Senate convicted him for the same conduct. He is wrong. Separation-ofpowers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former President may be prosecuted for criminal acts he
committed while in office—including, most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election.

The Presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts—particularly
those that strike at the heart of the democratic process. Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping
immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The Founders did not intend and would never have
countenanced such a result. And multiple safeguards—ultimately

[Typical Lax Dad]

Guy is just exercising his constitutional rights….leave him alone

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/color ... index.html

[Seacoaster(1)]

Jack Smiths 12.30.23 brief on 2xIMPOTUS o d "immunity claim"

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -23-23.pdf

INTRODUCTION

For the first time in our Nation’s history, a grand jury has charged a former President with committing crimes while in office to overturn an
election that he lost. In response, the defendant claims that to protect the institution of the Presidency, he must be cloaked with absolute
immunity from criminal prosecution unless the House impeached and the Senate convicted him for the same conduct. He is wrong. Separation-ofpowers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former President may be prosecuted for criminal acts he
committed while in office—including, most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election.

The Presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts—particularly
those that strike at the heart of the democratic process. Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping
immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The Founders did not intend and would never have
countenanced such a result. And multiple safeguards—ultimately

This case is being argued next Tuesday, January 9 at 9:30 am, and argument would be very interesting to watch. Smith's Answering Brief is very good, and very persuasive. The Trump brief provided the set-up by arguing that Trump's actions as alleged in the criminal indictment and complaint were "official acts," and therefore are immune from any examination by the courts, in any fashion. As if the criminal complaint centered on, say, recognition of a foreign power, and not an attempt to subvert the certification process in an election he lost.

Sorry for the TDS. I know I am crazy to follow this stuff just because he is the leading GOP candidate for the nomination for the Presidency, and is under dozens of indictment counts.

[dislaxxic]

Did you see the Amicus Brief post i put up SC? I think it's in the "2024" thread. VERY interesting.

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Did you see the Amicus Brief post i put up SC? I think it's in the "2024" thread. VERY interesting.

..

Saw that; haven't read it all yet. The authors are sure as shooting not lightweights. The seem to say that there are only two constitutional guaranties that allow immediate appeal (and vesting of jurisdiction in an appellate court: the Double Jeopardy Clause, and Speech and Debate immunity. Since this isn't one of those, the argument goes, the Court of Appeals doesn't have jurisdiction.

Gotta say that seems strained to me (not a criminal practitioner, and have never researched interlocutory criminal appellate bases like the Double Jeopardy clause, etc.). Trump's people make the immunity argument on the basis of the constitutional separation of powers, and some of the argument is based on the impeachment judgment clause, Article !, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution. But the American Oversight brief does provide a way to slip out of the meatier issue of immunity. Not sure with the DC Circuit will do. Hope is is live-streamed.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Destabilizing facts has always been tool number one in the authoritarian handbook. So now they are "hostages;" Babbit is Horst Wessel, etc.:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... -election/

"Donald Trump spent the days after Jan. 6, 2021, privately fuming about the election and his media coverage. Leaving office with an approval rating below 40 percent, he skipped Joe Biden’s inauguration and retreated to Mar-a-Lago. He was banned from posting on Twitter and avoided public appearances.

The next month, he accepted an invitation to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, his first post-presidential speech. On the drive, Trump seemed surprised that the roads again closed for his motorcade, an adviser said. A rapturous reception appeared to lift his spirits, the adviser said. Still, his speech made no mention of the event that prompted his isolation: the deadly attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol.

In those early months of lying low, Trump himself was not the main driver in rewriting Republicans’ collective memory of Jan. 6.

Attempts to minimize, excuse or deny the violence of that day began with people returning home from the mob and intensified with family members of rioters, including the mother of a woman killed at the Capitol. Their cause became championed by pro-Trump writers Julie Kelly and Darren Beattie, and amplified by prominent right-wing media figures. The grass-roots and media pressure then spread from far-right lawmakers such as Reps. Paul A. Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene to take over the Republican mainstream.

This changing view of Jan. 6 among Republicans offered Trump a lifeline, paving the way for his political comeback. By October 2021, when he claimed “the insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day,” rather than on Jan. 6, he was merely repeating a meme that was already widely circulating on Facebook.

“There were other people planting the seeds, and then Trump comes to harvest them,” said Jared Holt, an extremism researcher at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, of the rewriting of Jan. 6. “It’s canon at this point.”

Now, on the third anniversary of the nation’s first interruption to the peaceful transfer of power since the Civil War era, Republicans’ attitudes about Jan. 6 are increasingly unmoored from other Americans, and Trump holds a commanding lead in the race for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

The share of Republicans who said the Jan. 6 protesters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent” dipped to 18 percent from 26 percent in December 2021, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll. More than half of independents and about three-quarters of Democrats, on the other hand, believe the protesters were “mostly violent,” numbers that have remained largely unchanged over time, the poll found.

The percentage of Republicans who hold Trump responsible for the attack dropped from 27 percent to 14 percent, compared with 56 percent of independents and 86 percent of Democrats. More than a third of Republicans said they believe the FBI definitely or probably organized and encouraged the attack — a conclusion contradicted by an extensive congressional investigation and more than 725 completed federal prosecutions.

More than 1,000 people have been charged in the Capitol breach. The Post-UMD poll found a majority of Americans believe the events of Jan. 6 were an attack on democracy and should never be forgotten. Trump faces his own criminal prosecution in Washington and Georgia for his efforts to overturn the election, trials his advisers have tried to delay — and fear could alienate him from voters he needs in a general election.

“When I resigned on January 6th, if you would have told me that people would have been whitewashing the events of the day or spreading all kinds of conspiracy theories, I would not have believed you,” said Sarah Matthews, who was a deputy press secretary in Trump’s White House. “We all saw the footage. We saw these people violently attacking police officers. To whitewash and downplay the events is so frustrating because if they took place in any other country, we would be calling it a coup attempt.”

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung accused Biden of trying to distract from his record and criticized him for the prosecutions of Trump. “The fact is that Biden is the real threat to democracy by weaponizing the government to go after his main political opponent and interfering in the 2024 election,” he said.

(The federal charges against Trump were brought by special counsel Jack Smith in accordance with Justice Department rules against White House influence. There is no evidence of coordination with the two cases brought by local prosecutors.)

Trump is holding two rallies in Iowa on Saturday ahead of the caucuses there Jan. 15. His remarks are expected to focus on contrasting his and Biden’s records on the economy and immigration, and it is not clear if he will mention the anniversary.

Biden confronted the subject head-on Friday in a speech in Pennsylvania, near the Revolutionary War campground at Valley Forge. His reelection campaign is preparing to frame the likely general-election rematch as a choice between democracy and authoritarianism.

“When the attack on January 6th happened, there was no doubt about the truth,” he said. “As time has gone on, politics, fear, money all have intervened. And now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump and Jan. 6 have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy. They made their choice. Now the rest of us — Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans — we have to make our choice.”

In a speech Friday night, Trump accused Biden of “pathetic fearmongering.”

‘Outlier … conspiracy theorist or whack job’

Congress was still meeting through the night to certify the electoral college results as the thousands of Trump supporters who’d gathered on the National Mall started leaving Washington and returning home. Though disappointed that they hadn’t ultimately changed the outcome of the election, many of the demonstrators were still thrilled by what they’d experienced. They texted friends and posted on Facebook about what they’d seen, often reporting joyful scenes and, for those who never approached the Capitol steps, no sign of violence.

Some participants speculated that the violence could have been instigating by anti-Trump interlopers. Others spoke up to refute those suspicions: They were proud to claim responsibility for what they had done. Then some of those self-incriminating social media posts started showing up in warrants and indictments. The FBI posted wanted photos of people in the mob, and amateur online sleuths started hunting them down. Others were turned in by family members and co-workers.

The Jan. 17 arrest of Couy Griffin, a New Mexico county commissioner known in the Make America Great Again movement as the founder of Cowboys for Trump, caught the attention of Julie Kelly, a writer for the pro-Trump website American Greatness. Griffin was charged with entering a restricted area and disorderly conduct.

Because there was no evidence that Griffin assaulted police officers or damaged property, Kelly questioned why he was detained. “His real crime, of course, is that he’s a supporter of Donald Trump,” she wrote on Feb. 4, 2021. “He is, for all intents and purposes, a political prisoner.”

Griffin was released on bond the next day. He was later convicted and sentenced to 14 days, which he’d already served.

“I was being considered an outlier, to put it nicely,” Kelly said in an interview. “Conspiracy theorist or whack job, to put it more accurately, how I was portrayed.”

At that time, even Trump was still denouncing the violence. In a Feb. 28 Fox News interview, he defended his rally before the riot as “a love fest,” but as for the siege of the Capitol, he said, “I hate to see it. I think it’s terrible.”

The biggest exception was Tucker Carlson, then the host of the nation’s most-watched cable news show, on Fox News. In March, he invited Kelly on to question what caused the death of Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died the day after fighting the mob, including being attacked with pepper spray. (The D.C. medical examiner later concluded that Sicknick died of natural causes after two strokes, but that “all that transpired on that day played a role in his condition.” Sicknick’s assailant, Julian Khater, pleaded guilty in 2022.)

“The details of that day matter, Carlson said, “because they’re being used as a pretext for changing this country.” Carlson did not respond to requests for comment.

Carlson also took an interest in another fatality connected to the attack: that of Ashli Babbitt, the Trump supporter who was shot trying to enter the lobby of the House chamber while lawmakers were evacuating. In the months after the riot, far-right communities online started portraying her as a martyr and trying to identify and harass the officer who shot her, according to Holt’s research for the Atlantic Council.

In June, Carlson brought on Babbitt’s widower, who repeated the call to identify the officer who killed her. “The silence is deafening,” he said.

Babbitt’s mother, Micki Witthoeft, started holding a nightly vigil outside the D.C. jail where Jan. 6 defendants were being held, either while being arraigned, awaiting sentencing after conviction, or because a judge found them too dangerous to release before trial. The inmates started a tradition of singing the national anthem every night at 9.

One of the defendants in the jail was Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, an Army reservist from New Jersey who gained notoriety for wearing a Hitler-style mustache. He was charged and later convicted of charges including obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

His aunt, Cynthia Hughes, asked the judge to release Hale-Cusanelli pending trial, arguing that he wasn’t dangerous. The judge, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden, disagreed and denied bond. Hughes started a fund called the Patriot Freedom Project to raise money for the lawyers and families of Jan. 6 defendants. Hughes declined to comment.

One night that summer, Kelly was standing in her kitchen in suburban Chicago when she got a call from the jail. She used her daughter’s cellphone to record the prisoners singing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” then posted it online. “That started to get attention,” Kelly said.

‘It came from the grass roots’

That spring, the pressure from activists and right-wing media started getting back to Congress.

At first, the main voice was Gosar (R-Ariz.), who had appeared at “Stop the Steal” rallies leading up to Jan. 6. In the months after, Gosar used his time at congressional hearings to question former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen about Babbitt’s death, claiming she was “executed,” demanding that FBI Director Christopher A. Wray identify the officer who shot her, and falsely insisting that there were “zero” firearms among the mob.

Witthoeft said in an interview that when she began approaching members of Congress about her daughter, Gosar was the only one who would meet. “One of my first meetings, I was told by a staffer that January 6th was a political football that no one wanted to touch,” she said.

But other lawmakers soon started getting involved. In May, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), who on Jan. 6 helped barricade the doors of the House chamber, spoke at a hearing to deny there ever was an insurrection and suggested the rampaging mob looked like “a normal tourist visit.” Greene (R-Ga.) and Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) tried to visit the Jan. 6 defendants in the D.C. jail. They were turned away.

“It came from the grass roots,” said a former senior House Republican leadership aide. The aide, who like several others spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private interactions, said most Republicans who had been at the Capitol “knew exactly what happened, knew how wrong it was, and knew that Donald Trump was responsible” but shifted after hearing from constituents.

Over time, about a dozen members of Congress became reliable allies, said Witthoeft, who said she began to regularly talk to congressional staff members, along with activists, documentary filmmakers and others. “People do return our phone calls now, people will open our doors and take meetings with us,” she said.

By mid-2021, online rumors accusing left-wing agitators of instigating the Capitol riot had fizzled out. In their place, Darren Beattie, a former speechwriter for Gaetz and the Trump White House who’d gone on to found a pro-Trump website called Revolver News, started publishing articles suggested a different source of subterfuge: the FBI.

Beattie focused on a man named Ray Epps, who appeared in videos urging on the mob and whom Beattie suspected of being an undercover operative. Justice Department leaders have repeatedly confirmed that Epps never worked for or with them. In 2023, Epps pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Beattie was a frequent guest on former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, one of the most influential talk shows in the MAGA movement. In June 2021, he found an even bigger audience on Carlson’s show. (Epps is now suing Fox News, alleging defamation.) Clips from the show were shared online by Greene and Gaetz, and Gosar read one of Beattie’s articles into the official congressional record.

“It took the media by storm,” Beattie said in an interview.

Carlson followed up in November with “Patriot Purge,” a multipart movie on Fox News’s streaming arm that drew on Beattie’s work and other unsubstantiated allegations to portray the riot as a staged feint to discredit Trump and his supporters. Two longtime Fox News commentators, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, quit the network in protest. The network stood by Carlson at the time. (He was abruptly terminated in 2023.)

By the time Congress marked the attack’s first anniversary, Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) was the only Republican who attended a moment of silence on the House floor. Gaetz and Greene held their own news conference where Gaetz promoted Beattie’s “fed-surrection” claims.

That night on Carlson’s show, the host pressured Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to explain his description of Jan. 6 as “a violent terrorist attack” during a Senate hearing the day before.

“By no definition was it a terror attack, that’s a lie,” Carlson told Cruz, who had been one of the leading lawmakers trying to block the 2020 election results in Congress.

Cruz maintained that he was referring to people who attacked police officers, not other protesters. “That being said, Tucker, I agree with you, it was a mistake to say that,” Cruz said.

‘He became more engaged’

In June 2021, one of Trump’s assistants called Witthoeft, Babbitt’s mother. “Would I want a call from the president?” Witthoeft recalled the assistant asking.

A week later, Trump called. During the 30-minute conversation, Witthoeft said, Trump acknowledged that her daughter died in support of him and was complimentary of Babbitt. Witthoeft said she pushed Trump to talk more about what she termed “the political prisoners” of Jan. 6 — people who were being held in detention after being charged with crimes.

While Witthoeft described Trump as a “real gentleman,” she said he had been slow in the early days of 2021 to embrace the issue. She said she asked the president to keep saying her daughter’s name. “I think President Trump was a good leader. But he’s one man,” she said. “For everyone to wait for him to save the day, the past three years could have been better spent.”

After that call, Trump became increasingly defiant in his defenses of Jan. 6. In July, he joined calls to identify the officer who shot Babbitt and described her in a Fox News interview as “innocent.” He said the defendants were being treated unfairly and repeated the falsehood that there were no guns at the riot. In October, he recorded a video message to mark Babbitt’s birthday, calling her a “truly incredible person” whose memory would live on “for all time.”

Trump’s escalating identification with the cause of Jan. 6 defendants coincided with his own deepening criminal jeopardy — and his moves toward a new presidential campaign. In August 2021, the FBI conducted a court-approved search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to recover classified documents improperly taken from the White House. Trump began portraying the investigation as politically targeted, in step with the Jan. 6 defendants, for whom he adopted Kelly’s term — “political prisoners.”

Later that month, Trump met at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., with Kelly and Hughes, the Patriot Freedom Project founder. Kelly recalled she told Trump that his supporters frequently said to her: “We were there for him on Jan. 6. Where is he for us?”

Trump asked how he could help, she said. She pointed to Hughes, who was raising money for the defendants and their families. “From that point on he became more engaged,” Kelly said.

Trump also renewed attacks against Mike Pence, his vice president, who had refused to help Trump overturn the election on Jan. 6. In the days after the attack, Trump had expressed what Pence thought was genuine contrition over the attack, according to a person with knowledge of the conversation. For months, the two men occasionally spoke, and Trump even invited Pence to come see him at Mar-a-Lago. But with Trump’s shift, the former vice president grew frustrated and resigned to what he saw as the futility of the relationship. Now, the two men haven’t spoken in years, said the person.

Protesters outside a federal courthouse in New York in July 2021. (Bryan Anselm for The Washington Post)
In January 2022, Trump first floated pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. His rallies for that year’s midterms featured a video showing clips from Carlson and other right-wing media hosts repeating the conspiracy theories suggesting the attack on the Capitol was staged. He also gave an extended interview to Beattie.

“You’re right about Epps,” Trump told him of the man Beattie falsely accused of being an undercover operative.

At a September 2022 rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., he recognized Hughes to stand and be applauded. “What a job,” he said. “We all appreciate it.” Trump also recorded a video message that was played at a fundraiser for Hughes’s group.

That month, he also called into the nightly vigil outside the D.C. jail. “I just want to tell everybody that’s listening, we’re with you,” he said.

In early 2023, Trump allies began producing a track of the inmates singing the national anthem, mixed with a recording of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. He played the finished song — “Justice for All,” featuring the “J6 Prison Choir” — to open the first campaign rally of his 2024 campaign, in Waco, Tex., in March 2023. The song jumped to No. 1 on iTunes.

The next month, Trump dropped into a diner while campaigning in Manchester, N.H. The crowd inside started calling out that there was a “J6er” present. She was Micki Larson-Olson, who had been recently released after serving a 180-day sentence for unlawful entry onto public property. Trump called her over, hugged her and signed the backpack she said she was wearing that day.

By May, Trump expanded his pardon pledge, now promising to “most likely” grant clemency to “a large portion” of Jan. 6 defendants. “And it’ll be very early on,” he said in a CNN town hall.

At a rally in Durham, N.H., last month, he went further than Kelly’s phrase for the Jan. 6 defendants.

“I don’t call them prisoners,” he said. “I call them hostages. They’re hostages.”

[Brooklyn]

tRump's claim of immunity is absurd and totally without basis. Nothing in the Constitution or under the Common Law gave the Executive any such immunity. In fact historical precedent reveals that King Charles I was tried and convicted of treason against the state in the 1600s:

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tr ... charles-i/


The Common Law was the foundational law in the US prior to the adoption of the Constitution and for decades thereafter. It was basically judge made law and conferred many rights while imposing obligations to the citizenry. All such law remained in the books unless or until it was overturned by codified law. Example: under CL people had a right to enslave. This horrific law, however, was changed and significantly reduced under codified law. Eventually it was completely removed under the Constitution Amendments 13-15 thanks to the work of Representative John Bingham of Ohio. Today, nothing in the Constitution, Federal law or Regulations, nor any form of precedent exists which confers immunity as claimed by tRump.

Now it behooves those Republican judges in the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court to demonstrate judicial impartiality by applying the law as it was always intended. It must refrain from making up a pro tRump doctrine which grants him exemption while pretending, meanwhile, to be doing the public a favor by setting him free.

[PizzaSnake]

tRump's claim of immunity is absurd and totally without basis. Nothing in the Constitution or under the Common Law gave the Executive any such immunity. In fact historical precedent reveals that King Charles I was tried and convicted of treason against the state in the 1600s:

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tr ... charles-i/


The Common Law was the foundational law in the US prior to the adoption of the Constitution and for decades thereafter. It was basically judge made law and conferred many rights while imposing obligations to the citizenry. All such law remained in the books unless or until it was overturned by codified law. Example: under CL people had a right to enslave. This horrific law, however, was changed and significantly reduced under codified law. Eventually it was completely removed under the Constitution Amendments 13-15 thanks to the work of Representative John Bingham of Ohio. Today, nothing in the Constitution, Federal law or Regulations, nor any form of precedent exists which confers immunity as claimed by tRump.

Now it behooves those Republican judges in the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court to demonstrate judicial impartiality by applying the law as it was always intended. It must refrain from making up a pro tRump doctrine which grants him exemption while pretending, meanwhile, to be doing the public a favor by setting him free.

Well, not exactly:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nice little loophole for prisoners. Ever been to LA? Tour "Angola" (Louisiana State Penitentiary) sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... nitentiary

Hasn't changed much since its days as a slave plantation. Civil War ended, 13th Amendment passed, and voila, incarcerate black people for whatever charge, and just like that, prison slavery.

"Since 1973, the number of incarcerated persons in the United States has increased five-fold. Now, about 2,200,000 people, or 3.2 percent of the adult population, are imprisoned in the United States,[2] and about 7,000,000 are under supervision of some form in the correctional system, including parole and probation.[2]"

Quite a number of slaves we have in the US these days...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... nitentiary

[cradleandshoot]

tRump's claim of immunity is absurd and totally without basis. Nothing in the Constitution or under the Common Law gave the Executive any such immunity. In fact historical precedent reveals that King Charles I was tried and convicted of treason against the state in the 1600s:

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tr ... charles-i/


The Common Law was the foundational law in the US prior to the adoption of the Constitution and for decades thereafter. It was basically judge made law and conferred many rights while imposing obligations to the citizenry. All such law remained in the books unless or until it was overturned by codified law. Example: under CL people had a right to enslave. This horrific law, however, was changed and significantly reduced under codified law. Eventually it was completely removed under the Constitution Amendments 13-15 thanks to the work of Representative John Bingham of Ohio. Today, nothing in the Constitution, Federal law or Regulations, nor any form of precedent exists which confers immunity as claimed by tRump.

Now it behooves those Republican judges in the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court to demonstrate judicial impartiality by applying the law as it was always intended. It must refrain from making up a pro tRump doctrine which grants him exemption while pretending, meanwhile, to be doing the public a favor by setting him free.

Well, not exactly:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nice little loophole for prisoners. Ever been to LA? Tour "Angola" (Louisiana State Penitentiary) sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... nitentiary

Hasn't changed much since its days as a slave plantation. Civil War ended, 13th Amendment passed, and voila, incarcerate black people for whatever charge, and just like that, prison slavery.

"Since 1973, the number of incarcerated persons in the United States has increased five-fold. Now, about 2,200,000 people, or 3.2 percent of the adult population, are imprisoned in the United States,[2] and about 7,000,000 are under supervision of some form in the correctional system, including parole and probation.[2]"

Quite a number of slaves we have in the US these days...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... nitentiary

The question you conveniently overlook is why so many people choose a life of crime? They didn't wind up in prison for singing too loud in the choir at church. Is it possible sticking up a convenient store with a illegal weapon is a better option than having to get up early in the morning and drag your ass in for an honest days work
Why do 7 million people choose a life of crime? Easier than working a 40 hour work week. An added bonus is you don't have to report the money you steal on your income tax return. No W2 forms needed there slick.

[MDlaxfan76]

clueless

[Seacoaster(1)]

clueless

Completely. Can't read, can't listen, can't discuss, can't contribute. Try as we might....

[Brooklyn]

PizzaSnake,

... Nice little loophole for prisoners. Ever been to LA? Tour "Angola" (Louisiana State Penitentiary) sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana ... nitentiary

Hasn't changed much since its days as a slave plantation. Civil War ended, 13th Amendment passed, and voila, incarcerate black people for whatever charge, and just like that, prison slavery ...

Under the British Common Law there was a similar prison colony in Australia called Botany Bay though it wasn't called slavery. Of course, human lives weren't bought or traded and no one was kidnapped into slavery in either case. Those prisoners were being punished for what society termed retributive purposes. I suppose the same argument is used in "Angola" today. I do believe this matter would be a better discussion on a topic thread dealing dealing with the Eight Amendment rather than January 6.

But to get back to the issue of tRump and the "absolute immunity" he is claiming, he needs to show that legal precedent exists in order to qualify for it. However, his defense team has failed to produce any legal precedent or cite any law or regulation that grants it. From what I have read in online links they mentioned the Fitzgerald case and hoped it would grant immunity. But that case specifically ruled that exemption does NOT exist for crimes arising from performing official duties. The Jan 6 incident was not an official duty - he was urging the crowd to march on in defiance of a lawful action when Congress was certifying the election results. His duty is to serve the public, not to engage in partisanship. If this the direction his lawyers are taking then he's screwed. This especially in view of the fact that the trial judge as finder of fact and of law has already determined that tRump "engaged in insurrection" rather than execute his duties when he stoked the riotous crowd [here, I am referencing Judge Wallace in Colorado]. But again, with Republican judges in appellate courts and in the USSC you just never know.

We will just to have to wait for the courts to decide what is to me a simple matter fully settled in the courts under the Common Law.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Presidential immunity arguments in the DC Circuit this AM at 9:30. Here is the link to the livestream:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... chMax=1000

[Seacoaster(1)]

Article detailing some of the evidence that will confront Trump:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... ction.html

"On Sunday, ABC News reported on new evidence now in the hands of special counsel Jack Smith that signals a turning point for the prosecution against Donald Trump. If and when the trial goes forward after Trump’s immunity appeals wrap up, the new evidence will be kryptonite to Trump’s hopes for avoiding a conviction.

Progress toward the trial is currently paused during Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Experts like Norm Eisen expect that Trump’s weak appellate claims to immunity and purported protection from double jeopardy are likely to be resolved against him well in time for a trial before the November election.

ABC’s latest reporting describes Smith’s interviews with Trump’s close aides, like Dan Scavino, Trump’s communications guru. The interviews put firmly on record Trump’s statements during the three hours on Jan. 6 when he refused like a petulant child to ask the Capitol invaders to go home.

The powerful reported testimony goes straight to the crucial issue in the case: Did Trump criminally intend to overturn the 2020 election? His newly reported statements would conclusively establish for any reasonable juror that Trump wanted the siege to succeed in stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election.

We already knew about Trump resisting the entreaties of aides, family, and political allies who begged him, once violence began, to immediately call off the dogs of insurrection. He fiddled for 187 minutes while Rome burned.

So what’s new about the evidence that ABC reported Sunday?

Trump’s reported statements are loaded with cruelty, self-interest, and abandonment of allies. It becomes indisputable that he was using his most violent followers to try to override the voters’ will and keep himself in power.

The statements that ABC reported are new, in part, because witnesses like Scavino and Mark Meadows, the Trump White House chief of staff, didn’t speak with the House Jan. 6 committee.

Scavino still works for Trump’s campaign. Per ABC, he’s been so close and “so supportive of Trump over the years that … in 2020 … Trump joked that … Scavino was ‘the most powerful man in politics.’ ” That will make his testimony especially compelling.

Scavino has now reportedly confirmed something vital to Smith—that it was Trump and Trump alone who posted his infamous 2:24 p.m. Jan. 6 tweet: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” The Wall Street Journal has called that tweet “the critical moment” of the siege because it poured truckloads of kerosene onto an already roaring fire inside the Capitol.

Scavino reportedly told Smith’s team that Trump only posted the tweet after Scavino left him by himself in the White House dining room, Scavino having failed “to persuade Trump to release a calming statement.” After the posting, multiple aides returned to tell Trump that the tweet was “not what we need.”

Trump reportedly responded, with no concern for the tweet’s inciting effect: “But it’s true.” As Nick Luna, now a former Trump aide, reportedly told investigators, Trump “showed he was ‘capable of allowing harm to come to one of his closest allies’ at the time.” This was Luna’s assessment of Trump’s response to the news that Mike Pence had to be evacuated from the Capitol, which ABC reported was “So what?”

ABC also reported that Meadows filled in evidentiary gaps about information we had from public reporting. Meadows reportedly confirmed for Smith that he was present to hear Trump tell then–House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

McCarthy, too, had refused to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee. He has never publicly acknowledged that Trump spoke those words to him on Jan. 6, and we don’t know whether he’s told Smith about hearing them.

Meadows having done so also corroborates bombshell testimony that the House Jan. 6 committee received from Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows’ aide—that during the early moments of violence on Jan. 6, she heard Meadows tell Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, Trump “didn’t want to do anything” to stop it.

Finally, ABC reports notable evidence about Trump’s 6 p.m. tweet after the violence ended: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is … viciously stripped away from great patriots…. Remember this day for forever!”

ABC reported that Trump posted the message despite Luna’s warning “that it made him sound ‘culpable’ for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in ‘directing’ it.” Thus, he was on notice from a trusted ally that the message conveyed his criminal responsibility for the violence, and he published it anyway, demonstrating that it was no innocent mistake.

On Sunday, Trump’s team downplayed the significance of ABC’s blockbuster. A campaign spokesman said:

"Media fascination with second-hand hearsay shows just how weak the Witch-Hunt against President Trump is.”

This hearsay claim is 100 percent wrong. What witnesses told Trump and what he told them are not “hearsay” because the statements will not be offered in court to prove the truth of what they assert. Only statements offered for that purpose meet the legal definition of hearsay and are barred from being heard by jurors in criminal proceedings.

Take for example, Trump’s assertion to McCarthy that the Capitol invaders were “more concerned about the election” than he was. Smith would not offer that statement to prove its truth. Rather, Smith would offer the evidence to prove Trump’ criminal state of mind, a necessary element of every offense. Instead, the statement will be introduced to show that Trump wanted the insurrection to continue and succeed in blocking the election certification.

The introduction of such testimony from Trump’s closest aides establishes his criminal intent and should seal his fate in the trial to come."

[CU88a]

Article detailing some of the evidence that will confront Trump:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... ction.html

"On Sunday, ABC News reported on new evidence now in the hands of special counsel Jack Smith that signals a turning point for the prosecution against Donald Trump. If and when the trial goes forward after Trump’s immunity appeals wrap up, the new evidence will be kryptonite to Trump’s hopes for avoiding a conviction.

Progress toward the trial is currently paused during Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Experts like Norm Eisen expect that Trump’s weak appellate claims to immunity and purported protection from double jeopardy are likely to be resolved against him well in time for a trial before the November election.

ABC’s latest reporting describes Smith’s interviews with Trump’s close aides, like Dan Scavino, Trump’s communications guru. The interviews put firmly on record Trump’s statements during the three hours on Jan. 6 when he refused like a petulant child to ask the Capitol invaders to go home.

The powerful reported testimony goes straight to the crucial issue in the case: Did Trump criminally intend to overturn the 2020 election? His newly reported statements would conclusively establish for any reasonable juror that Trump wanted the siege to succeed in stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election.

We already knew about Trump resisting the entreaties of aides, family, and political allies who begged him, once violence began, to immediately call off the dogs of insurrection. He fiddled for 187 minutes while Rome burned.

So what’s new about the evidence that ABC reported Sunday?

Trump’s reported statements are loaded with cruelty, self-interest, and abandonment of allies. It becomes indisputable that he was using his most violent followers to try to override the voters’ will and keep himself in power.

The statements that ABC reported are new, in part, because witnesses like Scavino and Mark Meadows, the Trump White House chief of staff, didn’t speak with the House Jan. 6 committee.

Scavino still works for Trump’s campaign. Per ABC, he’s been so close and “so supportive of Trump over the years that … in 2020 … Trump joked that … Scavino was ‘the most powerful man in politics.’ ” That will make his testimony especially compelling.

Scavino has now reportedly confirmed something vital to Smith—that it was Trump and Trump alone who posted his infamous 2:24 p.m. Jan. 6 tweet: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” The Wall Street Journal has called that tweet “the critical moment” of the siege because it poured truckloads of kerosene onto an already roaring fire inside the Capitol.

Scavino reportedly told Smith’s team that Trump only posted the tweet after Scavino left him by himself in the White House dining room, Scavino having failed “to persuade Trump to release a calming statement.” After the posting, multiple aides returned to tell Trump that the tweet was “not what we need.”

Trump reportedly responded, with no concern for the tweet’s inciting effect: “But it’s true.” As Nick Luna, now a former Trump aide, reportedly told investigators, Trump “showed he was ‘capable of allowing harm to come to one of his closest allies’ at the time.” This was Luna’s assessment of Trump’s response to the news that Mike Pence had to be evacuated from the Capitol, which ABC reported was “So what?”

ABC also reported that Meadows filled in evidentiary gaps about information we had from public reporting. Meadows reportedly confirmed for Smith that he was present to hear Trump tell then–House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

McCarthy, too, had refused to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee. He has never publicly acknowledged that Trump spoke those words to him on Jan. 6, and we don’t know whether he’s told Smith about hearing them.

Meadows having done so also corroborates bombshell testimony that the House Jan. 6 committee received from Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows’ aide—that during the early moments of violence on Jan. 6, she heard Meadows tell Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, Trump “didn’t want to do anything” to stop it.

Finally, ABC reports notable evidence about Trump’s 6 p.m. tweet after the violence ended: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is … viciously stripped away from great patriots…. Remember this day for forever!”

ABC reported that Trump posted the message despite Luna’s warning “that it made him sound ‘culpable’ for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in ‘directing’ it.” Thus, he was on notice from a trusted ally that the message conveyed his criminal responsibility for the violence, and he published it anyway, demonstrating that it was no innocent mistake.

On Sunday, Trump’s team downplayed the significance of ABC’s blockbuster. A campaign spokesman said:

"Media fascination with second-hand hearsay shows just how weak the Witch-Hunt against President Trump is.”

This hearsay claim is 100 percent wrong. What witnesses told Trump and what he told them are not “hearsay” because the statements will not be offered in court to prove the truth of what they assert. Only statements offered for that purpose meet the legal definition of hearsay and are barred from being heard by jurors in criminal proceedings.

Take for example, Trump’s assertion to McCarthy that the Capitol invaders were “more concerned about the election” than he was. Smith would not offer that statement to prove its truth. Rather, Smith would offer the evidence to prove Trump’ criminal state of mind, a necessary element of every offense. Instead, the statement will be introduced to show that Trump wanted the insurrection to continue and succeed in blocking the election certification.

The introduction of such testimony from Trump’s closest aides establishes his criminal intent and should seal his fate in the trial to come."

I wonder if Kevin McCarthys departure from Congress is due in part to forthcoming news of testimony against 2xIMPOTUS o d?

[njbill]

My channel guide says the Trump D.C. Circuit argument will also be aired on C-SPAN 3.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Article detailing some of the evidence that will confront Trump:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... ction.html

"On Sunday, ABC News reported on new evidence now in the hands of special counsel Jack Smith that signals a turning point for the prosecution against Donald Trump. If and when the trial goes forward after Trump’s immunity appeals wrap up, the new evidence will be kryptonite to Trump’s hopes for avoiding a conviction.

Progress toward the trial is currently paused during Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Experts like Norm Eisen expect that Trump’s weak appellate claims to immunity and purported protection from double jeopardy are likely to be resolved against him well in time for a trial before the November election.

ABC’s latest reporting describes Smith’s interviews with Trump’s close aides, like Dan Scavino, Trump’s communications guru. The interviews put firmly on record Trump’s statements during the three hours on Jan. 6 when he refused like a petulant child to ask the Capitol invaders to go home.

The powerful reported testimony goes straight to the crucial issue in the case: Did Trump criminally intend to overturn the 2020 election? His newly reported statements would conclusively establish for any reasonable juror that Trump wanted the siege to succeed in stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election.

We already knew about Trump resisting the entreaties of aides, family, and political allies who begged him, once violence began, to immediately call off the dogs of insurrection. He fiddled for 187 minutes while Rome burned.

So what’s new about the evidence that ABC reported Sunday?

Trump’s reported statements are loaded with cruelty, self-interest, and abandonment of allies. It becomes indisputable that he was using his most violent followers to try to override the voters’ will and keep himself in power.

The statements that ABC reported are new, in part, because witnesses like Scavino and Mark Meadows, the Trump White House chief of staff, didn’t speak with the House Jan. 6 committee.

Scavino still works for Trump’s campaign. Per ABC, he’s been so close and “so supportive of Trump over the years that … in 2020 … Trump joked that … Scavino was ‘the most powerful man in politics.’ ” That will make his testimony especially compelling.

Scavino has now reportedly confirmed something vital to Smith—that it was Trump and Trump alone who posted his infamous 2:24 p.m. Jan. 6 tweet: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” The Wall Street Journal has called that tweet “the critical moment” of the siege because it poured truckloads of kerosene onto an already roaring fire inside the Capitol.

Scavino reportedly told Smith’s team that Trump only posted the tweet after Scavino left him by himself in the White House dining room, Scavino having failed “to persuade Trump to release a calming statement.” After the posting, multiple aides returned to tell Trump that the tweet was “not what we need.”

Trump reportedly responded, with no concern for the tweet’s inciting effect: “But it’s true.” As Nick Luna, now a former Trump aide, reportedly told investigators, Trump “showed he was ‘capable of allowing harm to come to one of his closest allies’ at the time.” This was Luna’s assessment of Trump’s response to the news that Mike Pence had to be evacuated from the Capitol, which ABC reported was “So what?”

ABC also reported that Meadows filled in evidentiary gaps about information we had from public reporting. Meadows reportedly confirmed for Smith that he was present to hear Trump tell then–House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

McCarthy, too, had refused to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee. He has never publicly acknowledged that Trump spoke those words to him on Jan. 6, and we don’t know whether he’s told Smith about hearing them.

Meadows having done so also corroborates bombshell testimony that the House Jan. 6 committee received from Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows’ aide—that during the early moments of violence on Jan. 6, she heard Meadows tell Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, Trump “didn’t want to do anything” to stop it.

Finally, ABC reports notable evidence about Trump’s 6 p.m. tweet after the violence ended: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is … viciously stripped away from great patriots…. Remember this day for forever!”

ABC reported that Trump posted the message despite Luna’s warning “that it made him sound ‘culpable’ for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in ‘directing’ it.” Thus, he was on notice from a trusted ally that the message conveyed his criminal responsibility for the violence, and he published it anyway, demonstrating that it was no innocent mistake.

On Sunday, Trump’s team downplayed the significance of ABC’s blockbuster. A campaign spokesman said:

"Media fascination with second-hand hearsay shows just how weak the Witch-Hunt against President Trump is.”

This hearsay claim is 100 percent wrong. What witnesses told Trump and what he told them are not “hearsay” because the statements will not be offered in court to prove the truth of what they assert. Only statements offered for that purpose meet the legal definition of hearsay and are barred from being heard by jurors in criminal proceedings.

Take for example, Trump’s assertion to McCarthy that the Capitol invaders were “more concerned about the election” than he was. Smith would not offer that statement to prove its truth. Rather, Smith would offer the evidence to prove Trump’ criminal state of mind, a necessary element of every offense. Instead, the statement will be introduced to show that Trump wanted the insurrection to continue and succeed in blocking the election certification.

The introduction of such testimony from Trump’s closest aides establishes his criminal intent and should seal his fate in the trial to come."

Very informative. Thanks for posting. I hope they make a swift end to Trump. Let justice be done and let's move on.

[njbill]

Judge Pan is currently skewering Trump‘s attorney, demolishing his argument.

[njbill]

No surprise, Trump is going to lose this case. So far, the Bush appointee has done little to no questioning. So it’s not clear where she stands. But the two Biden appointees are clearly not buying Trump’s argument. Of course, we are still only hearing from the appellant.

[Seacoaster(1)]

No surprise, Trump is going to lose this case. So far, the Bush appointee has done little to no questioning. So it’s not clear where she stands. But the two Biden appointees are clearly not buying Trump’s argument. Of course, we are still only hearing from the appellant.

Interestingly, and if I am Trump's lawyer, a real concern, Judge Henderson, who is a widely respected "conservative," and maybe a Reagan or Bush appointee, notes that she thinks it is “paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ allows him to violate criminal law.”