Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:34 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

   #FunReadingLegalDocuments.

   This will be a good* one: Trump's motion to dismiss the J6 indictment based on claims of immunity.

   *good in the sense of 😂

   https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.74.0_1.pdf

   A motion to dismiss is always uphill. Basically, the defendant says: Even if everything the government alleges is true, I would win so there is no point going forward. Example: the court doesn't have jurisdiction or there just isn't evidence.

   There is a table of contents so you can the argument in outline form.

   1/

   • Embed this notice
     Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻 (mikej@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:35 JST Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻

     in reply to

     @Teri_Kanefield I keep asking people if they believe the VP is legally allowed to reject any slate of electors she doesn't like.

     It's amazing to see the circles they run around in after a change of pronouns.

     By the same token, does Trump believe that Biden has the right to do the things of which he (Trump) is accused?

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:36 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Here is the creative argument: The slates of electors derive their authority from federal legislation. The president can interact with other branches as part of his duties.

     Therefore, the president directing alternate slates of electors is at the heart of the president's duties.

     And now we come to the end!

     Someone tells me it's time for a walk, and regular walks are within the outer perimeter of my duties.

     13/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:37 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     If Trump wins this, the president is literally above the law, and obviously, it wasn't the intention of the framers to put the president above the law.

     The headings alone make that clear.

     So he will not win. (That is safe to say.)

     So you can go enjoy the rest of your afternoon. The rest is for certified legal nerds.

     11/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:37 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Screenshot #1, taken literally, would mean that a president can post anything he wants on social media related to an election and be free from any criminal prosecution.

     Silly.

     Each screenshot is pure fantasy.

     46 pages of this!!

     I'm looking forward to how directing alternate slates of electors "lies at the heart of the President’s official duties."

     I skipped ahead and found the section:

     "Allegedly organizing contingent slates of electors falls within the President’s official duties."

     12/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:38 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     The president has nothing to do with elections, with the VP's duties in Congress (which are legislative), electors, etc.

     These are not within the outer perimeter.

     Here is where he says that anything he does personally or as a candidate for office is part of his role as president. (Screenshot #1)

     To answer questions about frivolous and sanctions: Defendants in criminal matters are given leeway in making creative arguments.

     The brief isn't badly done. Nothing I see is sanctionable.

     10/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:39 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Also he throws in that he believed the allegations of fraud, and that his "motives" don't matter.

     On page 18 he starts telling us why the court should find that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution.

     (He admits that there is no such law offering immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents. He wants the courts to create one.)

     Reasons include the president has "sensitive" duties.

     8/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:39 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Here is the fatal flaw in his argument: He claims that anything he does as president falls within the outer perimeter of his duties.

     Also, he is quoting from an amicus brief. (Screenshot #1)

     I found the brief he is quoting. You can see the original brief he is citing in screenshots #2 and #3.

     Well, goodness. The brief he is citing says the language of incitement is not part of a president's duties.

     The main point: An amicus brief is not law. It isn't authority for anything.

     9/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:40 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Addressing comments:
     Yes, he is sort of making a res judicata (or even a double jeopardy) argument, but his lawyers don't seem to know that.

     The words "res judicata" or even "double jeopardy" don't appear at all.

     For a definition of res judicata: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_judicata

     I think it fails for the same reason.

     If you can be convicted in the Senate and then tried again in a criminal court, it cannot be said that the conviction ends the matter.

     Right?

     7/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:41 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     He goes on about how, "Impeachment, removal, criminal prosecution" means that "no removal" or acquittal in the Senate precludes criminal prosecution.

     The flaws are obvious. A president could commit any crimes his last week in office (or last day) when there will not be time for impeachment and removal.

     He could, say, take secret doc with him.

     It also puts the entire burden of investigating criminal matters cannot fall to Congress.

     But . . . very creative thinking.

     5/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:41 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     This is from Marbury v. Madison. (Screenshot #1)

     Now he is assuming that anything he does as president, even stuff that has nothing to do with the office of the president, comes under official duties.

     Specifically, he seems to think that directing slates of electors to persuade electors not to certify the election for Biden. (#2)

     Of course, it is completely laughable to think that anything to do with slates of electors is in the "outer rim" of the duties of the president.

     6/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:42 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Aside: The Constitution specifically anticipates a president being charged for crimes after leaving office. (This is part of the impeachment and removal clauses.) Impeach, remove, and prosecute.

     He gets the law correct here ⤵️

     In a motion to dismiss, the allegations must be accepted as true.

     On page 8, he starts in on the separation of powers to say that the DOJ has to leave him alone.

     3/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:42 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     Okay, this is just plain wrong. (Screenshot #1)

     Stand by while I find a copy of the Constitution. 🤓 Got it. See Screenshot #2

     He has it backward. All Congress can do is impeach and remove, but this doesn't preclude criminal actions after the president is out of office.

     He argues that he was acquitted by Congress so no criminal prosecutions are possible, which wouldn't make sense.

     What if crimes come to light after he leaves office?

     4/

   • Embed this notice
     I moved to Mastodon.social (teri_kanefield@law-and-politics.online)'s status on Friday, 06-Oct-2023 10:45:43 JST I moved to Mastodon.social

     in reply to

     From the contents, we see that he will claim absolute immunity because any alleged wrongdoings were performed on the "outer rim of presidential duties."

     Without reading the brief, you can see that he will interpret "outer rim" to include:

     🔹 public statements about the election
     🔹telling the justice department and state officials to investigate "fraud,
     🔹talking to the VP and others about their "duties" and
     🔹directing slates of electors.

     As you go down the list, it gets sillier.

     2/