Archives for category: Justice

Our reader “Democracy” always posts wise, deeply researched comments. In this comment, Democracy makes us wonder whether Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz was a deep fake that would make anyone else look better. Such as Pam Bondi.

Pam Bondi will be loyal to Trump. Loyalty is the trait that matters more to Trump than competence or experience.

The Washington Post wrote about Bondi:

“Bondi said the Justice Department’s special counsel investigation into whether Trump associates coordinated with Russian interference in the 2016 election needed to be dissolved. She declared that the 45th president’s first impeachment in 2019 was a “sham.” And when Trump was indicted four times after leaving office, Bondi was blunt about who deserved legal scrutiny — and it wasn’t the former president.

“The prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Bondi declared on Fox News in 2023, soon after Trump’s fourth set of criminal charges. “The investigators will be investigated.”

Democracy writes:

Pam Bondi as Attorney General.

What could go wrong? Let’s see.

Bondi was never a supporter of the Affordable Care Act and tried to extinguish it. As of February of this year, Florida had more than 4 million people receiving health care through the Affordable Care Act, the highest ACA enrollment in the country.

Bondi has been a long-time opponent of LGBTQ rights and same-ex marriage. After the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, Bondi said she had OPPOSED same-sex marriage NOT for any personal beliefs or political partisanship but because of “the rule of law.”

Bondi took that $25,000 political donation from a Trump CHARITY and then dropped any participation by Florida in a lawsuit against the Trump University flim-flam scheme. She denied that she did anything wrong or that there was any connection between the moola and her decision not to participate in the suit against Trump’s crooked tactics. Indeed, as one Trump University official said in court testimony, enrollees in the courses were directed to

“call their credit card companies and raise their credit limits two, three, or four times so that they would be able to invest in real estate,” to “charge the course to multiple credit cards” or “to open up as many credit cards as they could.” 

Bondi is a 2020 election denier, parroting Trump’s false claims that the election was “stolen” by “fake ballots” — she could never provide any evidence of this — and that any investigation into Trump’s incitement of the violent January 6 insurrection was a weaponization of the Justice Department for political purposes. Just last year she said on Fox ‘news” that,

“When Republicans take back the White House, you know what’s going to happen? The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted — the bad ones — the investigators will be investigated.”

Kinda sounds like “weaponization” doesn’t it?

The mission of the Department of Justice is “to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.” According to its website, DOJ core values are

• Independence and Impartiality.

• Honesty and Integrity. 

• Respect.

• Excellence.

Obviously, the nomination of Matt Gaetz was laughably terrible. Pam Bondi may be a bit more palatable, but not by much. She is a liar, and a bigot, and a right-wing hack, and a seditious traitor…but with a “pretty” face. She’s the lipstick on the pig.

So what could go wrong? A whole lot.

Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University, is the author of On Tyranny. He writes and speaks frequently on television about the importance of defending our institutions against authoritarianism and resisting Putin’s quest to reclaim the Soviet Union.

He posted:

Each of Trump’s proposed appointments is a surprise.  It is comforting to think that he is simply a vengeful old man, lashing out this way and that.  This is unlikely.  He and Musk and Putin have been talking for years. And the whole idea of his campaign was that this time he had a plan.

We should be wary of shock, which excuses inaction.  Who could have known?  What could I have done?  If there is a plan, shock is part of the plan.  We have to get through the surprise and the shock to see the design and the risk.  We don’t have much time. Nor is outrage the point. Of course we are outraged. But our own reactions can distract is from the larger pattern.

The newspapers address the surprise and the shock by investigating each proposed appointment individually.  And we need this.  With detail comes leverage and power.  But clarity must also come, and quickly.  Each appointment is part of a larger picture.  Taken together, Trump’s candidates constitute an attempt to wreck the American government.  

In historical context we can see this.  There is a history of the modern democratic state.  There is also a history of engineered regime change and deliberate state destruction.  In both histories, five key zones are health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence.  These people, with power over these areas of life, can make America impossible to sustain.

The foundation of modern democratic state is a healthy, long-lived population.  We lived longer in the twentieth century because of hygiene and vaccinations, pioneered by scientists and physicians and then institutionalized by governments.  We treat one another better when we know we have longer lives to lose.  Health is not only the central human good; it enables the peaceful interactions we associate with the rule of law and democracy.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the proposed secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, would undo all of this.  On his watch, were his ideas implemented, millions of us would die.  Knowing that our lives will be shorter, we become nasty and brutish.

A modern democratic state depends upon the rule of law.  Before anything else is possible, we have to endorse the principle that we are all governed by law, and that our institutions are grounded in law.  This enables a functional government of a specific sort, in which leaders can be regularly replaced by elections.  It allows us to live as free individuals, within a set of rules that we can alter together.  The rule of law depends on people who believe in the spirit of law.  Matt Gaetz, the proposed attorney general, is the opposite of such a person.  It is not just that he flouts law himself, spectacularly and disgustingly.  It is that he embodies lawlessness, and can be counted upon to abuse law to pursue Trump’s political opponents.  The end of the rule of law is an essential component of a regime change.

The United States of America exists not only because laws are passed, but because we can expect that these laws will be implemented by civil servants.  We might find bureaucracy annoying; its absence, though, is deadly.  We cannot take the pollution out of the air ourselves, or build the highways ourselves, our write our Social Security checks ourselves.  Without a civil service, the law becomes mere paper, and all that works is the personal connection to the government, which the oligarchs will have, and which the rest of us will not.  This is the engineered helplessness promised by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are to head a black hole named after a cryptocurrency.  There are already oversight instruments in government.  DOGE is something entirely different: an agency of destruction, run by people who believe that government should exist for the wealthy or not at all.

In a modern democratic state, the armed forces are meant to preserve a healthy, long-lived people from external threats.  This principal has been much abused in American practice.  But never before Donald Trump have we had a president who has presented the purpose of the armed forces as the oppression of Americans.  Trump says that Russia and China are less of a threat than “internal enemies.”  In American tradition, members of the armed forces swear an oath to the Constitution.  Trump has indicated that we would prefer “Hitler’s generals,” which means a personal oath to himself.  Pete Hegseth, Trump’s proposed secretary of defense, defends war criminals and displays tattoos associated with white nationalism and Christian nationalism.  He is a fundraiser and television personality, with a complicated sexual past and zero experience running an organization.  

In a world of hostile powers, an intelligence service is indispensable.  Intelligence can be abused, and certainly has been abused.  Yet it is necessary to consider military threats: consider the Biden administration’s correct call the Russia was about to invade Ukraine.  It is also necessary to counter the attempts by foreign intelligence agencies, which are constant, to harm American society.  This often involves disinformation.  Tulsi Gabbard, insofar as she is known at all, is known as a spreader of Syrian and Russian disinformation.  She has no relevant experience.  Were she to become director of national intelligence, as Trump proposes, we would lose the trust of our allies, and lose contact with much of what is happening in the world — just for starters.  We would be vulnerable to all of those who wish to cause us harm.

Imagine that you are a foreign leader who wishes to destroy the United States.  How could you do so?  The easiest way would be to get Americans to do the work themselves, to somehow induce Americans to undo their own health, law, administration, defense, and intelligence.  From this perspective, Trump’s proposed appointments — Kennedy, Jr.; Gaetz; Musk; Ramaswamy; Hegseth; Gabbard — are perfect instruments.  They combine narcissism, incompetence, corruption, sexual incontinence, personal vulnerability, dangerous convictions, and foreign influence as no group before them has done.  These proposed appointments look like a decapitation strike: destroying the American government from the top, leaving the body politic to rot, and the rest of us to suffer.

I do not defend the status quo. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Department of Defense and the Food and Drug Administration require reform.  But such a reform, of these or other agencies, would have to be guided by people with knowledge and experience, who cared about their country, and who had a vision of improvement.  That is simply not what is happening here.  We are confronted instead with a group of people who, were they to hold the positions they have been assigned, could bring an end to the United States of America.  

It is a mistake to think of these people as flawed.  It is not they will do a bad job in their assigned posts.  It is that they will do a good job using those assigned posts to destroy our country.

However and by whomever this was organized, the intention of these appointments is clear: to create American horror.  Elected officials should see this for what it is.  Senators, regardless of party, should understand that the United States Senate will not outlast the United States, insist on voting, and vote accordingly.  The Supreme Court of the United States will likely be called upon.  Although it is a faint hope, one must venture it anyway: that its justices will understand that the Constitution was not in fact written as the cover story for state destruction.  The Supreme Court will also not outlast the United States.

And citizens, regardless of how they voted, need now to check their attitudes.  This is no longer a post-electoral moment.  It is a pre-catastrophic moment.  Trump voters are caught in the notion that Trump must be doing the right thing if Harris voters are upset.  But Harris voters are upset now because they love their country.  And Harris voters will have to get past the idea that Trump voters should reap what they have sown.  Yes, some of them did vote to burn it all down.  But if it all burns down, we burn too.  It is not easy to speak right now; but if some Republicans wish to, please listen.

Both inside and outside Congress, there will have to be simple defiance, joined with a rhetoric of a better America.  And, at moments at least, there will also have to be alliances among Americans who, though they differ on other matters, would like to see their country endure.

So Matt Gaetz is out, and Trump was ready with his replacement: Pam Bondi, former State Attorney General of Florida.

She will protect Trump. That is his first requirement for that key position. She will be loyal to him. If there is a clash between Trump and the Constitution, she will protect Trump. She will take an oath to the Constitution but she was chosen to ensure that he is never investigated.

Wikipedia says:

In 2020, Bondi was one of longtime ally President Donald Trump‘s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. By 2024, she led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. On November 21, 2024, president-elect Trump announced she would be nominated for United States Attorney General.

The AP reports:

She gained national attention with appearances on Fox News as a defender of Trump and had a notable speaking spot at 2016 Republican National Convention as Trump became the party’s surprising nominee. During the remarks, some in the crowd began chanting “Lock her up” about Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. 

Bondi responded by saying, “‘Lock her up,’ I love that.”

This is a contest with no prizes.

Please offer your ideas about who will be chosen by Trump as U.S. Attorney General.

First requirement: He or she must be deeply loyal to Trump and promise never to investigate him.

Second requirement: The nominee must have a law degree.

Third requirement: There is no other requirement.

Ready, set, go.

Personally, I would choose the “late, great Hannibal Lecter,” but I fear he lacks a few basic qualifications.

One, he probably does not have a law degree.

Two, he is dead.

Three, he is a fictional character.

Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration as U.S. Attorney General because he realized there were enough Republicans in the Senate against him to doom his nomination.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

WASHINGTON—Matt Gaetz has withdrawn as Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, after it became clear Republican lawmakers were prepared to reject his nomination amid swirling sexual misconduct and drug allegations.

“It is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition,” Gaetz said in a post on X. “There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.”

The move marks the biggest political blow for Trump since his election to a second presidential term.  His selection of Gaetz, a longtime ally and fierce Justice Department critic, startled lawmakers and members of the conservative legal community. It also sparked immediate objections from senators of both parties, raising doubts about whether he could be confirmed.

The good news is that some Republicans in the Senate resisted the arm-twisting and refused to confirm an unqualified nominee.

When Trump announced that he intended to nominate Representative Matt Gaetz to be his Attorney General, a gasp went up in both political parties.

Gaetz has been a fierce Trump loyalist, which is why Trump chose him. He certainly didn’t choose him because he is an eminent member of the bar, because he has the respect of his peers, or because he is a pillar of integrity. Trump wants someone who is certain not to investigate him and certain to prosecute Trump’s “enemies.” Perhaps Trump thinks he has found his latter-day Roy Cohn, a man who can be counted on to twist the law to justify whatever Trump wants.

Gaetz was just reelected on November 5, yet resigned as soon as Trump announced that he had chosen him to be Attorney General, the very epitome of our justice system.

Candidates for the Cabinet usually wait to see if they are confirmed before resigning. Why did he rush to resign a seat he just won?

The House Ethics Committee was investigating serious charges against him and was about to issue its report. His resignation ends the investigation.

But, Politico writes, that’s not the end of the Gaetz story:

The lawyer representing a woman former Rep. Matt Gaetz allegedly had sex with when she was a minor called on the House Ethics Committee to “immediately” release its report into his alleged conduct.

“Mr. Gaetz’s likely nomination as Attorney General is a perverse development in a truly dark series of events,” attorney John Clune wrote Thursday on X. “We would support the House Ethics Committee immediately releasing their report. She was a high school student and there were witnesses.”

Gaetz, a conservative firebrand whom President-elect Donald Trump tapped Wednesday to serve as attorney general — and who pushed the effort to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy —  resigned abruptlyfrom the House Wednesday, days before the chamber’s ethics panel was reportedly set to release a report of its investigation.

Gaetz has repeatedly denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The former congressman was also the subject of a separate federal sex trafficking investigation by the Department of Justice — which he could soon lead — but was ultimately not prosecuted. That probe, started in 2020 during the Trump administration, was focused on whether Gaetz paid women for sex and traveled overseas to attend parties with teenagers under the age of 18.

In May, he was subpoenaed to sit for a deposition in a civil lawsuit brought against the woman with whom he allegedly had sex — who is represented by Clune — by a friend of Gaetz, ABC News reported.

House Ethics Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters Wednesday before Gaetz’s resignation that the probe would end if Gaetz was no longer a member of the House — and reiterated that position on Thursday.

But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said they hope to review the report ahead of Gaetz’s Senate confirmation. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) demanded in a statement that the House Ethics Committee share its findings with the Senate Judiciary Community, saying “We cannot allow this valuable information from a bipartisan investigation to be hidden from the American people.”

Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post described the Gaetz nomination as “a middle finger to the Senate.” She hopes it never reaches a vote. Maybe Trump is testing the Senate to see how low they will go to please him.

The New York Times summed up Trump’s reasons to admire Gaetz:

Gaetz, a Florida Republican, says Trump’s ties to Russia should never have been investigated. He wants “the Biden crime family” to face justice. And he called nonpartisan D.O.J. officials whom he may soon oversee the “deep state.” He has introduced legislation that would limit sentences for people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and suggested “abolishing every one of the three-letter agencies,” including the F.B.I.

The New Republic referred to stories about Gaetz’s drug-fueled sexual adventures:

Then-Representative Markwayne Mullin, now a senator, candidly told CNN last year that Gaetz bragged about having sex with young women to other members on the floor of the House of Representatives. 

“We had all seen videos … of the girls that he had slept with,” Mullin said. “He’d crush [erectile dysfunction] medicine and chase it with an energy drink so he could go all night.” Mullin, now a Senator, has done a total 180 on this, saying on Wednesday that he “completely” trusts Trump’s decision to nominate Gaetz.

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville said that any Republican senator who voted against Gaetz should be ousted. Only four defections, and Gaetz is defeated.

Kamala’s message:

Unity, not divisiveness.

Love, not hate.

Policy, not personality.

Civility, not threats.

Watch. And then share far and wide. 

pic.x.com/BaipXTo01B

As we have seen over the past two years, Trump has used his legal team to delay, delay, delay, with the hope of eventually getting a sympathetic judge who will dismiss the case against him. That is what happened in Florida, where Trump-appointed District Court Judge Aileen Cannon threw out the entire case about Trump’s theft of documents. The reason: She believes that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. She is the first federal judge to reach this conclusion. Many other judges and legal scholars have reached the opposite conclusion and found the appointment of special counsels to be constitutional. Her decision has been appealed by prosecutors.

Yesterday, Obama-appointed District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed most of Trump’s requests to “discover” more government documents that might show that his actions on January 6, 2021, were necessary.

The Meidas Report summarized her decision:

In a significant legal setback for Donald Trump, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a detailed ruling on his latest discovery requests in the 2020 election subversion case, dismissing most of his demands as speculative and unsupported by law. Trump had sought to compel the federal government to search for and produce a broad array of documents related to election interference, cybersecurity threats, and law enforcement actions connected to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In this article, we will succinctly analyze Judge Chutkan’s latest ruling and its implications on Trump’s election interference case. To read our full analysis below, please join as a paid subscriber to support our work.

Let’s get into it:

The ruling, issued today (October 16, 2024), addressed two key motions filed by Trump’s defense team: a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Motion for an Order Regarding the Scope of the Prosecution Team. In these motions, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to force the federal government to search nine government agencies for information across 14 categories, including classified intelligence assessments and communications about foreign election interference. Trump’s defense argued that this information would support his claim that his actions were based on legitimate concerns about election security.

Judge Chutkan, however, found that Trump’s requests were largely unsupported by the law. She pointed out that under both Brady v. Maryland and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the requested materials are material to their defense. “Speculation” that the government might possess favorable evidence is not enough to justify an expansive search, Chutkan noted, and Trump had failed to show that the requested documents were likely to yield new, non-cumulative evidence.

For example, Trump sought all drafts and communications related to the 2020 Election Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), claiming that these documents would help demonstrate his “good faith” concerns about foreign interference. But Chutkan rejected this request, noting that Trump did not claim to have been aware of these drafts at the time of his indicted actions. Without showing that this information could have influenced his state of mind, Trump could not meet the standard of materiality required for discovery.

Judge Chutkan also denied Trump’s request for communications and drafts of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) statement, which had described the 2020 election as “the most secure in American history.” Trump argued that earlier versions of the statement might show narrower language that would support his defense, but the court found this request speculative and irrelevant to Trump’s intent at the time.

Trump did win a limited victory in his request for certain “discrete, identified” documents, which Judge Chutkan ruled the government must produce. However, these documents represented only a small portion of Trump’s overall requests. The ruling emphasizes that Trump’s legal strategy cannot rely on vague or speculative claims of what might be found in government records.

Chutkan’s ruling further solidifies the challenges Trump faces as he prepares his defense in the federal criminal case. Trump’s argument that his state of mind was shaped by legitimate concerns about election integrity appears increasingly difficult to substantiate, as the court continues to limit the scope of discovery to concrete and relevant evidence.

Judge Chutkan’s Conclusion and Order

This ruling follows a pattern in which courts have resisted attempts by Trump’s legal team to broaden the scope of discovery in various legal challenges. Chutkan’s decision reiterates the principle that discovery is not an unlimited right and must be grounded in specific, demonstrable need.

With the court setting an October 30 deadline for any further motions to compel discovery, the Trump defense team will need to reconsider their approach as the case moves toward trial. Judge Chutkan’s decision is another indication that Trump’s claims, both inside and outside the courtroom, face serious judicial scrutiny.

Greg Olear writes about Chief Justice John Roberts and his lifelong passion to destroy voting rights. To those who thinks Roberts is a moderate, Olear says that the facts prove otherwise.

He writes:

Donald Trump is certainly going to lose the popular vote, like he did in 2020 and 2016. 

Donald Trump is probably going to lose the Electoral vote, like he did in 2020. 

But if the latter is close—and thanks to the antidemocratic architecture of the archaic Electoral College system, it may be—the House of Representatives might wind up deciding who will take the White House on January 20. Trump would probably win in the House (which, despite its intended purpose and its name, is not accurately representative of the American people).

And if it ever got that far, Trump would certainly win in the Supreme Court. There, Leonard Leo’s far-right drones are chomping at the bit to return FPOTUS to the Oval Office. Amy Coney Barrett would join with the four hateful men in robes in holding with the Donald. And proudly, eagerly joining them in such a nightmare scenario would be Chief Justice John Roberts, the reactionary in moderate’s clothing, whose raison d’être is to make the United States as antidemocratic (or, if you will, as fascist) as possible—all the while convincing the media that he’s merely an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Roberts may well be an umpire. But umpire-ness does not automatically guarantee objectivity and neutrality. Like, I’ve seen the baseball scenes in The Naked Gun. Who better to rig the game than the umpire, who can call a slider under the chin a strike and a fastball right down Broadway a ball? 

That’s exactly what Roberts has done. In his court, balls are strikes, white is black, up is down, Radiohead is Coldplay. Words have no meaning. On his watch, SCOTUS decided that “well regulated” means “not regulated at all, even a little,” and that, in the case of Trump being removed from the ballot in Colorado for leading an insurrection, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” means that it’s not actually necessary for Congress to do such a thing. Roe, legal precedent for half a century, is overturned, but the Comstock Act is okay.

There is not, and will never be, an internal logic to these decisions. Leonard Leo and the rightwing machine decide what outcomes they want, they game the lower court system to get the Supreme Court to take on the requisite cases, and then Roberts & Co. pull shit out of their collective ass to produce a ruling that pleases their rightwing whoremasters. And who pays the price? Pregnant women who cannot access necessary healthcare. Children who get gunned down by the score in schools all across the country. Minorities who have seen their federal civil rights protections evaporate. Consumers of tainted cold cuts. And, just to pull something out of today’s news, homeowners in the path of Hurricane Helene, victims of the climate change the GOP and its stooges on the Supreme Court will deny until Florida is underwater.

At the heart of all of this is voting rights. A country is only as democratic as its system for electing its leaders. By that measure, the United States is not all that democratic. State legislatures devise lopsided redistricting maps; that ensures a significant number of extremists in the House. The Senate, meanwhile, is inherently fucked by its construction, which vouchsafes New York the same number of senators as North Dakota. Thus has a minority of reactionary weirdos managed to hijack our federal government. And no one has done more to make this a reality than John Glover Roberts Jr.

“This is who he is,” David Daley, author of the excellent and exigent new book Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections and my guest on today’s PREVAIL podcast, tells me. “And John Roberts has so successfully maintained his reputation as an institutionalist, as an umpire, as a caller of balls and strikes, that he’s gotten away for 25 now with being what I call the most effective Republican politician of the last fifty years—who has delivered the right victory upon victory that they never could have won at the ballot box.”

In 2013, Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, torpedoing Section 5, which required historically racist states like Alabama and Mississippi to “preclear” any proposed changes to laws, policies, or maps related to elections. In the disgraceful Shelby County decision, the Chief Justice assured us that the South “has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Section 5, he wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

Incredibly, a white Republican who grew up in a whites-only town in Indiana was somehow ignorant of what was happening to racial minorities in the South. As Daley writes in Antidemocratic:

Spend some time with the Justice Department files from this era and two things become immediately clear: First, across small-towns in the South, the VRA helped to promote parity in voter registration numbers, but preclearance prevented the adoption of many new-school methods of voter suppression designed to keep the past alive in little locales where no media played watchdog and officials could not be trusted. And second, the five Supreme Court justices who declared that preclearance should have been a vestige of the past spent little time examining these stories. 

They likely knew nothing of the majority-Latino town Seguin, Texas, about a half hour east of San Antonio, where the white population accounted for a third of the population but two-thirds of the City Council. That imbalance persists because officials simply refused to redistrict for more than two decades, after both the 1980 and the 1990census. Latino leaders filed a lawsuit using Section 5 and won—only to see the city respond by rushing the filing deadlines forward for candidates so that no Latino candidates could qualify. To stave off that latest scheme, the Latino majority had to rely on preclearance—and another successful lawsuit.

Seguin, Texas is hardly the only example. Daley recounts many of them in his book. They are nauseatingly, infuriatingly unfair. To this day, and contrary to Roberts’s assurances in Shelby County, voter suppression in the South remains a big deal. And that’s just how the Chief Justice likes it.

“[P]eople on the left still say, ‘Oh, John Roberts is going to save us on this really important thing,’” Daley tells me. “And John Roberts is not going to save you. John Roberts is not an umpire. John Roberts is not your friend. John Roberts was raised in a town for whites only, that was still advertising itself as a place for Gentile Caucasians, even after the United States outlawed housing discrimination.”

Sam Alito is the most pompous of the current Leonard Leo justices. Clarence Thomas is the most corrupt. Brett Kavanaugh is the most nakedly partisan. But John Roberts is the most dangerous, the most insidious, the most fascistic, and, worst of all, the most appealing in the eyes of the press—despite the severe and possibly fatal damage he’s done to our democracy.

“This is who John Roberts is,” Daley says. “Curtailing voting rights has been John Roberts’s life’s work—and he’s really really good at it.”

For those of us who take the law seriously, Trump’s successful evasion of accountability for the failed coup on January 6, 2021, is outrageous. Trump has used delay as his primary strategy for avoiding accountability, as well as his partisan ties to federal judges like Aileen Cannon, whom he appointed, and the rightwing majority on the Supreme Court. Judge Cannon tossed out the documents case. The only viable case right now is Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for launching the events of that day. That case will be heard by Judge Tanya Chutman, who was appointed by Obama. It’s a sad day when the ability to get justice depends on which judge is assigned to the case.

Jordan Rubin writes about Jack Smith’s latest filing here. Smith had to rewrite his brief to acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the President has absolute immunity for any “official acts.” Should planning to overthrow the Constitution, to subvert the election, and to send a mob to storm the Capitol be considered “official acts”?

Special counsel Jack Smith’s big immunity brief is here. The 165-page (somewhat redacted) motion lays out why, in the government’s view, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling doesn’t stop Donald Trump from standing trial in his federal election interference case.

As an example of what the motion seeks to accomplish, consider the discussion of the alleged evidence related to former Vice President Mike Pence, whom Trump pressured to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

As an example of what the motion seeks to accomplish, consider the discussion of the alleged evidence related to former Vice President Mike Pence.

To understand the Pence analysis, recall that Chief Justice John Roberts’ July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States granted absolute immunity for “core” presidential acts, presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. While the high court’s Republican-appointed majority said that it’s up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to perform the immunity analysis in the first instance, the justices gave the Washington judge a head start in some parts, including with Pence. They said that whenever Trump and Pence discussed “their official responsibilities” — namely regarding Pence’s certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021 — they had engaged in “official conduct.”

That means Trump would have presumptive immunity for those alleged actions, which Smith would need to rebut. Roberts’ opinion (rather vaguely) said that can be done by showing that the prosecution wouldn’t “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” So that’s why Smith wrote in the motion that because that branch “has no role in the certification proceeding — and indeed, the President was purposely excluded from it by design — prosecuting the defendant for his corrupt efforts regarding Pence poses no danger to the Executive Branch’s authority or functioning.” (The vice president is involved in certification via the office’s role as president of the Senate.)

Raskin on the Jack Smith brief: ‘American carnage is Trump’s legacy’

07:00

The special counsel further wrote that Trump “sought to encroach on powers specifically assigned by the Constitution to other branches, to advance his own self-interest and perpetuate himself in power, contrary to the will of the people.” Therefore, Smith wrote, prosecuting Trump wouldn’t “pose any danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch; rather, it would advance the Constitution’s structural design to prevent one Branch from usurping or impairing the performance of the constitutional responsibilities of another Branch.”

Smith’s team also made clear in the filing that prosecutors intend to introduce more evidence at trial related to Pence, who is not accused of any wrongdoing. For instance, they want to introduce evidence of what they call unofficial communications that Trump had with Pence in their capacity as candidates (not as president and vice president), including when Pence “tried to encourage” Trump “as a friend” when news networks began to call the 2020 race for Joe Biden, and later when Pence suggested that Trump should recognize the process was over and run again in 2024. Even if those communications were deemed “official,” Smith wrote, the immunity presumption would be rebutted there too, he argued.

To be sure, the Pence evidence is only part of the case that Smith wants to bring against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty.

To be sure, the Pence evidence is only part of the case that Smith wants to bring against Trump, who has pleaded not guilty. And if the former president wins next month’s presidential election, he’ll be empowered to dismiss the case entirely.

But if Trump loses, then Chutkan would have a heavy task ahead in weighing the voluminous allegations and evidence Smith presents in the monster filing and deciding whether it passes the high court’s (again, rather vague) immunity test. Ultimately, whatever the judge rules will be subject to review again by the justices before any trial can go forward. That won’t happen before the election.

The case will either be killed soon by way of a Trump victory or will linger on for months, if not years, to first determine whether the Supreme Court will even let Trump stand trial over any of these allegations.