This holding says that there is a time when it’s proper for the judiciary to hold a president accountable in a court of law, but suing him for money you claim to have lost due to an official presidential act is not that time.
Remember, too, that the court later decided that - even though he was really busy presidenting - Bill Clinton could still have to deal with a lawsuit seeking money while president for stuff he did before he became president.
So, the courts have said:
Yes, a president can face the courts.
But, before that happens, the courts have to make sure that the lawsuit isn’t an attempt to stop or infringe on presidential authority.
So, suing him over the fallout of an official presidential decision won’t cut it.
But bringing him to court over something he did outside his official job may cut it. At the very least, “I’m too busy being the President” isn’t a good enough excuse.
(And, therefore, it remains to be seen whether the president is subject to criminal prosecution for extra-legal things he did while on the job. Clearly, if you impeach him first, you sidestep the question, which is why impeachment is a preferred remedy. But I disagree that’s it’s been definitely established as the only option - and yes, I know this has been debated around here)
Oh, how I wish someone could have surreptitiously taped the unhinged discussion in the Oval Office. I’d have loved to hear what insults were being exchanged plus, of course, the traitor talk.
Is anyone familiar with the tale of Ray Epps, a man who got his face chewed off by leopards after voting for the Face-Eating Leopard Party?
Epps was a minor insurrectionist that was present on January 6th. He was filmed on January 5th explicitly urging people to storm the Capitol the next day.
However, he was not charged with any crimes. This is because:
When he found out that he was wanted for questioning, he didn’t do anything stupid or evasive, instead he immediately called the nearest FBI field office and cooperated fully
He was caught on tape during the riot assisting a police officer who was being attacked by a rioter.
HE NEVER WENT INSIDE THE CAPITOL BUILDING. Most people that didn’t go inside and didn’t commit violence weren’t charged with any crimes.
However, because of the video from January 5th and points 1 & 2 above, he has become the central talking point in the theory that Epps (who has never worked in law enforcement) worked with the FBI to incite the riot in order to disparage Trump and make his supporters look bad. Epps is
This theory has been widely propagated on right wing media, with Tucker Carlson being one of the loudest voices. The theory has also been voiced by elected officials like Thomas Massie and Ted Cruz. He and his family were threatened and harassed to the point where they had to sell their home and business and move to a remote cabin in the woods.
Here is The NY Times story on Epps, which ran last week. The link is gifted
After this story ran, Tucker Carlson did a long segment doubling down on the theory.
Well, since the Republicans seem to be okay with tipping the game board over on long-cherished US political norms, to a rational person they can hardly cry foul when the Democrats do, too. They want the gloves off, give 'em the gloves off.
My god! Is it ever going to be Thursday???
If we all promise to only speculate about things directly related to the upcoming hearing . . . would it be okay to open the proper thread a little bit early? We do know at least two scheduled witnesses . . . and we have cleaned our rooms, and finished our homework!
The hearing doesn’t even start until prime time!! That is very late in the day!
We might get more out of the hearing itself if we have a day or so for a group study session. . . .
Please!
(Of course, I suppose someone could share what they know about the witnesses and the committee members scheduled to speak in this thread, but no one has.)
My hope is they show tape of DJT doing cartwheels when the rioters storm the building. Wait a minute, I’d settle for pumping his fists. I hope they show him repeatedly telling people “tell them to stop? Why? They’re doing great!”
My expectation is that they question two prominent staffers (we already know this much) and they will testify that he was very pleased with the riot and even wished death on Pence. Whatever they air, they have to top Hutchinson’s testimony. A high bar, but I believe they will do so. And on Truth Social, there will be posts damning both witnesses.
Here is something from the previous testimony that I just learned:
Apparently it was Pence who gave Milley “very direct, unambiguous orders “ to get the National Guard to the Capitol. “ Further, Milley testified that Mark Meadows told him to say that it was Trump (not Pence) who gave the order.
They all fucking knew that trump was trying to foment a coup.
Another charming creature from the Trump White House crawls out from under a rock – Garrett Ziegler, who was an aide to fellow asshole Peter Navarro. He was called to closed-door testimony before the Jan6 committee and apparently didn’t like it …
In the 27-minute livestream, Ziegler used vulgar and misogynistic language to attack Cassidy Hutchinson and Alyssa Farah Griffin, two women who worked for the Trump White House but have since publicly broken from the former President and cooperated with the January 6 panel.
He also accused the January 6 House select committee of being “anti-White,” without any evidence. (The nine-member panel is led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, who is Black.)
“They’re Bolsheviks,” Ziegler said in the stream, referring to the far-left communists who led the Soviet Union, “so, they probably do hate the American founders and most White people in general. This is a Bolshevistic anti-White campaign. If you can’t see that, your eyes are freaking closed. And so, they see me as a young Christian who they can try to basically scare, right?”
Thank you very much, but on top of being informed, I want to mull ideas over with my friends (and enemies) on this board. To get their take, to indulge in a wee bit of speculation so we can earn bragging rights (or raspberries if we are wrong) after the fact. I sure as hell cannot discuss any of this with my right-wing friends and neighbors who see the whole thing as a political plot (in fact, they tend to sound a little like the guy quoted below). I will read your links soon, thank you again.
I agree and share your hopes, but I also hope that they do more than paint Trump in a vary bad light. Remember, the things we hate him for-- they love him for. I really hope (but cannot bring myself to count upon) they show him committing acts that are not only reprehensible-- but overtly criminal. To some degree, this has to be the nail in the coffin, an authoritative narrative that makes the whole world say: “Wow!”
Well, we all pretty much knew- everyone who is paying attention knows what Trump and company were attempting. I hope tomorrow provides such details that even the deniers have to say- well, THAT isn’t right. Something that will cause them to really think, really consider . . . is it possible he WAS actually lying?
Boy, you called it. He does sound like a charmer; looking forward to reading this one too.
It is the only play in their book. Even if they had a binder with five-hundred pages in it, they would all be copies of the one surefire tactic they have.
Well it also assails all of their prejudices and bigotries. So, doubly scorned and hated; it not only holds the possibility of criminal liability, it threatens all the suppositions upon which they have built their lives and views.
Okay, lots of reading to do, thanks for the links and for the discussion. Tomorrow evening just can’t get here soon enough for me. Even after Trump is convicted and sentenced I want one of these hearings every two weeks or so. There is plenty of dirt on Trump from the entire four years- this should continue to play like the WWII marathons they used to have on the History Channel (when they used to discuss history- remember those days?).
I suspect if the guy who was following him around with the documentary cameras had him on the phone, “Hey, Gavin [McInnes]! Hurry it up, will ya? What am I paying you for anyway but to keep me President and you aren’t delivering! And bust a cap on Pence’s ass while you’re at it!” might move 10% of them. This is the guy who bragged about shooting someone on 5th Avenue for crying out loud.
One more thing.
After reading some of the links above, I am kind of hoping they end this particular Hearing by asking: “All of you elected Republicans who refused to meet with us and testify to the Committee, what are you hiding? We have many witnesses whom have documented what happened, what you did – so why are you refusing to cooperate with this important investigation? Why are you still protecting this – [point to screen which holds an image of Trump looking angry] – man in his deranged lies? And those who did appear but used the protection of fifth amendment, . . . . how are you more concerned with protecting yourself than in preserving our democracy?”
Now of course that opens them to the charge of being partisan and “playing politics”, but the right is already tarring them with that brush. Is there a way to do it without being as dickish as I phrased it above? If it comes off as aggressive or not, is it the right thing to do?
On this point- I am on both sides: I want them to point out the hypocrisy and hold those people accountable, but on the other hand I want the committee to be above reproach for history’s sake. What is the best way to address these obstructionists? Is there any course between condemning them and ignoring the issue?
I would like to disagree with you and say there is more humanity in our electorate than it might seem, but I know many of these people and I am guessing closer to 15%. That is until Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity condemn Trump. Within a month of that happening they will all claim that they always new Trump was a lying con artist and they never supported him – they just voted for him because of party loyalty.
Openly lament how there was less cooperation from elected officials who publicly supported the effort to delegitamize the 2020 elections, either through words or actions, and appeal to them to discontinue doing so in light of the evidence and testimony presented in these hearings. That’s not quite a condemnation, or at least it’s not being done in an openly confrontational way.
It’s like the difference between asking someone to change their behavior and calling them an asshole.