John Sauer, representing Trump, gives opening statement. Already answering questions posed by Chief Judge John Roberts.
Says indictment uses vague statutes (2 of 4 in this indictment relate to 1512(c)(2) to criminalize "core authority" of the presidency.
Sotomayor already arguing what Trump did was for "personal gain" unlike what Obama did--one example used by Trump's team is could Obama be indicted for drone strikes that killed an American--bc Obama did it "to protect the country."
"The president is entitled for personal gain to use the trappings of his office without facing criminal liability." She mentions "creating false documents" as an example of committing a crime outside of scope of authority.
KBJ: Claims presidents since the beginning of time understood they could face criminal prosecution.
She then says the understanding stems from presidents being prosecuted "after impeachment."
Which is exactly what Sauer/Trump argue. Whoops.
Gorsuch seems to suggest what is the most likely outcome. SCOTUS kicks this back to Chutkan to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what elements of the 4-count indictment represent "official" acts v personal.
Sotomayor back to alternative electors. "What is plausible about the president assisting in creating a fraudulent of electoral candidates?"
Sauer disputes her description as he should. Calls it a "mischaracterization" of the indictment.
Can't help but think this is Sotomayor's way to support 1512(c)(2) in Smith's indictment.
Sauer admits some of the allegations in the indictment (he also disputes the allegations) would be considered private--such as working with private attorneys on alternative slate of electors.
Thomas raises Meese amici that argues Smith is unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
Sotomayor asked a question and I have no idea wtf she just said. I don't think Sauer does, either.
Kagan joins ACB in parsing the indictment to ask Sauer which allegations represent official v personal.
This really can be such a slippery slope--sort of mind blowing to consider
OH FFS Kagan asks Sauer "How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup? Is that immune?"
Kagan: Is it an official act?
Sauer answers, it sounds like it.
Kagan: The answer sounds like to me it's like, oh it's official but sounds really bad.
Gorsuch expressing concerns about precedent of incumbent presidents always considering criminal liability when making decisions in office.
Kavanaugh and Sauer discussing exec privilege protections and the broad scope of the 4 charges in Smith's indictment--again, 2 1512(c)(2) and 2 similarly vague "conspiracy" charges.
KBJ asking why the president should be making official acts without a responsibility to follow the law. She's arguing that other "high powered people" also have to follow the law.
This is silly--the president has powers that no one else has. So now the president is comparable to, what, a mayor or judge?
"When we are talking about liability, I don't see how the president stands in any difference" than anyone else.''
HAHA OMG KBJ wonders aloud about turning the oval office into "the seat of criminal activity in this country."
Michael Dreeben now up for Jack Smith.
MY GOD WHY DO ALL THESE FED PROSECUTORS SOUND LIKE WOMEN?
Dreeben served on Robert Mueller's team.
Thomas asks Dreeben if there no immunity even for official acts? Dreeben says yes.
Thomas asks why no criminal prosecution of past presidents for military operations such as coups. Dreeben argues bc they were not illegal lol ok.
Roberts asking about circuit court general conclusion that a president can be prosecuted because he's been prosecuted. That logic "concerns me."
Roberts criticizing circuit court for not considering what was official and what was personal. "They had no need to look at what courts normally look at when you talk about questions of privilege or immunity."
WOW.
Roberts describes circuit panel's reasoning as "tautological."
Not a good sign for the 3-judge panel.
Kavanaugh again turning back to separation of powers issues related to Congress passing laws and which ones apply to the president.
"It is a serious Constitutional question whether a statute can apply be applied to the president's official acts."
Argues Congress needs to speak with some "clarity." Now again discussing how vague "obstruction" and "conspiracy" laws can easily be applied to a president.
Kavanaugh: Especially "risky" in the hands of a "CREATIVE PROSECUTOR WHO WANTS TO GO AFTER A PRESIDENT."
Gorsuch gets Dreeben to agree there are specific core functions of the presidency that Congress cannot regulate.
He says yes, Gorsuch suggests that in itself is a form of immunity. Now asking about 1512c2.
Can a president be prosecuted for obstruction of an official proceeding if he led a civil rights protest in Washington that delays a government proceeding?
Dreeben tries to say no and tries to rely on intent and "corruptly" elements. Gorsuch tells him to assume both elements are met--he meant to do it.
Dreeben did not answer that one well.
Alito presses Dreeben on the idea that the president is like everyone else in terms of following the laws.
Alito calls 371--conspiracy to defraud the US-- a "peculiarly open-ended statute."
It would apply to any fraud in any government function, Alito suggests.
Dreeben counters that presidents have no official role in certifying the election.
Alito: "Whatever we decide will apply to all future presidents."
Dreeben unconvincingly argues that future presidents won't violate the law bc they have the best lawyers and an attorney general who will steer him properly. Alito counters that is not always the case.
Alito: "This case will have effects that go far beyond this prosecution."
Alito very skeptical of Dreeben's position that oh don't worry about the slippery slope here because an attorney general will give the best legal advice on whatever he is going to do.
Alito generally asks, "What is necessary for a stable democratic society?"
Asks if permitting criminal prosecution of a president will "lead us into a cycle that destabilizes our country?"
Sotomayor retorts that a stable country relies on the "good faith of public officials assuming they follow the law."
Sotomayor: "No man is above the law either in his official or private acts." Just blabbering nothingness.
Kagan asking about official v personal acts in the indictment. Dreeben again goes back to working with "private lawyers to gin up fraudulent slate of electors is not part of a president's job."
It is to achieve a "private" end--argues what Trump did was in his role as a candidate and this was campaign-related.
Which is something presidents do every single day.
Gorsuch: "Every first term president, everything he does, can be seen through the prism of his personal interest in re-election."
Asks if removing an appointee is core power--this speaks to Smith's allegations that Trump's attempts to replace Jeff Rosen with Jeff Clarke is somehow a crime.
Dreeben says depends on motive. HUH?
"Everything he does...he wants to get re-elected. If you are allowing motive to color that, I wonder how much is left. Presidents have all matters of motives."
Gorsuch reminds Dreeben "we are writing a law for the ages."
He also hints that SCOTUS will soon address the definition of "corruptly" in 1512c2.
Kavanaugh joins Gorsuch in expressing concerns how this case/decision will affect the future.
This precedent will "cycle" back over and over.
Kav asks about a president making false statements to the public and whether prosecutable.
Dreeben says that has never happened so basically no. THAT IS THE EVER-LOVING POINT.
ACB seems to agree absolute immunity is not a thing.
But she asks Dreeben to drop official acts from indictment and only prosecute on personal/private conduct. Dreeben basically argues all the allegations work together as evidence in the indictment.
KBJ seems to agree with ACB that whatever is deemed personal/private isn't protected by immunity.
Lots of back and forth btw absolute immunity v core duties or outer perimeter of authority.
All done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In one of the most twisted opinions I've read, Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan)--who eagerly threw J6ers including Jake Chansley and Rachel Powell in prison for years--has halted the president's exec order denying treatment for federal inmates suffering from "gender dysphoria."
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are "transgenders" who use new names to represent their chosen gender--but also to conceal the convictions that led to their lengthy incarceration in federal prison.
Meet the criminals Judge Lamberth claims are being denied constitutional rights and harmed by the Trump administration.
"Alishea Kingdom" according to court docs "is a transgender woman who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2016, prescribed hormone therapy injections, and approved to receive social accommodations including women’s undergarments and cosmetics." After the president's order, "she" was denied those treatments and accommodations.
"Ms. Kingdom states that the discontinuation of her hormone therapy caused her to experience anxiety, hopelessness, panic attacks, and suicidal ideation," Lamberth wrote.
Except Kingdom's real name is Joshua Mueller.
In 2014, at the age of 23, Mueller was sentenced to 15 1/2 years in prison for armed robbery in Milwaukee where he shot a store employee. He is currently incarcerated at Fairton FCI.
Lamberth lamented how "Jas" was denied hormone treatments earlier this year after deciding in 2023 she was really a man. "Mr. Kapule was told that he would no longer have access to chest binders, and the next day was made to turn in his boxers in exchange for feminine undergarments. Mr. Kapule fears that the discontinuation of his therapy would result in the return of his menstrual cycle and will lead to depression," Lamberth wrote.
Her real name is Jasmine Kapule and she is a career criminal from California.
In 2021, she pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and distributing fentanyl. (BTW none of this is mentioned in Lamberth's orders in the case, I looked up all doc on PACER.)
She was sentenced to 110 months in prison.
Then we have "Solo Nichols." According to Judge Lamberth, "Mr. Nichols is a transgender man who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, prescribed hormone therapy in the form of 100mg testosterone injections, and given access to men’s undergarments, men’s hygiene products, and chest binders."
Lamberth: "Mr Nichols states that he is very scared to live without testosterone therapy, fearing he will lose muscle mass and start menstruating again and likewise maintains that the thought of wearing feminine undergarments makes him feel "deeply uncomfortable, like I can't breathe."
Except "Solo Nichols" is really LaTasha Nichols, another career criminal from Michigan.
In 2013, LaTasha was sentenced to 19 years in prison committing a string of armed robberies in Michigan.
At my daughter's law school baccalaureate mass last night, the priest urged the students to practice law with "honor, honesty, integrity, and virtue." His words made me think about the current crisis in our judiciary as judges now make snap political decisions devoid of those important traits.
Then late last night, I learned about SCOTUS decision in Alien Enemies Act case.
Aside from interfering in what has always been sole executive authority turf--determining the use of the AEA--what 7 justices did is reward the ACLU's bad behavior and borderline misconduct.
SCOTUS endorsed the ACLU's strategy of filing emergency lawsuits over weekends and holidays (in this case, Easter weekend); using anonymous plaintiffs who are illegal Venezuelans then referencing those unnamed plaintiffs to demand classwide status for other potential AEA subjects based on little or no evidence as to who would be covered; relying on declarations by ACLU attorneys or other outside interests without any verification the statements are accurate; and demanding judges act on ACLU unreasonable timeline.
And rather than--as Kavanaugh suggested in a separate concurrence--immediately address the merits of these cases, i.e., the lawfulness of the president's AEA proclamation--the court shamefully gave the ACLU the green light to run roughshod over lower courts in terms of halting deportation of suspected TdA gang members who are here ILLEGALLY.
The criticism of Judge Hendrix, as Alito points out, also is completely out of line and inaccurate. SCOTUS misrepresented his handling of the case as a cop out to excuse themselves for the court's unprecedented and unnecessary interference in this crucial matter.
Truly shameful stuff.
Alito eviscerated the majority on a number of issues including unwarranted and inaccurate criticism of Judge Hendrix while noting the rush job of other judges
Alito noted the flimsy evidence entered by ACLU to support demands for classwide and emergency relief:
Hearing now for Judicial Watch lawsuit in killing of Ashli Babbitt.
There IS a settlement in the case.
Also her husband, Aaron, is a plaintiff.
They are suing the US government under federal torts claim act for assault, negligence, negligent supervision (of shooter Lt. Michael Byrd), negligent training, and wrongful death.
Plaintiffs on behalf of Ashli are seeking $30 million .
The settlement is not yet finalized so cannot be announced.
Holy shit -- the judge is Ana Reyes, the crazy Biden appointee. She is SCREAMING at both sides about who knew what about the proposed settlement.
This relates to a former attorney on the case.
DOJ: "Our intention is to settle this case." Terms have been sent to Babbitt's representatives.
She is again berating one of the plaintiff's attorneys.
This outrageous piece demonstrates what the Trump DOJ is up against not just in the media but within the ranks of the DOJ and federal judges.
First--shame on Barrett for whitewashing the evil Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) mob which is not a "student group" but a campus terror organization that has called for the destruction of both Israel and western civilization INCLUDING THE U.S.
CUAD has terrorized students and administrators at Columbia and Barnard College for over a year; at least one CUAD event featured a member of the PLO. (The event was banned on campus so the wannabe Hamasters conducted the panel virtually.)
But of course only at the NYT is the real villain the Trump DOJ--specifically Emil Bove, a top DOJ official who ordered an investigation into CUAD after masked student terrorists stormed a Barnard building in February and attacked a security guard.
Bove instructed prosecutors to compile a list of CUAD members--but he was once again met with defiance by DOJ lawyers. (This also happened when Bove sought to drop the indictment against NY Mayor Eric Adams.)
"The prosecutors were told by superiors that Mr. Bove was seeking a list so the information could be shared with immigration agents, these people said. Inside the civil rights division, prosecutors came to fear that their criminal investigation was a pretext to facilitate an intimidation and deportation campaign by the Trump administration against student protesters, these people said.
Prosecutors refused to compile such a list that could be given to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, these people said."
Now once upon a time, career government lawyers refusing to follow orders from a superior to investigate a known campus terror group seeking the destruction of the U.S. and involved in an anti-Semitic movement across the U.S. perhaps funded by our enemies would receive widespread condemnation in the press.
Bove sought a search warrant for CUAD's Instagram account including nonpublic data. Now this sort of thing was NEVER contentious when the DOJ sought (and received) Pres Trump's X data or when the FBI systematically sought social media data for thousands of Americans related to its Jan 6 investigation.
But seeking data on a radical campus terror group threatening the destruction of the US and Israel among other nations? THAT IS JUST A BRIDGE TOO FAR for career DOJ lawyers. (Instagram actually suspended CUAD's account in March for violating its policies.)
According to DAG Todd Blanche, "the warrant application focused on Columbia University Apartheid Divest included a photograph from C.U.A.D.’s social media of an inverted triangle symbol used by Hamas to designate targets for violence, which was spray-painted on Columbia property along with red paint designed to look like blood.”
Back to Barrett's piece: "While civil rights prosecutors conducted the investigation that Mr. Bove had demanded, they often pushed back against specific steps that he wanted taken, these people said, arguing that they were either not justified by the available facts or contrary to law and past practice, or both."
But civil rights division lawyers--who thankfully now are leaving en masse after the confirmation of Harmeet Dhillon--were not the only DOJ attorneys to defy Bove's request....
NEW: Records obtained by Sens Grassley and Johnson provide further proof DOJ/FBI was in cahoots with Biden WH on "Arctic Frost" investigation, the Jan 6 case against the president.
As I reported in the docs case, Biden WH general counsel Jonathan Su also was working with DOJ and NARA separably to concoct the documents case.
Biden WH turned over govt cell phones used by Pres Trump and VP Pence.
This is from dirty Wash FBI field office official Tim Thibault to others--including WFO chief Steven D'Antuono--about obtaining the devices.
Su arranged the pick up of the devices from Biden WH in May 2022. Again underscoring this is the same time Su was working with NARA to devise the classified documents case, meeting with NARA officials at WH.
Biden general counsel Su says he is the "point of contact" on the case. BTW Steven D'Antuono, former head of Wash FBI field office, retired after Republicans won in Nov 2022 and John Crabb was demoted by Trump DOJ in Feb 2025.
Last night, the DOJ filed its response to Jeb Boasberg's demand to prove the Trump adm did not defy his court orders related to the removal of Venezuelan illegals covered by the Alien Enemies Act (I also will get to a lot more of this in a separate thread and note his own discrepancies in the first temp restraining order next) on March 15.
As I have discussed here and in numerous interviews, the central dispute pertains to what Boasberg calls his "oral ruling" to turn around two planes already in the air carrying AEA illegals. The DOJ cites case law, jurisdiction, and Boasberg's own confusing orders as to why his verbal statement around 6:45pm on March 15--roughly 40 minutes before Boasberg's written minute order--is not controlling.
Note in particular the times the planes departed (this is from new DOJ filing)
While Boasberg now insists his two temporary restraining orders related to the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act--signed evening of March 14 and posted (and apparently enacted at the time) around 3pm on March 15--he CLEARLY stated TWICE n the rushed March 15 hearing that the first TRO covering the five unnamed illegal Venezuelans represented by the ACLU related to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Not the Alien Enemies Act--the basis of the ACLU lawsuit and request for restraining order.
From March 15 transcript (Gelernt is ACLU atty):
EXCEPT that Boasberg's TROs earlier in the day (those statements above were made after 5pm) granted relief sought by ACLU under the Alien Enemies Act.
Not the INA.
Here is ACLU proposed order, which Boasberg granted at around 9:40am without any input or briefing by the DOJ: