Donald Trumpin ja MAGA-kultin myöhempien edesottamusten seurantatopik

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

(The Economistin korkein oikeus journo)

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Spoiler:

Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2022) 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 21A272
_________________
DONALD J. TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY OF MANDATE AND INJUNCTION PENDING REVIEW

[January 19, 2022]

The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied. The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump’s privilege claims “under any of the tests [he] advocated,” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President, id., at 40–46. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Id., at 33 (noting no “need [to] conclusively resolve whether and to what extent a court,” at a former President’s behest, may “second guess the sitting President’s” decision to release privileged documents); see also id., at 17 n. 2. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.

THOMAS would grant the application.

Statement of JUSTICE KAVANAUGH respecting denial of application.

The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.

As this Court stated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 708 (1974), the executive privilege for Presidential communications is rooted in Article II of the Constitution and is “fundamental to the operation of Government.” The Nixon Court explained that the “importance” of “confidentiality” to the Presidency was “too plain to require” further discussion. Id., at 705. “Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Ibid. Yet a President “and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” Id., at 708. By protecting the confidentiality of those internal communications, the Presidential communications privilege facilitates candid advice and deliberations, and it leads to more informed and better Presidential decisionmaking.

The Nixon Court noted, by way of historical example, that the Constitutional Convention was conducted “in complete privacy” and that the records of the Convention remained confidential for more than 30 years. Id., at 705, n. 15. As was true at the Constitutional Convention, the Presidential communications privilege cannot fulfill its critical constitutional function unless Presidents and their advisers can be confident in the present and future confidentiality of their advice. If Presidents and their advisers thought that the privilege’s protections would terminate at the end of the Presidency and that their privileged communications could be disclosed when the President left office (or were subject to the absolute control of a subsequent President who could be a political opponent of a former President), the consequences for the Presidency would be severe. Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.

To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome. The tests set forth in Nixon, 418 U. S., at 713, and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725, 731 (CADC 1974) (en banc), may apply to a former Presi- dent’s privilege claim as they do to a current President’s privilege claim. Moreover, it could be argued that the strength of a privilege claim should diminish to some extent as the years pass after a former President’s term in office. In all events, The Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests sound provide substantial protection for Presidential communications, while still requiring disclosure in certain circumstances.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege if the current President does not support the claim were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Tuosta sitten Politicon juttuun: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/1 ... rds-527421

[MC Nigga T]

MAGA-mies on vaikeuksissa myös toisella rintamalla:

‘House of Trump is crumbling’: why ex-president’s legal net is tightening

Some Trumpland observers are convinced that he is in serious legal trouble as New York’s AG investigation of Trump Organizations’s finances intensifies

When Donald Trump announced plans in 2006 to build a golf complex on ancient sand dunes on the Aberdeenshire coast in Scotland he told reporters it was love at first sight. “As soon as I saw it there was no question about it,” he said. It would be the world’s “greatest golf course”.

This week Trump International Scotland became a central element of a case that looks poised to dominate his post-presidential life, and could even put him behind bars.

[...]

He bought the 2,000 acres (809 hectares) site at Menie in 2006 for $12.6m. Within five short years it was valued by the Trump Organization in its financial statements at $161m, an increase of almost 13 times.

By 2014, the windswept Scottish holding was put at $436m.

The hike caught the attention of Letitia James, New York state’s progressive attorney general known for her relentless pursuit of the rich and powerful. How the Scottish property came to rise meteorically in value is one of the matters she is exploring in her continuing investigation into Trump Organization finances.

[...]

James’s legal document is packed with similarly juicy titbits. The 2014 value of the Scottish golf club was based in part on the projected sale price of 2,500 houses on the land, even though none of the houses actually existed and the company had planning permission for only half that number.

In 1995 the Trump Organization bought a parcel of land in Westchester, New York, known as the Seven Springs Estate, for $7.5m. By 2004 it was valued at $80m and by 2014 at $291m. That 2014 figure, James notes in another exquisitely tart reference, included a valuation of $161m for “seven non-existent mansions”.

The juiciest titbit of all concerns Trump’s former home, the gilded Fifth Avenue temple to his own ego dubbed “Versailles in the sky”, in which he lived before moving into the White House. James’s investigators were puzzled to find the Trump Tower triplex in Manhattan was listed at $327m in 2015, based on the apartment’s size, allegedly 30,000 sq feet.

In fact the property is 11,000 sq feet, which produces a value of $117m. That’s an overstatement in Trump’s official financial statements of more than $200m.

[...]

“We have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit,” James said after the filing was lodged in a New York court.

The new material disclosed by James was so compelling that some close observers of Trumpland are now convinced that he is in serious legal trouble. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney and an ex-vice president of the Trump Organization, told the Guardian: “The House of Trump is crumbling.”

[...]

James is pursuing her investigation as a civil case, which means that were Trump to be found liable it could cost him heavily in fines and penalties. More seriously, James is working in coordination with the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, a similarly tenacious and relentless prosecutor equipped with a large and highly experienced team of investigators.

Bragg is asking exactly the same questions as James: did the Trump Organization commit accounting, bank, tax or insurance fraud? The critical difference is that Bragg’s investigation is criminal, threatening Trump not with fines but prison time.

“Trump could end up in an orange jumpsuit at the end of that one,” said Timothy O’Brien, a senior columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.

O’Brien also has a personal stake in this story. His book TrumpNation, a 2005 biography that raised doubts about Trump’s actual wealth in eerily similar terms to the James and Bragg investigations today, so irked the real estate developer that he sued O’Brien for billions of dollars.

[Jesse Python]

En nyt jaksa tabletilla copy/pastettaa, mutta eilen nousi jenkeissä pienimuotoinen kohu Masked Singerissä, kun yhdeksi laulajaksi paljastui Rudy Giuliani.

[Lana Ctrl-Alt-Del Rey]

En nyt jaksa tabletilla copy/pastettaa, mutta eilen nousi jenkeissä pienimuotoinen kohu Masked Singerissä, kun yhdeksi laulajaksi paljastui Rudy Giuliani.

Ameriikan Päivi Räsänen.

[Sarjajankkaaja]

En nyt jaksa tabletilla copy/pastettaa, mutta eilen nousi jenkeissä pienimuotoinen kohu Masked Singerissä, kun yhdeksi laulajaksi paljastui Rudy Giuliani.

Ameriikan Päivi Räsänen.

Aikaisemmin tais olla jo Sarah Palin, eli kuuluu formaattiin.

[Kaha Junkkunen]

En nyt jaksa tabletilla copy/pastettaa, mutta eilen nousi jenkeissä pienimuotoinen kohu Masked Singerissä, kun yhdeksi laulajaksi paljastui Rudy Giuliani.

Esiintyikö taas Four Seasons Total Landscapingin pihalla?

[viemäri-INTEGRITY]

https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008590765.html

Republikaanit puhdistavat riveistään Trumpia uhmaavan kaksikon: Kongressi­edustaja Liz Cheneyn mukaan puolueesta on tullut ex-presidentin ”pantti­vanki”

Yhdysvaltain republikaanipuolue valmistelee välien katkaisemista kahteen näkyvään kongressiedustajaan. Liz Cheney yritetään kammeta kongressista puolueen rahoilla ensi marraskuussa, tappouhkauksia saanut Adam Kinzinger ilmoitti jo aiemmin jättäytyvänsä pois vaaleista.

YHDYSVALTAIN republikaanipuolueen päättäjät ovat ryhtyneet hyvin poikkeukselliseen hyökkäykseen kahta puolueen tunnettua edustajainhuoneen kongressiedustajaa vastaan. Puolue pyrkii käytännössä puhdistamaan riveistään Liz Cheneyn ja Adam Kinzingerin, koska nämä ovat uhmanneet julkisesti entistä presidenttiä Donald Trumpia.

Puolueen kansallisessa komiteassa on edistetty päätöslauselmaa, jossa vaaditaan republikaaneja sitoutumaan siihen, että Cheneytä ja Kinzingeriä ”ei enää tueta republikaanisen puolueen jäseninä”.

Päätöslauselmasta äänestetään puolueen 168-henkisessä johtoelimessä perjantaina, yhdysvaltalaismedia kertoo.

Päätöslauselman tekstissä Cheneytä ja Kinzingeriä syytetään siitä, että he ”tukevat enemmän demokraattien pyrkimyksiä tuhota presidentti Trump kuin he tukevat republikaanien enemmistön voittamista takaisin [kongressivaaleissa] 2022”.

Tekstiä kuitenkin vesitettiin hieman. CNN-uutiskanavan mukaan aiemmin päätöslauselmassa vaadittiin kaksikon erottamista republikaanien ryhmästä kongressissa.

CHENEY ja Kinzinger istuvat ainoina republikaaneina kongressin erityisvaliokunnassa, joka tutkii kongressitalon väkivaltaista valtaamista 6. tammikuuta 2021. Kongressitalon valtaajat pyrkivät kumoamaan vuoden 2020 presidentinvaalien tuloksen, joka näytti selvää voittoa demokraatti Joe Bidenille.

Cheney ja Kinzinger äänestivät Trumpin vastaisen toisen virkarikossyytteen nostamisen puolesta kahdeksan muun edustajainhuoneen republikaanin tavoin. Syytteen mukaan Trump kiihotti kannattajiaan kapinaan, mutta syyte kaatui senaatissa republikaanien äänillä.

Edustajainhuoneen republikaanit rankaisivat Cheneytä jo viime vuoden toukokuussa, kun hänet äänestettiin ulos puolueen johtajistosta.

The Washington Post -lehti kertoo, että puolueessa on nyt tekeillä tuomitsevan päätöslauselman lisäksi hanke rahoittaa republikaanien kansallisista keräysvaroista wyomingilaista Harriet Hagemania kongressivaaleissa. Hageman yrittää kaataa puolueen esivaalissa Cheneyn, joka oli vielä vuosi sitten edustajainhuoneen kolmanneksi vaikutusvaltaisin republikaani.

Cheneyn edustaja kertoi lehden mukaan, että hyökkäykset kertovat republikaanipuolueen joutumisesta Trumpin ”panttivangiksi”.

Hagemania tukiessaan puolueen kansallinen johto seuraa täsmälleen Trumpin ohjeistusta, sillä Trump asettui viime syksynä julkisesti Hagemanin valinnan tueksi. Trump on luonnehtinut Cheneytä ”katkeraksi ja hirvittäväksi ihmiseksi”.

IRAKIN ja Afganistanin sodissa palvellut entinen ilmavoimien pilotti, 43-vuotias illinois’lainen Adam Kinzinger on ilmoittanut, ettei hän asetu ehdolle ensi marraskuun kongressivaaleissa. Hänen on uutisoitu saaneen runsaasti tappouhkauksia, minkä lisäksi hänen sukulaistensakin kerrotaan katkaisseen Kinzingeriin välit Trumpin vastustamisen takia.

Liz Cheney, 55, puolestaan on entisen republikaanivarapresidentin Dick Cheneyn tytär, joka oli yksi puolueensa konservatiivisia voimahahmoja ennen kuin hänestä tuli Trumpin vihollinen. Hänen on spekuloitu pyrkivän presidentiksi vuoden 2024 vaaleissa.

Viime marraskuussa Cheneyn kotiosavaltion Wyomingin republikaanijohtajat päättivät äänestyksessä, ettei Cheneyä enää tunnusteta puolueen jäseneksi, NPR-kanava kertoi.

Trump on useiden kyselyiden mukaan republikaaniäänestäjien selvä suosikki puolueen seuraavaksi presidenttiehdokkaaksi. Monet republikaanien senaattorit ja edustajain­huoneen jäsenet toivovat Trumpin tukea, kun he taistelevat uudelleenvalintojensa puolesta ensi marraskuun välivaaleissa.

[Villijam]

Yhdysvalloissa republikaanipuolue on julistanut virallisena kannanottonaan, että viime vuoden tammikuussa tapahtunut maan kongressirakennuksen valtaus oli ”laillista poliittista keskustelua”. https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/90a ... a601841740

[Lusku]

Onkohan toi kuinka järkevä tie?

[Lusku]

[Ingmar Bergmanin kuolema]

Republikaanien RNC pakitteli heti tuon päätöksen jälkeen, että ei me oikeasti noin tarkoitettu, mutta papereissa lukee mustaa valkoisella "legitimate political discourse" ilman laimennuksia. Kunnon kaksilla rattailla ajoa.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/04/poli ... index.html
...
The RNC, which condemned the "senseless acts of violence" in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, later Friday tried to clarify the inclusion of the term "legitimate political discourse" in the resolution. In a statement to CNN from Chair Ronna McDaniel, the committee drew a distinction between those who did not commit violence on Jan. 6 and the rioters who violently stormed the US Capitol.

"Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line," McDaniel said. "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol."

Those final words -- "that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol" -- were not in the resolution adopted Friday.
...

[Hans Normaali]

Onkohan toi kuinka järkevä tie?

Ainakin tuon selkeämmin ei voi heittää all-in ja hypätä pelimerkkeineen sakeuden syöveriin. Vaikka toivon että tuo on huonoa pelisilmää, niin 'murica on semmoisessa käymistilassa että vaikea ennustaa mitään.

[ORDNUNG HUSSEIN]

Onko tällä hetkellä auki puolittain realistisia mahdollisuutta siihen, että jonkin tutkinnan/tuomion myötä Trump ei olisi enää oikeudellisesti kykenevä lähtemään presidentinvaalikisaan?