From Roger Fitch and our friends down under at Justinian

Trump v US

Roger Fitch Esq • Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Judge Aileen Cannon ... No more special prosecutors ... Rogue judges at the highest level ... Presidential immunity decision worse than anticipated ... A dreadful partisan court ... Milwaukee convention ... Vance has no conviction - unlike his running mate ... Roger Fitch files from Washington 

"FBI searches for motive in Trump shooting" - mystifying Associated Press headline.

 ≈   ≈   ≈

"The parallels between [Trump v US] and Germany's Enabling Acts …similarly ratified by the German Supreme Court right after Hitler took power in early 1933 - are startling. That collection of laws ruled that whatever Hitler said in the context of an 'official act' instantly became the law of the land. For all practical purposes, as the nation's leader, he became immune from prosecution under the laws that applied to every other normal German or elected politician." - Thom Hartmann

Although everyone is reeling from the new presidential election dynamics in the US, all eyes should still be on the US Supreme Court and a decision being called the Dred Scott of our time. 

Hitler: immune from prosecution

In perhaps the most partisan power grab in its 235-year history, the supreme court on July 1 attempted to nullify all the outstanding federal criminal litigation against Donald Trump as well as litigation under appeal in New York State and Georgia. Rather than Justice Gorsuch's promised "rule for the ages", it's a rule tailor-made for Donald Trump.

As international law professor Oona Hathaway noted in Foreign Affairs, for the rest of the world the US president has always been above the law. Now Americans themselves will learn what that means.

In a decision that will live in infamy, the court ruled that a president is, in all essential matters, above the law. That's contrary to the Constitution; Article 1, Section 3, makes clear that even a president who has been impeached and convicted remains "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law".

By a majority of 5-4 (Justice Barrett not joining), dicta was inserted in Trump v US that may affect multiple criminal prosecutions in several states, e.g, those involving fake electoral slates. 

The five justices opined that even the evidence of crimes that falls within the president's astonishingly-broad "official acts", e.g, contacts and phone calls between the president and others, perhaps bribery and corruption, attempted subversions of justice through corrupt contacts with department employees (e.g, Jeffrey Clark in the DoJ), intimidation of the Vice-President and the Justice Department's senior officers, pressuring Georgia officials to "find" votes, cannot be admitted in court, nor the president's motives and good faith queried.

More here on CJ Roberts' now-notorious footnote 3.

READ THE WHOLE FITCH HERE.

unity

 we will make it work.

FROM ROGER FITCH AND OUR FRIENDS DOWN UNDER AT JUSTINIAN

Reign of Terror

ROGER FITCH ESQ • FRIDAY, JULY 5, 2024

SCOTUS ... Shocker decisions from the latest term ... The Trump Docket ... Presidential immunity ... Gratuities and bribes ... Obstruction ... Admin law trashed ... Criminalising the homeless ... Espionage Act - two sides of the coin for Assange and Trump ... At last, someone convicted at Guantánamo of a real war crime ... Roger Fitch reports from Washington 

"Somewhere along his life path, his Saurian eye identified a need among a swath of Americans for nonsensical gibberish … In another era, Trump's true calling in life would be a travelling tentpole circus barker, hustling from town to town with an entourage of snake oil salesmen, other grifters, and assorted freakish animal and humanoid curiosities... that's entertainment, and as ever, it serves a nefarious purpose - diverting the crowd from the pickpockets" - Nina Burleigh

........

The Justice Department has filed two contentious espionage cases in recent years. One, against an Australian citizen, is novel, an actual Trumped-up crime. The other, filed by a special counsel appointed under President Biden, is against Trump himself. 

Unlike Julian Assange's "offences", the charges against Donald Trump fit perfectly: it's a straightforward prosecution for wilfully and knowingly taking and concealing classified documents, misusing them and obstructing their retrieval. 

The Espionage Act, 18 USC 793, used in both prosecutions, does not say the accused must be working with another country to deliberately harm the US, only that it is a crime to have ...

"... unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over [information] ... the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation," and to wilfully retain it while failing "to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

Prosecutors are not required to prove that the defendant knew the information could harm "national security", only that any reasonable person would understand the harm it could do. It's not necessary to prove actual damage or even that the documents were classified, only that they relate to US national security.

The Espionage Act was first enacted in 1917 during WWI and was initially used quite oppressively. Modern prosecutions, however, have typically been of spies and careless public or former public officials, and recently, whistleblowers.

Until Julian Assange, the Act was never used against a journalist, and Obama declined to use it against the Australian. In fact, Obama commuted the sentence of Assange's alleged co-conspirator, convicted of leaking the same information. 

Nevertheless, the experiences of Assange and Trump have greatly diverged. Whereas Julian Assange was harassed and persecuted for years before indictment, Donald Trump luckily landed in the court of a judge he appointed, Aileen Cannon, who appears to be auditioning for Trump's next supreme court vacancy.

≈   ≈   ≈

Assange: might have beaten the Espionage rap

The conviction of a journalist under the Espionage Act was only certain with a guilty plea; it's not clear the charges would have been upheld in a US court had extradition proceeded. Like Guantánamo, only the use of plea deals with no appeal allows legally-dubious charges to stand. 

In fact, the similarity of the Assange and David Hicks prosecutions is striking. Applying the Espionage Act to Assange's journalism is reminiscent of David Hicks' "war crime" conviction for the invented (later invalidated) "material support for terrorism". 

Sadly, the Pentagon continues its attempts, through guilty pleas, to convert civilian offences (terrorism and conspiracy) into "war" crimes: US-created offences unknown to international huminatarian law and thus not part of the "law of nations" as required by the US Constitution. The inchoate offence of "conspiracy" is one such. 

In 2014, a military commission charged Abd al-Hadi with various charges and in June 2024 accepted his guilty plea for certain ones, including "conspiracy". Al-Hadi did commit war crimes in an international conflict, and he's accountable for those recognised under IHL, but not for the American-concocted "conspiracy".

Al-Hadi's lawyers managed to strip out of his guilty plea all charges except three valid ones: treachery or perfidy; attacking protected property; and attacking civilian objects, plus the invalid conspiracy. 

Meanwhile, Al-Hadi has made history: he seems to be the only person ever convicted at Guantánamo for committing actual, internationally-recognised war crimes that occurred during an international conflict involving the US. 

 READ THE ENTIRE FITCH HERE.

Hope dies last....(con't)

 and by popular request:

HOPE DIES LAST

 I remain optimistic about the future of my country but I must admit sometimes it is hard to so remain!

So let me share this little number with you and remind everyone- democracy is not a spectator sport. So get working if you are not already.

H/O to Peter.