#michael dreeben

[justinspoliticalcorner]

S.V. Dáte at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — A presidential order to the military to conduct a coup to keep him in office “might well be an official act,” Donald Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court Thursday on the question of whether Trump’s attempted coup is immune from prosecution. The extraordinary exchange was among several in lengthy oral arguments before the justices, who will now decide whether the former president will stand trial on federal charges based on his actions leading up to the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump has been claiming that all his actions as president were “official acts” and therefore immune from prosecution entirely. While justices seemed skeptical of that assertion, most expressed concern that former presidents could be prosecuted in bad faith and for political reasons in the years to come.

“Reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough,” Chief Justice John Roberts told Department of Justice lawyer Michael Dreeben. “I take that concern,” added Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “I think it’s a real thing.” How justices decide to protect future presidents from prosecutions based on their legitimate official actions could decide whether Trump faces a trial at all before the November election on the Jan. 6 indictment. If the court orders trial judge Tanya Chutkan to hold an evidentiary hearing to weed out the “official” components of Trump’s actions versus the ones for his private or political gain, that hearing and potential appeals of her ruling could consume many more months. And if Trump wins back the White House, he could order prosecutors to drop all unresolved federal charges against him.

While Dreeben did not refer to the coming election at all, he repeated his boss special counsel Jack Smith’s request that the case be sent back to Chutkan with instructions that concerns about not punishing “official” acts be dealt with in jury instructions, rather than a separate hearing. “We would like to present that as an integrated picture to the jury so that it sees the sequence and the gravity of the conduct and why each step occurred,” Dreeben said. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, meanwhile came in for even more pointed questioning from most of the justices, but none more on point than Elena Kagan’s question about 40 minutes in.

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked. “That might well be an official act,” Sauer answered. Sauer also claimed that a presidential assassination of a political rival as well as the sale of nuclear secrets to a foreign power could also be defended as official acts immune from prosecution. Trump was not at the Supreme Court during the oral arguments Thursday but rather was in a different courtroom, in lower Manhattan, in the early phase of an unrelated criminal trial.

During the oral arguments for the Trump v. United States presidential immunity case at SCOTUS on Thursday, Trump lawyer John Sauer told the court that even a military coup would be immune from prosecution as an "official act."

See Also:

HuffPost: Trump Lawyer Argues He Could Legally Order Assassination Of Political Rival

[empiricalscotus]

The Echo Chamber Grows

A seemingly innocuous Supreme Court case in 2017 looking at the narrow issue of time bars in class action lawsuits saw two giants of Supreme Court advocacy duke it out before the nine justices. California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities pit Tom Goldstein of then-named Goldstein and Russell for the Petitioner CALPERS against Paul Clement, then of Kirkland & Ellis, who argued…

[pull-up-a-chair]

Ray Doeksen and Michael W. Dreeben - USA OK Chair (2014)

[pennsyltuckyheathen]

Presidents already have Constitutional protections that allow them to fulfill their duties without fear of criminal prosecution. Trump lies like always and says he can't be held accountable for doing his job. He wasn't doing his job he was directing a conspiracy to stay in office and instigating his followers to attack Congress when he wasn't reelected. Total bullsh*t that lower courts dismissed.

How can a Supreme Court justice come up with asinine distortions of legal theory or precedent? Because Thomas is an unethical, corrupt bought-and-paid-for lackey of right wing fascist billionaires.

Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh and other 'conservative' justices have shown they will go to extremes to get to a predetermined outcome. They've done it to undermine civil rights, abortion and more.

[realtalkingpoints]

From the piece:

In 2016, Michael R. Dreeben became only one of seven lawyers in history to argue more than 100 Supreme Court cases, according to the legal website Law360. Smith, a special counsel in the Trump federal indictments, lists Dreeben as a "counselor to the special counsel" in both Smith's December 11 petition to the Supreme Court to hear Donald Trump's presidential immunity case and also on his December 30 petition to the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals on the same subject.

Also from the piece:

In 2017, Dreeben served as counselor to special counsel Robert Mueller in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential obstruction of justice. In the Mueller case, he "led the team responsible for giving legal and strategic advice to the Special Counsel and all prosecution teams," according to a biography on the website of Harvard Law School where Dreeben was previously a lecturer.

[wushigod]

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Thursday appeared open to recognizing some level of immunity from federal prosecution for the official acts of former presidents as they weighed a blockbuster dispute that will be critical to the fate of former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election case in Washington, D.C. But the court expressed skepticism toward Trump’s broad argument that he should be absolutely immune from charges related to conduct that occurred while he was in office. Across nearly three hours of arguments, several members of the court’s six-member conservative bloc signaled that they believed a former president should be shielded from criminal charges for some actions undertaken within the duties of their office. But it was unclear whether there is enough support on the court to establish a test for determining when conduct crosses the line from official into private. The justices signaled they could send the dispute back to the lower courts for proceedings over whether Trump’s alleged actions surrounding the 2020 election were taken in his capacity as an office-seeker or office-holder. Trump was charged with four criminal counts in connection with what special counsel Jack Smith claims was a scheme to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty. Smith attended the arguments. Throughout the hearing, sharp divisions emerged as the justices wrestled with a previously untested question: whether the doctrine of presidential immunity extends to criminal prosecution for acts undertaken by a former president while he was in office. Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concern as they weighed the competing fears of leaving presidential power unchecked with the costs of constraining sitting presidents who could face threats of criminal charges after leaving office. The liberal justices warned that recognizing that a former president is entitled to sweeping immunity might embolden sitting presidents to commit crimes while in the White House, while the conservative justices indicated they are worried that charges could be brought against future presidents. “It’s not going to stop,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump, told Michael Dreeben, who argued on behalf of the special counsel. “It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president and the next president and the next president after that.” But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the greater danger could lie in the other extreme, posing the possibility that a decision in Trump’s favor might embolden others to turn “the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.” “Why is it that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts,” she asked. The Supreme Court has never before addressed whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution, and the outcome of the legal battle will determine whether Smith’s case heads to trial. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and Trump appointed three of its members. The high court said that a president is immune from civil liability for acts taken within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties. A decision from the Supreme Court in this case is expected by the end of June. If Trump prevails, it would bring his federal prosecution in Washington to an end. But if the Supreme Court sides with the special counsel who has succeeded before two lower courts and the justices reject Trump’s claims of broad immunity, proceedings in the case could resume. It remains unclear, however, how soon afterward a trial would begin. A victory for Smith would also further raise the stakes of the 2024 election for Trump, since he could order the Justice Department to drop the criminal charges against him if he retakes the White House. The arguments were the last of the Supreme Court’s current term, during which the justices have taken up numerous disputes that have directly or indirectly involve...

[truck-fump]

LISTEN: Justice Jackson questions whether <b>Trump's</b> case can determine presidential immunity limits

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DCCi2zhlKREo&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw0ycwhH73nydnAR200twZVG

LISTEN: Justice Jackson questions whether Trump's case can determine presidential immunity limits

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned government lawyer Michael Dreeben on Thursday about whether the case of Donald Trump v.

[opdemontracker]

'Cynical, hypocritical and wrong': Alito buried for blowing off 'facts of this case' - Raw Story

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's extended grilling of attorney Michael Dreeben, who is representing special counsel Jack Smith in Donald Trump's presidential immunity case, hit a sour note when he blew off an answer from the lawyer...

[garythingsworld]

Jack Smith Quietly Adds DC Swamp Lawyer From Mueller's Inquisition to His Special Counsel Team - Trump Responds | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

[dertaglichedan]

Meet Lawyer Michael Dreeben, The Man Behind Three Major Anti-Trump Operations

Michael Dreeben helping Democrats with their 2024 lawfare strategy shows how much coordination is behind this Soviet-style attempt to imprison Biden’s political opponents.

Eyebrows were raised last week when it was discovered that Special Counsel Jack Smith had added attorney Michael Dreeben to his legal team.

“An interesting detail: Michael Dreeben somehow snuck into Jack Smith’s office. He was Mueller’s appellate guy,” enthused Marcy Wheeler, a proponent of the debunked conspiracy theory that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with Russia.

Fellow Russia-collusion hoaxer Rachel Maddow of MSNBC ran an entire segment to announce the exciting news that Dreeben is “helming this part of the case,” meaning Smith’s request to the Supreme Court to look at whether American presidents may be prosecuted for actions taken while they are president. Left-wing legal activist (and, yes, another bitter clinger Russia-collusion hoaxer) Joyce Vance said her “friend” Dreeben had “framed this petition” before the Supreme Court.

Mueller, of course, is Robert Mueller, the ostensible head of the Mueller probe that treated the Russia conspiracy scam as credible and leaked information to the propaganda press to ensure it had maximum effect. After 18 months, the investigation concluded with not a single American, much less a single Trump official, being found to have colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. On the way to that conclusion, it wreaked havoc on Republicans across the country, and a strong majority of Democrats still believe the “big lie” that Russians stole the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

The Real Leaders of the Mueller Probe

As anyone who saw the visibly struggling Mueller testify in July 2019 knows, he wasn’t in a mental position to lead the operation. That was left to key operatives, including more than a dozen Democrats. For example, Mueller selected partisan Andrew Weissmann for a key role. In addition to his ethically flawed prosecutions of Enron executives, he was at Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated 2016 Victory Night Party. The inspector general report showed him as a full participant in the Russia-collusion hoax. After the Mueller probe, Weissmann went on to raise money for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Weissmann was also part of the team at left-wing legal group Just Security that unofficially wrote Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump over classified documents.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

Thursday’s argument in Trump v. United States was a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime. At least five of the Court’s Republicans seemed eager to, at the very least, permit Trump to delay his federal criminal trial for attempting to steal the 2020 election until after this November’s election. And the one GOP appointee who seemed to hedge the most, Chief Justice John Roberts, also seemed to think that Trump enjoys at least some immunity from criminal prosecution. Much of the Court’s Republican majority, moreover, seemed eager not simply to delay Trump’s trial until after the election, but to give him extraordinarily broad immunity from criminal prosecution should he be elected once again. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, argued that when a president exercises his official powers, he cannot be charged under any federal criminal statute at all, unless that statute contains explicit language saying that it applies to the president.

As Michael Dreeben, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Smith’s prosecution team, told the Court, only two federal laws meet this standard. So Kavanaugh’s rule would amount to near complete immunity for anything a president did while exercising their executive authority. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, played his traditional role as the Court’s most dyspeptic advocate for whatever position the Republican Party prefers. At one point, Alito even argued that permitting Trump to be prosecuted for attempting to overthrow the 2020 presidential election would “lead us into a cycle that destabilizes ... our democracy,” because future presidents who lose elections would mimic Trump’s criminal behavior in order to remain in office and avoid being prosecuted by their successor. In fairness, not all of the justices, or even all of the Republican justices, engaged in such dizzying feats of reverse logic. Roberts did express some concern that Trump lawyer John Sauer’s arguments could prevent the president from being prosecuted if he took a bribe.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, pointed to the fact that Sauer drew a distinction between prosecuting a president for “official” behavior (which Sauer said is not allowed), and prosecuting a president for his “private” conduct (which Sauer conceded is permitted). Barrett also argued that many of the charges against Trump, such as his work with private lawyers and political consultants to overthrow the 2020 election, qualify as private conduct and thus could still be prosecuted. Still, many of the Republican justices, including Barrett, indicated that the case would have to be returned to the trial court to determine which of the allegations against Trump qualify as “official” and which qualify as “private.” Barrett also indicated that Trump could then appeal the trial court’s ruling, meaning that his actual criminal trial would be delayed for many more months as that issue makes its way through the appeals courts.

In that world, the likelihood that Trump will be tried, and a verdict reached, before the November election is approximately zero percent. The Court’s decision in the Trump case, in other words, is likely to raise the stakes of this already impossibly high-stakes election considerably. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned, the risk inherent in giving presidents immunity from the criminal law is that someone like Trump “would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon.” It’s unclear if the Court is going to go so far as to definitively rule that the president of the United States is allowed to do crimes. But they appear likely to make it impossible for the criminal justice system to actually do anything about Trump’s attempt to overthrow the election — at least before Trump could be elected president again.

Gleaning off of yesterday's oral arguments at SCOTUS on the Trump v. United States immunity case, it appears that the radical right-wing black robed tyrants will give Donald Trump a win in some fashion.

The out-of-control radical right-wing majority on SCOTUS is yet another argument to expand the court to dilute their anti-American influence on the court.

See Also:

HuffPost: Supreme Court Conservatives Likely To Give Trump What He Wants In Immunity Case: Further Delay

Salon: SCOTUS majority abandons conservative principles to mount bizarre defense of Trump’s immunity claim

[libamericaorg]

Robert Mueller May Have Found A Way Around Presidential Pardons

Robert Mueller May Have Found A Way Around Presidential Pardons

Ever since the investigation of President Trump’s possible connections to Russia began in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, one question has repeatedly been raised: Will Trump pardon any associates who may be charged with collusion during the 2016 campaign? And if so, how might that impact the case Mueller and his team are building?

Apparently that very question has also been on…

[votenet-blog]

Judge in Manafort case says Mueller’s aim is to hurt Trump Author: Jessica Schneider / Source: CNN

[dailybrian]

Finally! Federal Judge Blasts Mueller’s “Unfettered Power,” Demands ‘Memo’

New on www.DailyBrian.com

http://bit.ly/2wmcDyT

Finally! Federal Judge Blasts Mueller’s “Unfettered Power,” Demands ‘Memo’

Link to this Article:  Link to this Article: ...