Thursday, July 18, 2024

The transformation of Donald J. Trump, or not

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, July 7, 2024

Pushing beyond Facebook

I have had the following Facebook interchange the past few days:

From me:
As I indicated in my comments on the other post, I am trying to reach beyond Facebook posting and commenting to warn Alabamians about Trump and Project 2025, and I wish to find others interested in doing the same. Below is an email I sent yesterday in trying to advance my reaching out beyond FB. After I post this comment, I will probably tag here people I tagged in my comments on the other post, plus some, to emphasize and push more for what I am trying to do. 
[referenced email is "Email to WBRC staff re: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted" that is posted at Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)

From me:
Thank you very much, Bob. Possibly something can be done that will affect the 2nd Congressional district election, but otherwise no effect, as you suggest. On grounds of principle or good citizenship, I like my campaign in Alabama. I am also venturing outside of Alabama, as you are trying for. Tomorrow I will do the tagging here that I previously mentioned and may have some further suggestions to make.

From other person:
Agree. Second District is ultra-important. I really admire what you are doing. I wish everyone had as clear an understanding of our government. Oh, and by the way, I haven't given up on our state. We have a lot of work to do with the Lege.

From me:
Good afternoon, Bob. I think I will repeat the tags I made in my comments on the other post, plus some, and leave it to tagged people to decide how concerned they are about Trump and Project 2025, decide if they desire to undertake communications directed outside of Facebook, and, if so, signal that desire. I think people who have such desire can work together on this, have good ideas about things to do, and have a satisfying effect.
So here goes:
[Over 50 persons were tagged. Names not posted here.]

From me July 9: I have tried to call the attention of Greater Birmingham Democrats Mountain Brook Democrats Hoover Democrats and North Jeffco Dems to the above "Pushing beyond Facebook" link. I have not gotten any comment from them about the same.

Discussion
Having received three likes regarding the above, I will throw out ideas and suggestions here, and I solicit ideas and suggestions from others. I think the approach should be to coordinate and build on what one another is doing.
Start with the above referenced "Email to WBRC staff re: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted" that is posted at Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com). (In the Facebook interchange I was asked whether anyone at WBRC had responded to my email. At this time, the answer is no, no one at WBRC has responded to me.)
People can send their own emails to the TV stations. People can copy and paste my email into their own email and ask whether the addressee has responded, and, if not, why not. People can go on the Facebook pages of individual WBRC staff and post a comment that sets out my email or that makes its own appropriate comment to the staff member.
On Facebook, people can urge others to participate in this effort and post links to this page.

Email to Kyle Whitmire
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: kwhitmire@al.com <kwhitmire@al.com>
Cc: bbritt@alreporter.com <bbritt@alreporter.com>; jarchibald@al.com <jarchibald@al.com>; todd@aldailynews.com <todd@aldailynews.com>; rscott@aptv.org <rscott@aptv.org>; jsharp@al.com <jsharp@al.com>; hkoplowitz@al.com <hkoplowitz@al.com>; arocha@alabamareflector.com <arocha@alabamareflector.com>; sbritt@alreporter.com <sbritt@alreporter.com>; Andrew Yeager <andrew@wbhm.org>; Brian Lyman <blyman@alabamareflector.com>; jmoon@alreporter.com <jmoon@alreporter.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 12:57:17 PM CDT
Subject: Alabama GOP chairman says democracy ‘leads to socialism’
Dear Kyle,
On "X" you have 45,000 followers. Your July 10th post on "X" of your article Whitmire: Alabama GOP chairman says democracy ‘leads to socialism’ - al.com has 160 reactions,151 replies, 669 retweets, 776 likes and 301,000 views.
On Facebook, you have 4500 followers, and your Facebook post of your article has 52 replies and 151 shares.
I assume that you greatly desire for your views and messaging to have as much reach and exposure in Alabama as possible, and other Alabama political news purveyors and commentators (some of whom are copied on this email) desire the same for themselves.
I desire that for myself in my way.
I email, "X" and Facebook at Alabama TV stations, other political news purveyors and commentators, lawyers, businesspeople, academics, health care professionals, political organizations, law enforcement, and public officials. I think you would approve of just about all of my messaging content and objectives.
My overwhelming driver for the next four months will be to keep Trump from becoming President again, as I am sure will be your overwhelming driver for the next four months.
Pray that we are successful.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Email to Alabama TV stations
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: "shannon.isbell@wbrc.com" <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; randy.merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; comments@abc3340.com <comments@abc3340.com>; newstip@abc3340.com <newstip@abc3340.com>; wvtm13@wvtm.com <wvtm13@wvtm.com>
Cc: kwhitmire@al.com <kwhitmire@al.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 07:10:00 PM CDT
Subject: Fw: Alabama GOP chairman says democracy ‘leads to socialism’
Will Alabama TV stations help their viewers understand whether democracy leads to socialism and/or whether Trump leads to dictatorship?
----- Forwarded Message -----
[Forwarded Message that was attached to email was above Email to Kyle Whitmire]
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, July 1, 2024

Writing for the ages

Email to Alabama law profession
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 at 11:23:32 AM CDT
Subject: Helping lowly Alabamians understand what SCOTUS has now written for the ages?
Can you refer me to anyone in the Alabama law profession who would be willing to assist me in helping lowly Alabamians understand what SCOTUS has now written for the ages concerning Presidential immunity? Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)
Thanks.

Email to Alabama TV stations
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: shannon.isbell@wbrc.com <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; randy.merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; comments@abc3340.com <comments@abc3340.com>; newstip@abc3340.com <newstip@abc3340.com>; wvtm13@wvtm.com <wvtm13@wvtm.com>
Cc: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 at 05:31:43 PM CDT
Subject: Will Alabama TV stations help their viewers understand today's Presidential immunity decision?
To Alabama TV stations:
Please help your viewers understand today's Presidential immunity decision. Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Writing for the ages (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)
Thank you.

Constitution, Article II, Section 3. "He [President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Concluding paragraph from Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review
The original meaning of the Faithful Execution Clauses does not cleanly dispose of many of the most significant and pressing contemporary issues implicated by assertions of presidential authority. But our findings here at least suggest that the President — by original design — is supposed to be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands. Now that this original meaning is more clear, the Constitution can be applied more faithfully to the vision of the framers.

Email to authors and responders on "Faithful Execution and Article II"
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: eleib1@law.fordham.edu <eleib1@law.fordham.edu>; JSHUG@BU.EDU <jshug@bu.edu>; akent@law.columbia.edu <akent@law.columbia.edu>; prakash@law.virginia.edu <prakash@law.virginia.edu>; bmeyler@law.stanford.edu <bmeyler@law.stanford.edu>; huq@uchicago.edu <huq@uchicago.edu>
Cc: Brannon Buck <bbuck@badhambuck.com>; Terri B. Lovell <terri.lovell@alabar.org>; mckinney@watsonmckinney.com <mckinney@watsonmckinney.com>; suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org <suzanneduffey@mc-ala.org>; flatta@burr.com <flatta@burr.com>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; christy.crow@jinkscrow.com <christy.crow@jinkscrow.com>; richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com <richard.raleigh@wbd-us.com>; daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov <daoffice@baldwincountyal.gov>; baldwinDA@baldwincountyal.gov <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; "baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov" <baldwinda@baldwincountyal.gov>; bob@schreiberadr.com <bob@schreiberadr.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>; jws@willsellers.com <jws@willsellers.com>; cdobson@maynardnexsen.com <cdobson@maynardnexsen.com>; jwilson@birminghambar.org <jwilson@birminghambar.org>; Neal K. Katyal <neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com>; [email addresses of personal acquaintances omitted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 04:14:46 AM CDT
Subject: "Faithful Execution and Article II" and SCOTUS Presidential immunity case
Dear Professors Leib, Shugerman, Kent, Prakash, Meyler, and Huq:
You are the three authors of, and three responders to, the June 2019 Harvard Law Review article "Faithful Execution and Article II" that is at Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review.
The concluding paragraph of the article says:
The original meaning of the Faithful Execution Clauses does not cleanly dispose of many of the most significant and pressing contemporary issues implicated by assertions of presidential authority. But our findings here at least suggest that the President — by original design — is supposed to be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands. Now that this original meaning is more clear, the Constitution can be applied more faithfully to the vision of the framers.
I would like to think that all six of you disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case and that all six of you agree with the dissent.
I would like to think there are scores of constitutional law and other professors who similarly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case and who agree with the dissent.
I hope professors who very strongly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case will join in a letter addressed to President Biden and to the Congress, calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court in order to rectify an extreme error that was made by the majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Harvard Law '72
Mountain Brook, AL

Email to Michigan State University constitutional law professors re: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue?
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: bitensky@law.msu.edu <bitensky@law.msu.edu>; jbronsther@law.msu.edu <jbronsther@law.msu.edu>; chenjame@law.msu.edu <chenjame@law.msu.edu>; linda.sheryl.greene@law.msu.edu <linda.sheryl.greene@law.msu.edu>; kalt@law.msu.edu <kalt@law.msu.edu>; michael.lawrence@law.msu.edu <michael.lawrence@law.msu.edu>; nmorag@law.msu.edu <nmorag@law.msu.edu>; pucillo@law.msu.edu <pucillo@law.msu.edu>; fravitch@law.msu.edu <fravitch@law.msu.edu>; msantamb@law.msu.edu <msantamb@law.msu.edu>
Cc: info@elissaslotkin.org <info@elissaslotkin.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 12:18:18 PM CDT
Subject: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue?
Dear Professors Bitensky, Bronsther, Chen, Greene, Kalt, Lawrence, Morag-Levine, Pucillo, Ravitch, and Sant'Ambrosio:
I am a retired lawyer in Alabama.
I am contacting you who are constitutional law professors at the Michigan State University College of Law.
I think Elissa Slotkin should make the SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue against Mike Rogers, in the form of her calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court.
Below is an email I sent to the three authors of, and three responders to, the June 2019 Harvard Law Review article "Faithful Execution and Article II" that is at Faithful Execution and Article II - Harvard Law Review.
My email urged that professors who very strongly disagree with the majority opinion in the SCOTUS Presidential immunity case join in a letter addressed to President Biden and to the Congress, calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court in order to rectify an extreme error that was made by the majority of the Supreme Court yesterday.
If you think Elissa Slotkin should make the SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue against Mike Rogers, such as in the form of her calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court, please consider you and other constitutional law professors in Michigan writing a joint letter to Elissa Slotkin setting out your argumentation for her doing that.
Thank you for reading this email.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook, AL
[referenced "below" email is above under caption Email to authors and responders on "Faithful Execution and Article II"]
Email to Boston College Professor Richardson re SCOTUS immunity decision and shift in presidential powers
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: heather.richardson@bc.edu <heather.richardson@bc.edu>
Cc: bclawdean@bc.edu <bclawdean@bc.edu>; jdenhart@samford.edu <jdenhart@samford.edu>; hultquic@montevallo.edu <hultquic@montevallo.edu>; jwiesen@uab.edu <jwiesen@uab.edu>; jrothman@ua.edu <jrothman@ua.edu>; wbrewbak@law.ua.edu <wbrewbak@law.ua.edu>; sgarrett@bsol.com <sgarrett@bsol.com>; ccampbell@faulkner.edu <ccampbell@faulkner.edu>; blakehudson@samford.edu <blakehudson@samford.edu>; dmsmolin@samford.edu <dmsmolin@samford.edu>; phorwitz@law.ua.edu <phorwitz@law.ua.edu>; mbrandon@law.ua.edu <mbrandon@law.ua.edu>; aolree@faulkner.edu <aolree@faulkner.edu>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 at 04:49:14 AM CDT
Subject: Supreme Court’s immunity decision and shift in presidential powers
Dear Professor Richardson:
This email is prompted by your interview last night on the PBS NewsHour discussing the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and the shift in presidential powers, which interview is at
Historian discusses Supreme Court’s immunity decision and shift in presidential powers | PBS News.
I think Democratic candidates for the United States Senate this year should make SCOTUS a campaign issue, in the form of calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court. I think such should be supported by constitutional law professors writing letters to the candidates urging the candidates to do that.
Yesterday I sent the below email to constitutional law professors at Michigan State University urging them to send a letter to the Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin to such effect.
I hope to do similarly regarding Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate in other states and constitutional law professors in those states.
I am copying this email to Dean Lienau of the Boston College Law School, with a view that perhaps she will think constitutional law professors at the Boston College Law School might be interested in signing a letter to President Biden and the Congress calling for expansion of the Supreme Court.
I am a retired lawyer in Alabama and have been emailing university history departments and law school professors in Alabama concerning Trump and other matters. I am also copying some of those contacts on this email for pushing ahead with them.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook, AL
[referenced "below" email to constitutional law professors at Michigan State University is the email above under the caption Email to Michigan State University constitutional law professors re: Should Elissa Slotkin make SCOTUS immunity decision a campaign issue? ]
Email to WBRC staff re: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: jrogers@wbrc.com <jrogers@wbrc.com>; mdubberly@wbrc.com <mdubberly@wbrc.com>; jehpruitt@hotmail.com <jehpruitt@hotmail.com>; lynden.blake@wbrc.com <lynden.blake@wbrc.com>; destiny.mckeiver@wbrc.com <destiny.mckeiver@wbrc.com>; shaygood@wbrc.com <shaygood@wbrc.com>; chuddleston@wbrc.com <chuddleston@wbrc.com>; rjones@wbrc.com <rjones@wbrc.com>; Jonathan.skinner@wbrc.com <jonathan.skinner@wbrc.com>; kreynolds@wbrc.com <kreynolds@wbrc.com>; sverser@wbrc.com <sverser@wbrc.com>; jonathan.hardison@wbrc.com <jonathan.hardison@wbrc.com>; mhightower@wbrc.com <mhightower@wbrc.com>; jennifer.horton@gray.tv <jennifer.horton@gray.tv>; bryan.henry@wbrc.com <bryan.henry@wbrc.com>; tristan.ruppert@wbrc.com <tristan.ruppert@wbrc.com>; bria.chatman@wbrc.com <bria.chatman@wbrc.com>; gillian.brooks@wbrc.com <gillian.brooks@wbrc.com>; aajene.robinson@wbrc.com <aajene.robinson@wbrc.com>; reggie.kyle@wbrc.com <reggie.kyle@wbrc.com>; jgauntt@wbrc.com <jgauntt@wbrc.com>; bdionne@wbrc.com <bdionne@wbrc.com>; taylor.pollock@wbrc.com <taylor.pollock@wbrc.com>; steve.crocker@wbrc.com <steve.crocker@wbrc.com>; Brady.Talbert@wbrc.com <brady.talbert@wbrc.com>; james.giles@wbrc.com <james.giles@wbrc.com>; lauren.harksen@wbrc.com <lauren.harksen@wbrc.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 12:29:15 PM CDT
Subject: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
Dear WBRC staff:
In this week of WBRC's 75th Anniversary (wbrc.com), and today's 248th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, may the staff of WBRC reflect on Josh Moon's opinion piece "It was good while it lasted" two days ago in the Alabama Political Reporter.
In Josh's words, "It [the SCOTUS immunity decision] is the sort of decision that historians note as the turning point. The thing that pushed it completely off the rails. The thing that undid it all."
Is Josh engaged in hyperbolic fear mongering?
Does WBRC have a journalistic obligation, to the best of its ability, to evaluate what the Presidential immunity decision means for the United States?
And to tell WBRC's viewers what that evaluation by WBRC is?
Please, please, do the right thing here.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook

Email to other TV stations re email to WBRC staff
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: shannon.isbell@wbrc.com <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; randy.merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; comments@abc3340.com <comments@abc3340.com>; newstip@abc3340.com <newstip@abc3340.com>; wvtm13@wvtm.com <wvtm13@wvtm.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 at 07:45:35 AM CDT
Subject: Fw: WBRC 75th anniversary, the Fourth of July, and "It was good while it lasted"
For what it's worth, below is an email I sent on Thursday to the WBRC staff.
[referenced email I sent on Thursday to the WBRC staff is above]
Posted by at No comments:

Doing what's best for the country; bad faith

Presidential immunity case; public purpose versus private purpose; bad faith
Awaiting the decision of the United States Supreme Court this morning in the Presidential immunity case, I am thinking that each element in the case needs to be evaluated with reference to the extent to which an action (official or otherwise) is intended to serve and in fact serves a private purpose or interest versus the extent to which the action is intended to serve and in fact serves a private purpose or interest. This evaluation is very dependent on specific facts of the situation.
As an example, consider the pardon power. 
The pardon power is subject to almost no limitation. The Supreme Court and the president’s pardon power - SCOTUSblog.
Suppose Putin paid Trump $50,000,000 to pardon a particular person and Trump pardoned the person. Suppose Trump could not make any showing that the pardon served any public purpose and a jury could reasonably conclude that the only reason Trump granted the pardon was for Trump to get the $50,000,000 for himself personally, and such amounted to criminal bribery. We will see whether the Supreme Court decision this morning provides a clear answer to whether a President has absolute immunity in the exercise of the pardon power, or whether, in the foregoing hypothetical, could be prosecuted criminally after he left office.
Next, consider Trump's telephone call to the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" votes for him. Trump could say that action was carrying out Presidential duties to assure that the 2020 election was not fraudulent and that the call cannot be considered by a jury as being part of the conspiracy with which Trump is criminally charged. This raises the question of Trump's intent, and a jury could conclude the telephone call was predominantly or exlusively to serve Trump's campaigning interest to win the election, Here, the Supreme Court might impose a test of "bad faith" and whether Trump saying he was carrying out Presidential duties to assure that the 2020 election was not fraudulent was in bad faith. We will see what light the Supreme Court's opinion today sheds on this question.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)