Adam Schiff will soon be California’s next senator in Diane Feinstein’s seat but he’s not leaving the House until he’s comfortable with a possible president Trump looming on the horizon. Schiff believes that it’s paramount that Trump cannot order the dismissal of the charges against him filed by Jack Smith in Washington (And pending appeal in Florida.) Schiff has introduced a bill that could become the most consequential legislation of his career – and this is a guy who led a House prosecution with a famous final argument. To that end, Schiff wants a three judge panel to review any motion to dismiss a criminal proceeding against the president.
In theory, Republicans could support this bill because Kamala Harris could ascend to the Oval Office amid trouble but they already know that a) she won’t be in trouble and b) if she were in trouble she wouldn’t order a motion to dismiss the charges. But there are some caveats to anyone who faces it – and all future presidents would. The bill is a bit more complicated than “You cannot do that” as we see in The Hill’s reporting:
The Investigative Integrity Protection Act seeks to require a three-judge court hearing before any charges against a president are dropped, according to a release. The legislation would only allow the court to grant a dismissal after considering whether the attorney general was appointed with the intent of dismissing any criminal prosecution against the president.
Here’s a thing. Yes, the three judge panel is interesting and they are to determine if the attorney general was appointed to seek the dismissal which is a very tough call unless the motion comes days after the swearing in. It is tough because the president could simply wink at the person on the way out the door and then later he can still say, “It never came up, I didn’t say a thing” and be technically correct.
Then there is this. Note that it says that the three judge panel would review whether the court can grant a motion to dismiss. Now, on this, I don’t see any reason that a court cannot deny the motion to dismiss based on the evidence in front of her. I have never seen it, not once. But if the judge says “Your motion is denied” and then issue a warning that if the prosecutors don’t do their due diligence the bar will hear about it. Again, I’ve never seen it but I haven’t seen a 180 page motion stuffed with evidence, either. The judge could be convinced that there is enough evidence such that she won’t be dismissing the action because it could only be based on bad faith.
But the underlying rationale is clear, per The Hill’s report:
“The Investigative Integrity Protection Act would ensure presidents can be held accountable for breaking the law by stopping presidents from halting federal criminal prosecutions against themselves. This bill is crucial to upholding the rule of law, especially after the Supreme Court’s decision to give presidents immunity for official acts.”
Well, sure. Yes it would uphold the rule of law but even this bill must be enforced and one wonders who will enforce it even if the judge denies a motion to dismiss. The real work will almost surely be taken up by either the district judge or the three judge panel. If a possible Trump DOJ wants the motion dismissed, why would they work to protect the law? The defense sure as hell won’t enforce it, Trump’s defense attorneys will be four beers in already. The district judge, in this case Chutkan, could order that the court requires a prosecutor and appoint a private attorney to prosecute, that’s not a problem. But even the judges themselves could take evidence from anyone with a real interest and then rule.
There would be some mechanical issues to work through because it’s never been done but it’s certainly both the right sentiment and start. One last interesting question remains – Who in Congress would vote against it? Are they going to say, “No, a president should be able to dismiss his own criminal charges… ” We know the answer but are they going to stand up and say it? Take the people in question out and the answer would otherwise be no. But this is about Trump and if there is one thing we know about him it is that he doesn’t like the word “No.”
And we always hear that the Republicans are the party of law and order. A first! The GOP is soft on crime!
God bless: I can be reached at [email protected]
So much of Trump’s reality/history, when it comes to slippery Court moves, on the part of various GOP losers, pushing him through the storm of evidence and ignored witness comments and House actions against him, (Two serious charges with great Democrats running the charges show in the House), he went to his corrupt friends in the GOP Senate, with his pouting poor me look … Boom the Senate flat out would not even vote against the Criminal in the Oval office …
The old smoke and mirrors, I would guess, were once again rubber-banded into everyone’s face, closing a perfect time to slow down DJT, The Democrats had Trump tied in knots for his freaking actions with Ukraine — The Senate GOP — Do NOTHING, silence —
This NEW batch of evidence may be made public early next week, by then Trump may be bleeding out of his ears AND nose, whimpering like a little kid who just had a bully steal his new bike and ride it to the next-over street, out of his sight, broken hearted, Trump can kiss his Branding away where it belongs, in the garbage … The clink/clank sound of large brass letters coming off buildings will be music to a large part of our Nation … His false bravado and lizard brain intelligence will make him a dangerous cornered rattlesnake, but ALAS, the Magas are walking away, so Trump will be blathering to himself when the Marshal’s office sends for him to appear in Court once again … Delays, made up counter attacks, ALL GONE, Donny Burger Breath, time to go meet your new friends at the Prison , only if you can find any …
Perhaps we will hear about some of those corrupt GOP well-known names in Congress, and NOT in a good way …
Stay alert, watch for the, “End is Near”, broadcast, we are all hoping for, Trump is already showing deep damage to his sleep and well-being, word salads aplenty and outright mud slinging at a truly courageous, very SMART lady, good luck with that Trump, you are now officiously blessed as the WORLD’S BIGGEST LOSER …
‘And we always hear that the Republicans are the party of law and order.’
Only as long as it’s THEIR laws and THEIR orders.
Are you really shocked? The GOP tried to embarrass Democrats with the “defund the police” movement while they turned around and basically ignored all the physical harm done to members of the Capitol Police (who are still, well, “police”) by the Jan 6 insurrectionists. And the GOP love to proclaim how much they love and support the troops and veterans but only seem to follow through with that “love and support” when it might be used to embarrass Democrats (like the VA “scandal” that developed during the Obama Administration which largely happened because GOP Congresscritters had voted to cut funds for the VA that would’ve addressed most of the issues that drove the “scandal”).
Hell, back in 2011/2012, several states–notably Michigan, Ohio and Virginia–which had gone for Obama in 2008 tried various schemes to get their electoral votes to follow the Maine/Nebraska program and split the votes by Congressional district winners. In 2008, McCain won 3 of MI’s districts (of 15), 10 of OH’s districts (of 18) and 5 of VA’s districts (of 11). As Obama had won the statewide vote, a “district-winner” split wouldn’t have affected the overall electoral victory in 2008–even losing the 18 EV’s based on those states’ district vote, Obama would’ve still ended up with 347 electoral votes; as I noted though, these were the three main states whose GOP-led legislatures were trying to make the change. BUT, following the 2010 Census and mandatory redistricting, some of the numbers changed. Michigan lost 1 electoral vote and Ohio lost 2 (Virginia held steady). And, in the 2012 election, Obama fared somewhat worse in the three states. He only won 5 of MI’s 14 districts, 4 of OH’s 16 districts and 4 of VA’s 11 districts. If the three states had changed their electoral vote distribution system, then Romney would’ve added 28 EVs to his actual count which would’ve brought him to a total of just 234 and brought Obama down to 304–still not enough to change the final outcome (but, again, these were just the three states whose legislatures had really made news with their proposals).
So, what’s so important about this? Well, the GOP leaders behind these various schemes actually had the foresight when such a proposal could actually backfire on them if the Democrats ran a particularly popular candidate who could win enough districts that could split the state’s electoral votes so that the Dems would win the Electoral College or, at the very least, make the GOP’s candidate look more vulnerable than he may have been. It’s worth noting that Obama lost a couple of states outright in 2012 which contributed to his lower EV total in 2012 but the 2010 Census and redistricting and reapportionment had done a good deal to help reduce Obama’s EV total as well. If similar schemes in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had been proposed and/or completed, Obama would’ve lost an additional 18 EV’s–13 from Pennsylvania and 5 from Wisconsin–bringing his total down to 286. Overall, Obama would’ve still won 2012 as he won most of the other blue states’ CDs by sizable margins and it would’ve pretty much required all those states to be led by legislators “persuaded” to change their EV-distribution system from “winner-take-all.” But, the main takeaway is that the GOP legislators that planned this scheme did consider how it could backfire on them in the future and that it just wasn’t worth the risk.
And sometimes not even then. They may have called themselves the party of law and order but for decades now they have only been the party of hypocrisy.