I for one am glad to see that after the travesty of last week’s oral arguments of Trump’s ridiculous “Presidential Immunity” appeal to SCOTUS experts aren’t letting go. And media outlets continue to make their concerns known. As so often happens this case inspired a number of amicus briefs to SCOTUS that are part of the case record. One was from a group of historians, and one of them is speaking out about one of Trump lead lawyer John Sauer’s bolder crazy-a$$ claims.
In an article in Salon, University of Maryland professor and legal historian Holly Brewer says (on twitter/X) of Sauer’s use of Ben Franklin in his argument to SCOTUS that “Franklin would be horrified.” Brewer is one of the preeminent historians who authored the amicus brief I mentioned already. Among other things it states there’s “no plausible historical case” to support Trump’s (or rather I guess his lawyers – the only thing Trump knows about Franklin is: Did you know he invented electricity? A lot of people don’t know that but believe me it’s true) contention that the original meaning of the Constitution indicates (by inference) Franklin argued for “permanent immunity from criminal liability for a President’s official acts.” Sauer’s contention is in a word bullsh*t. At best. More accurately it’s more than a misrepresentation and a downright LIE. Ms. Brewer is more polite than I am:
“Once again, Trump’s lawyers are trying to turn a president into a king,” she said. “That they pretended that Franklin meant that Presidents should not be tried for high crimes— is somewhat shocking to this historian.”
What Sauer did in his repeated citing of Franklin wasn’t a legal argument so much as a political attack ad – snipping out a particular set of words and using them out of context and proclaiming “See? See what he/she said?” It’s easy to do. For example I could write something like I’ve often written and no doubt will write again like: Trump’s defenders including of Fox and other RWNJ echo Trump’s complaints. Trump is being treated UNFAIRLY. It’s bullsh*t of course because he’s actually gotten kid gloves treatment by the courts in the cases he’s been indicted in.
Now, some conservative asshat who reads Politizoom might go running to RWNJ platforms or to social media (not that I’m well known but let’s pretend and say I am) breathlessly claiming that this Trump hating Elliott guy on a LIBERAL blog ADMITS “Trump is being treated unfairly!” See what I did there? Pulled out a single phrase out of context and that’s exactly what Sauer did. In front of SCOTUS. Of course, the acronym SCOTUS seems to have undergone a change. Now it’s more like Supreme Court Of Trump’s Ultimate Suckups but I digress.
During the debate in question Franklin references the execution of England’s King Charles I and the trial of those who signed the death warrant being tried when his son, Charles II gained power. As Sauer misleadingly frames it:
Sauer has centered Franklin in his argument for presidential immunity, writing in a recent filing that: “The Framers viewed the prosecution of the Chief Executive as a radical innovation to be treated with great caution. Benjamin Franklin stated at the Constitutional Convention: ‘History furnishes one example of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out ag[ain]st this as unconstitutional.'”
However, in her interview with Salon Brewer pointedly says “Franklin’s actual speech, the whole of it, if someone read the next few sentences, says exactly the opposite of what John Sauer was implying.” She describes how Sauer attempts to mislead the Court (although some clearly seem to WANT to be misled) with selective quoting so she provides the initial context of why Franklin brought it up including that it was about a trial of a King and contrary to the English Constitution, but more importantly the part Sauer left out:
Franklin’s speech continued: “What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in [which]. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It [would]… be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.”
Salon goes on to quote her saying:
Brewer said Franklin clearly thought “trials were better than assassinations (or revolutions) because he thought they were fairer to the accused.”
Brewer said above all, Franklin, a frequent critic of monarchy, would “have been horrified to be thus represented as a proponent of monarchy.”
Look, I’m on record saying the conservatives on SCOTUS have handed Trump what he desperately wanted (short of an actual ruling he was completely and totally immune from any and all prosecutions) by taking the case. Holding it up. Had they simply denied Cert as they SHOULD have done Trump would be on trial in DC right now. Even if they don’t wait until late June (and they can) to issue a ruling that would led the trial go forward SCOTUS has effectively blocked the case from being heard before the election. As with any criminal defendant Trump see delay as the next best thing to acquittal.
But damn. I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me like there should be some kind of penalty for so blatantly standing there and bullsh*ting SCOTUS to their faces, with the whole country being able to listen in live. I hope we see articles like this every day, and that every day talking heads talk about how ridiculous this whole Presidential Immunity theory is. And criticize SCOTUS for giving it the time of day instead of summarily rejecting it like they should have. Having to relay on Chief Justice Roberts still holding on to dreams of his legacy (as in positive) doesn’t make me sleep well at night.
Well, there are other turds Sauer flung about SCOTUS’ chambers in addition to this one but I’ll address them at a later time. For now, if you hear/read someone citing Sauer citing Franklin I just wanted you to know the real history.
Someone representing Trump’s interests lied?
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.
All joking aside, has there ever been such a large group of people who are strangers to the truth? Any truth?
Justice in the US now seems to be in the hands of the Supreme Court of Repulsive Obnoxious Trumpist Unhinged Magats
Meet S.C.R.O.T.U.M.
Did not know about this statement of Benjamin Franklin but I am very glad to know about it. Like most Americans (Trump and his minions excepted!) I am not a monarchist, but I have studied the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth period and I absolutely agree with Franklin that Charles I’s trial and execution was a travesty.
The fact that Trump’s legal defense got this wrong doesn’t necessarily mean that they were lying. What it definitely means is that they are ignorant, incompetent dolts who do not know how to use evidence in the construction of an argument. Just think about it. Who with the slightest amount of functioning gray matter would even want to defend Trump’s position on immunity? Because aside from being treasonous, it’s moronic. I mean, the money’s goo (assuming you get paid), but you’re going to wind up looking like an idiot at best, and at worst, losing your law license.
I hope we will find Trump and his defenders, both court and counsel, somewhat less terrifying, when we realize what a bunch of birdbrains they actually are. The problem is that identified by Dunning & Kruger — they are too stupid to realize their own stupidity.
Trump seems to be doing his canned best to fulfill Franklin’s prescient statement that we have a republic if we can keep it. The current GOP seems to.agree with Don Don.
trump’s lawyers lied to a corrupted s.c. Yeah. And??? What in the every loving hell did anyone expect? I’ll bet the six corrupted justices ate those lies up too. These are not legal scholars, these six. They are as far from that goal as is humanly possible. They are remaking the constitution because they are not jurists. They do not have thorough knowledge and experience of law. Because of this, because they do NOT know what a s.c. justice is supposed to do so they just tear the constitution apart, amendment by amendment and when they aren’t doing that they are adding things to it NEVER INTENDED by the creators and signers of the constitution.
It isn’t just that they are shaming the nation, they are, it’s that what they are doing is truly horrific. If, by some chance, they don’t make the Country’s executive a king, it will only be because President Biden then becomes King Biden. And King Biden will rid the court of the liars thomas, beer bong, gorsuch, and the vagina. Probably would rid it of alito as well since he serves no useful purpose other than to create fiction out of our nation’s most sacred document or to put it another way, use it as toilet paper.
This case should never have been heard by the s.c.-the D.C. court handled it professionally–that judge truly IS a jurist. It is a damned shame law schools even accept these know-nothing bimbos, these con xtians-they make their Alma maters look very, very bad.