Elmo, PBS, and Trump v US

In other words, if Trump wins the power of the U.S. government will not only be used for vengeance and retribution against his enemies, but also against the enemies of the people who have bought him. pic.twitter.com/ajzUJsdZVV

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 3, 2024

Does Elmo think he's a government? Or United Fruit, in the '50's? Or GM, also in the '50's? Or is he just a white South African who thinks the non-white people of Brazil should be brought to heel?

Jesus Christ watch this and share it everywhere, finally a journalist just *saying* it pic.twitter.com/fu04iHd24x

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) September 3, 2024

PBS. Nobody watches PBS.

State of play in United States v. Trump:

1/ On Friday night, Jack Smith offered to file a new brief that could provide the public "the first glimpse of the government’s evidence beyond the four corners of the indictment—an explosive prospect.”https://t.co/OKcwY8IPEK

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 2, 2024

Or: how truly fucked up Trump v US is:

The Supreme Court’s new immunity rule creates three categories of conduct:

1. Core executive functions, such as pardons and recognizing ambassadors, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

2. Official actions that are not core executive functions are “presumptively immune,” shielded from criminal liability unless prosecution of those actions would not “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

3. Unofficial actions, which are not immune.

Just Security goes on to identify seven categories of allegations from "Clearly not immune" to "Clearly immune." It's the last that interests me most, and they give only one item:  "Pressuring the Department of Jusice."  Yes, that's a "core executive function," and cannot be reviewed for criminal intent.

Of course, Trump continues to be his own worst enemy:

The fundamental problem, Conway said, is the Supreme Court determined Trump has a presumption of immunity for official acts, a generous interpretation of the law that forced the special counsel to exclude a bunch of evidence and gives Trump a window to argue the entire case is null and void — and Trump is now admitting on cable news that he didn't even see what he did as an official act.

"His statement there in that interview with Mark Levin, that to the effect that he had the perfect right to interfere with the election, is an admission that he tried to interfere with the election and that he wasn't trying to enforce federal law, and act in his capacity as President of the United States — he was trying to win an election that he clearly lost," said Conway. "And that's a crime, and that's that for him. It's just yet another admission of guilt, and he's made many of them over the years." (emphasis added)

Smith promised evidence "the public hasn't seen."  This could be in the category of evidence that has been seen, but gets added to the evidence against Trump. 

But under Trump v US, a sitting President can consult with his DOJ about murdering an opponent, or accepting a bribe, or even overthrowing the government so he remains in power; and it's all just fine, so long, I guess, as he doesn't threaten the power of the Supreme Court.

Everybody has their limits, after all.  But as Stalin asked about the Pope, how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

There's a lot Trump v US still seems to allow, and Smith has re-plead his case to get that information in, and any "tainted" information out, lest the jury be "corrupted" and Trump walk because of grievous prosecutorial error. But Smith is exploiting the limitations of that opinion.  And I still think a full airing of it will, in time, result in a Constitutional amendment removing the "immunity" of the POTUS.  The problems with bringing a criminal case against a POTUS are serious enough. Once Republicans understand "immunity" would mean a Democrat, too, they'll be more than happy to put that evil back in Pandora's Box.