Donald Trump tries to convince U.S. judges he had absolute immunity but winds up adding to the deluge of evidence that he is unfit to serve as president

Donald Trump leaves Washington hotel after court hearing

 

While his lawyers tried to convince a panel of federal judges yesterday that he, while president, enjoyed absolute immunity, Donald Trump instead provided more evidence -- on top of evidence that we already had -- that he is unfit to serve as president.

How did that happen, in a New York courtroom where arguments on the election-interference criminal case against Trump were being heard? As many of us have suspected for some time -- and you can include me in that crowd -- Trump is utterly clueless about the workings of government in the United States. A reasonably sentient being might ask, "If this guy wants to lead our government, shouldn't he have at least some idea of how it operates?" The answer is yes, but Trump proved yesterday that he is out to lunch on fairly important matters --including the justice system and the electoral process.

Let's first examine Trump's view of the justice system. He has stated on multiple occasions that, as president, he would have the authority to prosecute political opponents -- to even make up bogus cases against them. . .  Raise your hand if you think that's how the U.S. justice system is supposed to work. I don't see many hands, not even in the hard-core MAGA section, so let's move into the real world, as we did in a post from September 2023. This is from a report about a Trump campaign speech in South Dakota:

Trump mused about the possibility of indicting opponents even when they did nothing wrong, claiming that he would ask his attorney general to "indict him on income tax evasion" and that the Attorney General will just "figure it out. . . . "

He said the cases filed against him would “allow” him, if elected president, to call up his attorney general and demand an investigation into his political adversaries. “Indict my opponent, he’s doing well,” Trump said, implying that was exactly what Biden had done.

Would you want to live in a nation where the president actually thinks he could get away with such actions? If so, you are living in the wrong country. Let's introduce some reality to this equation, some insight on how the U.S. system actually works. From our post of last September:

How wildly unlawful is Trump's vision of being able to prosecute his political opponents, even concocting bogus charges against perceived foes who had not violated the law in any way? Here is the short answer: Since the late 1970s, during the post-Watergate era when our country still was reeling from Richard Nixon's scandal-riddled administration, U.S. policy has been that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will operate independently of the White House -- that the president will have no say in the DOJ's charging or non-charging decisions. The Jimmy Carter administration produced the first memorandum spelling out this policy -- and it has been followed by almost every president (of both political parties). From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, every president has signed off on the idea that the White House should not influence DOJ decision-making. The only exception might be Donald Trump; it is unclear if the Trump White House followed the law on DOJ independence during his first term -- and he clearly has no intention of following the law during a second term. Here is a memorandum on the subject from the current attorney general, Merrick Garland.  

A 2017 report from protectdemocracy.org spells out the history of DOJ independence from the White House and also addresses reports that the Trump administration might have violated the law:

The promise that every American will be treated equally under the law and that none is above the law is a bedrock principle of American democracy. The freedom from political influence — real or perceived — on law enforcement underpins all of our other freedoms. By contrast, political influence or interference in law enforcement has been a clear hallmark distinguishing authoritarian regimes from true democracies around the globe.

For decades, to prevent even the appearance of political meddling in federal law enforcement, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written policies governing White House contacts with agencies and offices within the executive branch that have investigatory and enforcement responsibilities. To ensure the impartial application of the laws, these policies have extended to White House contacts with any executive branch agency or office regarding investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory decisions, grants and contracts involving specific parties.

To date, the Trump Administration has not articulated publicly a White House policy on agency contacts. Further, multiple reported contacts between senior political staff at the White House and enforcement officers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) appear to have violated 40 years of accepted, bipartisan policy. In light of the questions that its actions have raised, and in order to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the rule of law, the Trump White House must release and abide by an agency contacts policy that is consistent with accepted, bipartisan norms.

Part of the problem is that Trump seems to think he could be both president and prosecutor. But the section above shows that is not the case. Further, Trump seems to think he could do that because President Joe Biden had him prosecuted. But I've yet to find a published report that supplies the slightest evidence Biden is behind any of Trump's four criminal indictments. 

Joyce White Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and current legal analyst for MSNBC, stated in a tweet last month: "Joe Biden didn't indict Trump. Prosecutors must go before a grand jury, made up of citizens, including Republicans & Democrats. These citizens hear evidence & vote on whether a defendant should be charged. Different grand juries have now done that with Trump 91 times."

Trump must have missed that tweet because he started down the "Biden did it to me" path yesterday, stating to the press:

It's very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted by the Biden DOJ. I think that's how they are going to try to win, and that's not the way it works. I think there will be bedlam in our country. 

Earth to Donald: Check in with Joyce White Vance, who knows a thing or two about such matters, and you will learn that Biden did not, and could not, have you prosecuted.

As for what happened at the Jan. 6 insurrection, Trump now has a novel explanation for that -- more or less claiming he was just doing his job, a statement apparently designed to enhance his immunity argument with judges:

I worked on voter fraud; you have to have strong borders and free elections, above almost everything else. I worked very hard for the country and we found voter fraud. We worked on that, that's what I was doing. We found tremendous voter fraud, determinative voter fraud. we have a list of it, We have some findings.

How did Trump get the idea that issues related to voter fraud are for the president to investigate? Who knows, but he is wrong -- and the statement above likely is false. The truth? Such matters generally come under the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Given that Trump was a candidate for the election in question, it's absurd to think he also could be in charge of investigating alleged fraud. Could even the most avid MAGAphile believe this stuff? I guess most anything is possible in the politics of postmodern America.