The AG claims Team Trump exaggerated the value of real estate to secure favorable loans and insurance rates. That’s it. Lenders rely upon their own appraisals. Sophisticated businesses decided to loan him money, all of which he repaid. And the banks are not complaining. This is the Trump defense. Yet, so far, James is winning. //

The AG disregards that there is no victim such as a wronged investor or lender who wound up holding the bag on an undervalued piece of real estate. The state contends that none of this matters; that exaggerating, fibbing, or lying is wrong, and that the Trumps must be destroyed. Apparently, no expenditure of tax dollars is too much for the state to invest to punish these wrongs. The relief sought is the revocation of business licenses throughout the state of New York and fines as high as $250 million. Because it is unusual for a prosecutor to bring a civil case without a victim or cognizable harm, the AG’s motivations have been questioned, especially during her unprecedented daily press conferences. //

Each of these Trump cases brings an odd claim, one that has never been brought against others in the past, or a charge that is not being pursued today against others who have mishandled documents or challenged elections, for instance. //

If the court of appeals reverses Judge Engoron’s decisions, the irreparable harm to the Trump family will have already been done, though. And, for many, that is the goal. //

Much of the damage will have already occurred regardless of future vindication. These are the hallmarks of lawfare. If your goal is to harm your opposition or enemy, a trial win is welcome, but a trial loss also inflicts noticeable pain and offers plenty of consolation.

As a lawfare plaintiff, you win some and lose some — but you can make all of them hurt.

Helsinki prosecutor Anu Mantila argued Finnish courts should ban from the internet the booklet, Rasanen’s tweet, and an audio recording of Rasanen defending Christian views. Mantila also seeks punitive fines. “Male and Female He Created Them” was published in 2004, several years before Finland adopted the antiterrorism laws now being used to prosecute the two Christians for “hate speech.”

“With the right police and prosecutor, we could expect to see similar cases crop up across Europe and in fact around the world,” noted Alliance Defending Freedom International lawyer Paul Coleman, who is assisting the Christians’ legal defense. Hate crimes laws like Finland’s are on the books in many European nations and American states and cities.

Rasanen said the most difficult part of her prosecution has been the prosecutor’s false accusations against her, including that Rasanen considers homosexuals inferior. She said that is “against my conviction” as a Christian. Christianity teaches that every human is made in God’s image and so beloved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to wash away every sin ever committed.

“We represent the common traditional classical understanding of family and sexual ethics, and now this has been labeled widely in our society and also in the established Lutheran church as something which is … not only offending and extremist but it’s also criminal,” Pohjola said.

Pohjola is the bishop of a small non-state church body that adheres to the Bible’s teachings, which Finland’s state church has in large part abandoned. The Federalist interviewed Pohjola in person in 2021, and Rasanen in person in 2022.

Conservative lawyers face the brunt of the weaponization of the bar, whether it be Jeff Clark, Ken Paxton, John Eastman, or now Todd Rokita.

“The risks and costs of trial are so grotesquely one-sided as to frighten into capitulation almost any rational actor lacking exceptional fortitude,” the lawyers continued. “Such is the mechanism of tyrannical oppression inflicted by the purposeful design of the State. But it is all monstrously wrong and unconstitutional and should never be permitted in the USA, even if a substantial fraction of our population welcomes the tribal excess involved.”

The legal team demanded that the case against Clark be dismissed “because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction” over him and does not currently allow him to test the sufficiency of the “sprawling, spaghetti-on-the-wall, strained theory of conspiracy.”

“Our country was founded as a refuge from criminal enforcement of religious and political dogmas, but that patrimony now lies in tatters; its fiery destruction stoked by public officials who took oaths to uphold it—and by rabid mainstream media partners,” the filing concludes.

Airline passengers must submit to a security screening by TSA or else be denied entry into the airport’s secure area, under federal regulations. Passengers can be denied boarding for declining a security screening.

But passengers don’t surrender their Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless searches by police just because they’re at the airport, according to multiple legal analysts and court documents.

The DEA officially calls its stops and searches at airport gates “cold consent encounters.” Passengers are free to end the discussion and walk away, according to the DEA, even if they’re unaware of those rights.

A federal judge recently dismissed the lawsuit filed by André and English in part because he said they should have known their stops were consensual and not a detention. The men were free to go even if they felt trapped by police on the jet bridge. //

a passenger’s recording showed a DEA task force officer telling the man, “We’re no different than TSA.” The agent added, “People like to give us a little more hard time than they give TSA.”

That same video shows some of the leverage DEA task force officers can use to gain consent.

“You’re either going to sign a consent form saying that you’re allowing us to search [your bags],” the drug agent told the passenger. “Or I’m going to detain them, run my dog on it, and get a search warrant.”

The passenger immediately agreed to sign the consent form.

Chris Paige
3 hours ago
Here's the problem: if you believe in qualified immunity for cops, you can scarcely argue against immunity for presidents. That is, the logic of qualified immunity is that lower level officials couldn't do their jobs if they could be sued by everyone/anyone for their errors - same w/ president. Basically, any local prosecutor can influence public policy by forcing every president to go through risks/costs of criminal trial whenever that prosecutor deems appropriate - that would force presidents to consider the risk of trial before making a decision. Are they doing what they think is right or are they avoiding trial?

You see the critical point here is that acquittal doesn't solve the problem. Lots of people wouldn't be willing to be branded a criminal & go to criminal trial even if they knew they're going to be acquitted - it's just too much power. Imagine if NY could put SCOTUS on trial for various crimes - who cares about the outcome? It would give NY too much influence over SCOTUS. Same thing here.

So, regardless of what either side claims in their pleadings, the question of immunity of a former President from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office is novel and presents an “issue of first impression” for the Courts to resolve. Any claim to the contrary is legally ignorant or expresses a bias as to what the outcome should be. The question has never been answered, because it has never before been an issue that needed an answer. //

Smith has said that “no man is above the law” – and that’s just about it. That might seem a bit flip on my part, but in an Opposition that has 42 pages of “argument,” I count that phrase being used six times in the first nine pages alone.

What the former President has is the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a Supreme Court çase decided in 1982. //

the Supreme Court took the matter up prior to trial and overruled both lower courts, finding that a President does enjoy absolute immunity from civil damage lawsuits for acts taken while in office pursuant to his authority as President. The boundary for conduct falling within that absolute immunity was acts within the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibility. Former President Trump contends that all the operative facts relied upon by Smith in the indictment fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility while in office. //

What the Supreme Court did not say in Fitzgerald was that the immunity recognized therein would extend to immunity from criminal prosecution for acts “within the outer perimeter” of Trump’s official responsibility. Smith’s response to Fitzgerald relies primarily on that point. But the Court did not say that such immunity would not apply either – that question was not before the Court. //

The Court did say that the public has a greater interest in criminal prosecutions than in civil damages lawsuits, and that fact played a role in not allowing Fitzgerald to pursue his case against Nixon personally. But the same interests in granting immunity – laid out in the text above – applies in both situations, and the Supreme Court did not suggest that the case for immunity would be less compelling if the issue before it involved a criminal prosecution. //

Yes, it would create a substantial barrier to even the justified pursuit of a criminal prosecution of any future President for alleged criminal behavior while in office. But it would not be an insurmountable barrier. The “Impeachment” process in the Constitution includes what is referred to as the “Judgment” clause – Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, and Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

The House of Representatives impeached former President Trump for actions relating to the 2020 election, but he was not convicted by the Senate. His motion argues that criminal prosecution is allowed for conduct in office following an impeachment, conviction, and removal from office as stated in the “Judgment Clause.”

There is a logic and purpose for finding such a prerequisite. Impeachment and conviction, by the House and Senate respectively, provide the imprimatur of legitimacy from a co-equal branch of government closest to the people. It would provide independent justification for a subsequent elected Executive to prosecute the individual who was the prior elected Executive. Had the Senate convicted President Trump, that would have been a bipartisan “Judgment” that he had, in fact, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring his removal and disqualification from holding any office in the future. Such a finding would insulate a later criminal prosecution from claims of being politically motivated.

In a very real way, what partisan prosecutors are doing validates the exact point Trump is making as it confirms the risk identified by the Court in Fitzgerald.