Former federal prosecutor and current legal analyst Glenn Kirschner posted an analyis of the discussons and outcomes from Tanya Chutkan's courtroom from September 5. Per his analysis, which seems sound, Trump's lawyer John Lauro said some of the "inside words" out loud in court. These were inside words that most people likely already processed anyway but hearing them in open court was astounding.
After the US Supreme Court issued its ruling on Presidential immunity, it was immediately noted that justice Thomas (I'm leaving the term uncapitalized since for him it really isn't descriptive regarding his work) added a separate opinion for which no other members of the Court added their concurrence. That opinion went beyond the already appalling concepts laid out by Justice Roberts regarding immunity and further stated that the very use of a special counsel for prosecuting a President had dubious legal provinance. Again, no other justice concurred with that opinion, for good reason. The use of special counsels and the right of the Department of Justice to use them and the legality of their funding has been argued MANY times and the propriety of special counsels has been held up in EVERY case across multiple jurisdictions. There IS no issue with special counsels.
Nonetheless, in court on September 5, 2024, John Lauro again raised the special counsel argument. Chutkan shut down the argument immeidately.
Chutkan: You have dicta in a concurrence written by Justice Thomas and you have an opinion filed by another district judge in another circuit which frankly this Court doesn't find particularly persuasive.
Lauro: Justice Thomas in effect directed us to raise this issue and suggested that we do it immediately in light of his view in that concurrence.
(insert sounds of pins dropping here...)
Chutkan: He directed you to do that?
Lauro: Well, I shouldn't say he absolutely said, you know, "Do it." But when you read that opinion, it's absolutely clear that that'ssomething that we have to now to preserve this issue.
Now the Supreme Court faces an entirely new existential issue.
At a minimum, it appears a defendant has attorneys who believe they are being spoon-fed advice from a sitting member of the Supreme Court regarding a case the Supreme Court has CHOSEN to engage in despite the absence of any prior legal precedent requiring them to do so. That same case will absolutely trigger subsequent appeals which WILL return as cases to this Supreme Court. At a minimum, there is no possible excuse for Thomas to be allowed to continue hearing any appeals related to this case.
It is also more certifiable fact than conjecture that a sitting Supreme Court justice is actively cooperating with a party with vital issues before the Supreme Court in what now qualifies as the single biggest ethical and legal conflict that has ever arisen in Supreme Court history. A conflict involving a former President accused of orchestrating and executing a conspiracy to manipulate Electoral College results to retain power and in parallel orchestrating and directing a riot to interfere with Electoral College certification.
If Chief Justice Roberts had any ethical backbone left, he should be spending this weekend looking in a mirror asking himself how he let his court rot this much under his watch and contemplating what he is willing to do to correct it. However, it isn't clear Roberts has any spine so he may sleep like a baby.
WTH
