Connect with us

Reception For Israeli LGBT Leaders Canceled: Seattle Commission And Council Members Apologize

Published

on

Sometimes it’s best to just let a story tell itself.

Here in Seattle we have an LGBT Commission.

From the Seattle LGBT Commission (SLGBTC) Website:

Mission

The Commission’s role is to effectively address and present the concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments.
The Commission recommends legislation, policy, programs and budget items to the mayor, city council and city departments.

Purpose

Purpose of the Seattle LGBT Commission – (Article I from LGBT Commission Bylaws)

  1. Provide information to the Mayor, City Council, and other City departments, offices, commissions and boards concerning issues of importance to lesbians, gays and other sexual minorities;
  2. Ensure that City departments address fairly the concerns of lesbians, gays and other sexual minorities individually and as a protected class under City ordinance and other applicable laws;
  3. As appropriate, recommend policies to all departments and offices of the City in matters affecting gay, lesbian, and sexual minority concerns, and recommend legislation for the implementation of such policies;
  4. Encourage understanding between the lesbian, gay and sexual minority communities and the larger Seattle community through long-range projects.

 

From SLGBTC’s Face Book Page:

March 8th        Save the Date: Join us on Friday, March 16, from 4:30-6:30 p.m. at City Hall (Room 370) for an event with leaders from three of Israel’s leading LGBTQ organizations. Hope to see you there!

March 14th    Seattle LGBT Commission Response to concerns raised about AILO (Alliance of Israeli LGBT Educational Organizations) as voiced by Dean Spade

Dear whom it may concern,

The Seattle LGBT Commission values the comments of Dean Spade, who recently brought to our attention the concerns of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict and agenda of pink washing to cover up said crimes and corruption of the Israeli government. While we believe his concerns are valid, the purpose of the meeting with Israeli LGBT groups is to engage in a dialogue about their successes and progress of LGBTQ people’s rights in Israel and Seattle. While this dialogue is centered on efforts for LGBT equality we acknowledge that there is national and local concern about pink washing campaigns, occupation, and apartheid. Dean Spade’s concerns encompass a much larger issue that the commission is interested in exploring at a later date. We invite Dean Spade to attend our monthly LGBT commission meeting to share his perspective during the public comments section of our meeting agenda, this Thursday, March 15th from 6:30-8:30pm at Seattle City Hall (600 Fourth Avenue, Boards and Commission Conference Room L-280). Our monthly meetings, and the event on Friday, March 16th from 4:30-6:30pm at City Hall (Room 370) with Israeli LGBT groups are open to the public.
The mission of the Seattle LGBT Commission, under the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, is to effectively address and present the concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens of Seattle, and to recommend legislation, policy, programs, and budget items to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments. More information about the upcoming monthly Seattle LGBT commission meeting and the meeting with the Israeli LGBT representatives can be found at this link:  http://www.seattle.gov/LGBT/about.htm.
Sincerely,

Members of the Seattle LGBT Commission

March 16th     The Seattle LGBT Commission is hereby canceling the event scheduled for Friday, March 16, from 4:30-6:30 p.m. at City Hall. At this time, the members of the LGBT Commission feel we are not thoroughly prepared to facilitate an event surrounding such complex topics.We have great respect for those who have shared their comments with us this week on all sides of the issue and are open to ways in which we can support community members in continuing this dialogue while involving all diverse perspectives involved.

 

Excerpts from an article By Lornet Turnbul in the March 16th Seattle Times:

Gay leaders from Israel snubbed by Seattle’s gay commission

Bowing to pressure from some gays outraged by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the city of Seattle commission that represents gays canceled a Friday reception at City Hall for a visiting delegation of Israeli gay leaders.

The meeting [was] one of several the six-member Israeli delegation had scheduled on the West Coast — with stops in San Francisco and Los Angeles — to exchange ideas on advancing gay rights. Only in Washington State, however, did the team encounter pushback from fellow gays.

At a heated commission meeting Thursday, a small, vocal group spoke out against the Jewish nation, saying Israel is masking what some call its poor treatment of Palestinians by promoting its positive record on gay rights — a phenomenon that has become known as “pinkwashing.” The Israeli delegation had other scheduled stops in Seattle that went uninterrupted, but one in Tacoma was also canceled, and one in Olympia was moved because of opposition.

“We wanted to talk about LGBTQ issues,” said Mac McGregor, co-chair of the commission, “We weren’t prepared to handle the Palestinian question.”  Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw and Jean Godden and City Attorney Pete Holmes arranged a hurried, lunchtime meeting with the delegates and apologized for the snub.

Members of the delegation said they were shocked by the cancellation. “We expected from the Seattle LGBTQ Commission a strong declaration of its intent to support all LGBTQ activists, regardless of their color, sex or national origin,” the group said in a statement. “Sadly, it appears that the commission, representing a minority that continues to face discrimination, also practices that same discrimination.”

Seattle University law professor Dean Spade called the delegation’s visit “apartheid and occupation” wrapped in the rainbow flag. The concept of “pinkwashing” has been advanced among some gay-rights social-justice activists who believe Israel is using its progressive stance on gay rights to cover up a record on the mistreatment of Palestinians.

Some pro-Israel gay-rights organizations denounce the concept of pinkwashing. By saying that Israel has a positive record on gay rights does not deny anyone from criticizing its civil-rights record, say officials with the Wider Bridge, a California-based gay Jewish organization that helped to arrange the delegation’s visit. “The truth is that Israel is a good place to be LGBT, and it is so because there are countless people within Israel doing amazing, courageous work every day … saving lives, including the lives of young LGBTQ Palestinians who often have nowhere else to turn,” Wider Bridge officials said.

March 18th      More than 70 comments were posted on the Commission’s Facebook page after The Seattle Times article appeared.  Some agreed with the commission’s decision, most did not.  Many were less politely worded than the comment I posted:

As a gay, Jew living in Seattle I am dismayed that you have cancelled the reception for LGBT Activists from Israel. I do not approve of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but by this logic we would not host LGBT Activists from Uganda or Iraq or Iran or even the United States, all of whose countries have questionable human rights policies. And we certainly would not host LGBT Activists from Mississippi or Alabama whose abysmal treatment of its LGBTQ citizens are legendary. Hospitality is not an endorsement of repressive policies – it is an opportunity to open a dialogue.

March 19th     After reading my comment, Mac Scotty McGregor, co-chair of the Seattle LGBT Commission, contacted me.

“I want you to know that I am heartbroken and outraged at the decision as well. I was the only commissioner present who voted to keep the meeting. I have spent time with the group of Israeli fellow LGBTQ activists and found them inspirational, informative and warm. I am doing all that I can to try somehow to rectify this. I cannot say more about the matter at this time because we [the commission] are releasing more of a statement today. But it is public record how I voted.”

March 19th      A Wider Bridge,  the organizers of the event issued a statement:


A Wider Bridge Appalled by Cancellation of
Seattle Israeli LGBT Leaders’ Event

A Wider Bridge is dismayed by the decision of the Seattle LGBT Commission to cancel a scheduled public meeting with the leaders of three prominent Israeli LGBTQ organizations during a recent visit to the West Coast, in response to pressure from a small number of advocates of boycott, sanctions and divestment from Israel.

The meeting, which was scheduled to take place in Seattle’s City Hall on Friday, March 16, planned to feature the leaders of AILO, the Association of Israeli LGBTQ Educational Organizations. AILO is comprised of three organizations: Israeli Gay Youth (IGY), Hoshen (a Hebrew acronym for “Education and Change”) and Tehila, the Israeli version of PFLAG: Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. A Wider Bridge was the lead sponsor of the Israeli LGBTQ leaders two-week West Coast tour, which took them to meetings with LGBTQ and Jewish leaders in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle/Tacoma to share their experiences and to learn from those working on similar challenges here in the U.S. The discussions have focused on such topics as reducing teen suicides, HIV testing and prevention, and providing support for parents of LGBTQ children.
A Wider Bridge is a San Francisco–based national organization that seeks to educate people about Israeli LGBTQ society, politics, and culture, and to build connections between the North American LGBTQ and Jewish communities and the LGBTQ communities of Israel.
“A group of respected Israeli LGBTQ leaders came to the U.S. to discuss their work in making Israel a more inclusive place, and a better place to be an LGBTQ teenager,” said Arthur Slepian, Executive Director of A Wider Bridge. “Their voices have been silenced in Seattle by those who seek to demonize and delegitimize Israel, and who are willing to throw the Israeli LGBTQ community under the bus in the process. We were dismayed that the Commission gave in to objections raised by a small number of activists.”
“These ‘boycott Israel’ advocates claim that the purpose of the Israeli LGBTQ leaders’ meetings here is to conceal – or ‘pinkwash’ – Israel’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We do not seek to distract anyone from the issues concerning the conflict,” added Mr. Slepian. “The truth is that Israel is a good place to be LGBT, and it is so because there are countless people within Israel doing amazing, courageous work every day, especially with LGBT teens and families, saving lives, including the lives of young LGBTQ Palestinians who often have nowhere else to turn. Their work deserves to be supported, and their stories deserve to be told. It is not ‘pinkwashing’ to tell the truth.”
“Isolating and ignoring Israel’s LGBTQ community, pitting one minority against another, or calling for a wholesale boycott of Israel is not going to bring peace to the region any faster,” continued Mr. Slepian.
We are deeply disturbed by the single-minded and dehumanizing tactics of those who would seek to shut down these important opportunities for engagement, dialogue, learning and collaboration.
Who We Are
A Wider Bridge is a national organization that works to create more opportunities for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Jews in the U.S. and around the world, along with friends and allies, to engage and connect with Israel. We seek to build stronger ties between the LGBTQ and Jewish communities in North America and the LGBTQ communities in Israel. We accomplish our work through programs, educational and cultural events, and developing opportunities for travel.

 


March 20th     The Board of the Greater Seattle Business Association wrote an open letter to the SLGBTC.

 

 

 

March 20, 2012

To: Seattle LGBT Commission, David W. Howenstine, Co-Chair and Mac Scotty McGregor, Co-Chair

Office of the Civil Rights

8210 Third Avenue, Suite 750

Seattle, Washington 98104-1627

Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Board of the Greater Seattle Business Association, the largest LGBT chamber of commerce in the United States with over 1000 members, we write to express our utter disappointment in your decision to silence LGBT voices by cancelling the City Hall event with a delegation of Israeli LGBT civil rights leaders.  Succumbing to demands and lacking the courage to facilitate dialog with those who are our brethren in the LGBT equality movement will have far reaching consequences not only for the Commission but for the City of Seattle and its elected leaders.

As Seattleites, we are proud to be part of a City that has progressive values and is open, inclusive, engaged and a leader in equality. Thursday’s actions by the Commission have tarnished our image. The Commission was goaded into having the City take a position that is viewed by many as anti-equality, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.  It has been manipulated into placing the City squarely in the middle of an age-old political controversy between Arabs and Jews, a position which we are confident that the Mayor and City Council do not share and did not intend for the City of Seattle.

Israel, regardless of its governmental policies, which some of us may or may not support, provides more protection for LGBT citizens than any other nation in the Middle East – and that protection is for all LGBT citizens, regardless of whether the person is Jewish, Christian or Muslim.  We are living in a time in which the LGBT Community is facing life-threatening acts of violence against their existence in Iran, Iraq, and other countries in that region of the world and there is barely an outcry. However, the one Middle East country that actually has laws in place extending equal benefits and protections to its LGBT citizens has its motives questioned. The Commission’s response to withdraw its invitation to meet and talk raises serious questions not only about the motivations of those who lobbied for cancelling the City’s event, but also about the Commission’s abilities and effectiveness as a civil rights entity.

In our view, you have turned an opportunity to engage in open dialogue and education into the silencing of voices, violating the very tenants of our democracy – the freedom of speech and right to assemble. The message sent by the Commission to the world is out of step with our City values and with the Commission’s mission. Further, your actions are contrary to the views held by the leading LGBT organizations in our City.

It is difficult to undo the damage done by the LGBT Commission. We believe our City leaders will take necessary corrective action.  The Commission and the Office for Civil Rights must also look to make amends for its actions and restore the lost confidence of the greater LGBT community.  A public apology to the Israeli delegation, LGBT community and the citizens of Seattle, which should come from the Seattle LGBT Commission, Office for Civil Rights, City Council and Mayor, is a critical first step.  Another way to start the rebuilding process is for each commissioner to reflect upon his or her actions and consider whether resigning his or her commission will foster renewed confidence, strength and leadership.

In the next couple of weeks, the GSBA will formally request meetings with the Office for Civil Rights, City Councilmembers and the Mayor to discuss the actions of the Commission, accountability of the Office for Civil Rights and address how an advisory commission is given authority to have decision-making powers with considerable and far reaching consequences for the City.

Very truly yours,

Louise Chernin                                                                                                  Mark Rosén

President & CEO                                                                                               Board Chair

Mona Smith

Chair, Public Affairs

 

March 20th     The SLGBT issued a public statement which they posted on their website and Facebook page

by Seattle LGBT Commission on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 2:48pm

March 20, 2012

The Seattle LGBT Commission sincerely apologizes for the pain, offense and embarrassment that we caused by canceling our scheduled event with leaders from Israel’s LGBTQ community who were visiting U.S. cities. We apologize both to those leaders who were invited as our guests and to the many members of the Israeli, Palestinian, and LGBTQ communities in Seattle and worldwide who were affected by our decision.

The Commission has heard from many individuals who have shared their thoughts, concerns and outrage in emails, social media and phone calls. We appreciate those who have taken the time to reach out to us to express their thoughts and emotions, and we recognize that our actions have also touched many others who have not yet contacted us.

The Commission originally scheduled the event to foster greater dialogue within the LGBTQ community and to meet with Israeli leaders who are working in service of LGBTQ equality. We respect the work they are accomplishing. In advance of the event, we heard from many members of the local community who were concerned that hosting this event implicated broader issues. Much feedback expressed contained deep pain and anger.

At our March 15, 2012 Commission meeting, we listened to extended public comment from members of the public, both in favor of and against the event. This was a difficult decision. Our vote to cancel the meeting was not to make a stand for either side, but to recognize that we could not facilitate a neutral space for dialog and learning and keep the conversation focused on LGBTQ issues versus the larger issues of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

We also have heard from many who celebrate the cancellation of this event. We flatly reject the suggestion that there could be any joy or celebration in this outcome.

It is important for us to learn from this experience and to create a deeper conversation. The Commission is meeting with Seattle City Councilmembers and community leaders this week to develop ideas for future dialogue opportunities. We invite all to our next monthly Commission meeting to hear more from our community about the format for this learning dialog. Our next meeting is April 19 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the City Hall Boards and Commissions Room (5th Ave. and Cherry St., Room L280).

As members of a volunteer Commission, we are deeply touched by the concern and commitment expressed by communities both near and far. We appreciate everyone’s commitment to work for equity for our LGBTQ communities.

Sincerely,

Members of the Seattle LGBT Commission

 

March 21st      The Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee of The Seattle City Council, held its regularly scheduled meeting and heard testimony regarding the SLGBTC decision to cancel the event. 

 

Sometimes it’s best to just let a story tell itself.

 

Stuart Wilber. Photo by Mathew Ryan Williams

Stuart Wilber believes that living life openly as a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Allied person is the most powerful kind of activism. Shortly after meeting his partner in Chicago in 1977, he opened a gallery named In a Plain Brown Wrapper, where he exhibited cutting edge work by leading artists; art that dealt with sexuality and gender identification. In the late 1980’s when they moved to San Clemente, CA in Orange County, life as an openly gay couple became a political act. They moved to Seattle 16 years ago and married in Canada a few weeks after British Columbia legalized same-​sex marriage. Although legally married in some countries, they are only considered domestic partners in Washington State. Equality continues to elude him.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.