by Vijaya Chandrasoma
The name is Trump. Donald Trump. 007 : LICENCE TO KILL
(with apologies to the real 007, James Bond)

The case for Presidential Immunity was heard by Washington DC Federal Appeals Court on Tuesday, January 9, where a three-judge panel heard arguments from Trump’s counsel and Special Counsel Jack Smith. A randomly chosen panel, which proved to be misogynist Trump’s worst nightmare: three women, one, the daughter of Asian immigrants (who “poison the blood of the American people”), the second an African American woman and the third, a 79-year-old white woman, not his type at all. A panel of ladies who will be responsible for the most important ruling in a life dripping with every category of criminal behavior.

Trump’s counsel had claimed total immunity for all actions taken by a sitting president, criminal acts which could be construed as critical for the security of the nation, even if such acts were against the law and the Constitution. Trump says he was acting within the scope of his presidential actions during the insurrection of January 6, 2021, because the violence of the attack on the Capitol occurred while he was conducting an investigation into election fraud in the November 2020 election!

When you consider this statement in the context of his pre-insurrection speech at the ellipse, when he exhorted his white supremacist terrorists to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”, to prevent the peaceful and constitutional transfer of power; when he now refers to these terrorists who have been convicted and serving prison sentences as “hostages”; you realize how emotionally and mentally stunted this seditious lunatic really is.

The main argument of Trump’s counsel suggested that “even a president directing a SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution, given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution, unless he was first impeached and convicted by Congress”.

Trump’s counsel, John Sauer, seems to be confused by the differences between political and judicial processes. As Senator Mitch McConnell argued, after he voted to acquit Trump after the Congress impeachment for inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection, “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice”, adding, “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one”.

As comedian Jimmy Kimmel said, “If a sitting president is legally able to assassinate a political rival without fear of prosecution, Trump had better lock the doors at Mar a Lago because “Bazooka Joe Biden” has every reason to blow it to Kingdom Come”.

The legal concept of Trump’s counsel on presidential immunity is eerily similar to the legal code of Trump’s mentor, Russian President Putin. Putin failed in an attempt to poison Kremlin critic and chief political opponent, Alexei Navalny, who is now languishing in an Arctic penal colony in Siberia, serving a lengthy prison sentence for the vague crimes of “creating an extremist community and financing extremist activities”. Presidential immunity and absence of accountability enable Putin to contest re-election in March this year, with Navalny, who has posed serious threats to his legitimacy, safely out of the way.

An argument also reminiscent of Nixon’s flawed claim in 1974: “If the President does it, it’s legal”. An assertion shot down in flames by the then Supreme Court, which compelled Nixon, after resignation, to seek a presidential pardon from President Ford (which was a part of the deal of his resignation), to avoid future criminal prosecution, which the Supreme Court had deemed to be inevitable without such a pardon.

Which begs the facetious but valid question. Would Donald Trump, a man with a penchant for divorce, have been able to shoot Melania to avoid divorce while he was president, and escape prosecution for murder after he leaves the White House? Grounds for murder? Her resistance to be raped by him, probably because of his renowned noisome body odor and other shortcomings, caused him such mental distress and physical frustration that they prevented him from performing the presidential functions necessary to maintain the nation’s security.

Although there was no legal requirement for Trump to appear at court on Tuesday, he did so willingly, in spite of constant whining that all these court dates interfere with his election campaigns, especially a few days before the Iowa primary.

Trump calculated that his appearance in court will serve him better than a campaign rally speech, as he will be able to get free international publicity by pleading his case for presidential immunity before the world media on the steps of the courthouse. And, of course, even his ridiculous arguments will be lapped up by his “base”, irrespective of judicial inaccuracies, which will enable him, once again, to raise a ton of money from his incredibly gullible supporters.

The ruling of the federal court will be appealed, either to the full Washington DC appellate court, or more likely, the United States Supreme Court. Nothing is certain in the US judicial system, but it is likely that these courts will either refuse to hear the case or throw it out for lack of credible argument.

However, Trump would have won the victory he seeks: to buy more time and gain further delays in the numerous cases against him, to achieve his ultimate and desperate goal to gain re-election in November and so either self-pardon or instruct the Justice Department to dismiss all these cases.

Trump is fully aware that this ruling on presidential immunity is vital if he is to realize his desperate bid for the 2024 presidency. His criminal complicity in and incitement of the January 6, 2021 insurrection would be the easiest of the myriad cases against him to prove conclusively, with video evidence and hundreds of witnesses scheduled to testify against him. As would be the espionage case, where he stole and abused top-secret documents belonging to the government when he was ejected from the White House. Both criminal cases which, if he is convicted, will see him in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

Trump is facing another unexpected threat to his hitherto certain nomination to the Republican candidacy in November. Last week, Nikki Haley had a surge in the New Hampshire polls and is now within seven points of Trump’s numbers, 39% to 32%, the closest any rival has ever been to him in the polls during this election cycle.

Chris Christie unexpectedly suspended his campaign last week, with a defiant and courageous speech. The only Republican who had openly and virulently attacked Trump, he concluded his speech with a veiled shot at Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, and those Republicans who feel that they have no other choice than a convicted felon as their candidate for the presidency.

“Anyone who is unwilling to say that Trump is unfit to be president of the United States is unfit themselves (to be president of the United States)”.

Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis squared off at the CNN sponsored debate, moderated by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, last Wednesday in Des Moines, Iowa. The debate provided them with their last chance before the Iowa primary on Monday, January 15, to win over Iowa voters, and emerge as an admittedly long-shot alternative to Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee in November 2024.

Donald Trump was also invited to participate in the debate, but he declined, as he has done in all previous Republican debates. Instead, he attended an hour-long Fox News town hall meeting in Iowa on the same night, moderated by Fox anchors, Brett Baier and Martha MacCallum. Trump was talking to a captive audience, ranting the usual drivel about his stable genius, though he did try to talk down some of the more outrageous comments he has made in recent weeks. He said “I am not going to be a dictator”, and said he “wouldn’t have time for retribution”, because he’ll be too busy Making America Great Again. Predictably, he boasted about his enormous lead in the Republican polls and had the usual crude words of insult for his rivals. There seems to be little doubt that he would be the Republican nominee in November 2024, unless there is a legal implosion which will prevent him from contesting the election.

So the real choice for both Haley and DeSantis at the CNN debate was whether to rip into each other, go after Trump with their gloves off, or both. So far, they had been just playing for second place, notably Nikki Haley, who had remained, until this debate, very coy about being selected for Trump’s Vice President spot. Trump dangled this bait during the Fox News town hall meeting, when he said that he had already made his VP choice, but refused to name the person.

Predictably, Haley and DeSantis chose mainly to stay with the first alternative, attacking each other for much of the debate. They did briefly dance around the second, getting in a few telling shots against Trump, the front runner by far for the nomination.

They both agreed that Trump should be participating in the debate, to defend his record. But they refused to be specific, saying nothing about his performance during his first term of presidency, when he mismanaged the pandemic which cost over 600,000 avoidable deaths, and added $7.8 trillion to the national debt; and the 91 felonies on which he has been arrested after his defeat in November 2020. Felonies of sedition, inciting an insurrection to prevent the constitutional transfer of power, and espionage, stealing and dealing in top-secret documents belonging to the government, to name just two.

And they failed a perfect opportunity of going after Trump, when Jake Tapper asked them both the easiest softball question, one begging to be hit out of the park.

Tapper’s question: Did they believe that Donald Trump has the moral character to be president again?

Nikki Haley waffled: “I think Trump was the right president at the right time. But I think the president needs to have moral clarity….I believe in getting things done, no vendettas, no whining, just getting things done. I think it’s time for a new generational leader that’s going to go and make America proud again, and that’s what I’m trying to do”.

Same question for DeSantis, who was a little tougher on Trump, criticizing his poor record on curbing public disorder, specifically during the Black Lives Matter riots after the brutal murder of George Floyd in 2020, broken promises on the border wall and failure to attack Washington corruption.

But if they had the slightest intention of challenging Trump for the Republican nomination, there was really only one correct answer to Tapper’s question.

Donald Trump has the moral character of an axe murderer.

Wednesday’s debate was a weak dead-heat for second place, with Haley and DeSantis limping to the finish line, the winner again being the non-participating Trump. The murky Republican nomination clouds may become a little clearer after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries next week and January 23, respectively.

Judging on Wednesday’s performance, Trump will win Monday’s Iowa primary in a hack canter, with Nikki Hayley plugging along to a distant second. And the New Hampshire primary on January 23 will see Trump conclusively clinch the Republican nomination.