The MeidasTouch Podcast - Trump Files OFFENSIVE Reply to Appeals Court MOCKING the Constitution

Episode Date: January 3, 2024

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the reply brief Donald Trump filed with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on the appeal on the issue of absolute presidential immunity. Head to https://go.mycopilot.com/meidas to get a 14 day free trial with your own personal trainer! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun.

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Donald Trump, through his lawyers, have just filed the reply brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Trump's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the Washington, D.C. federal criminal indictment on the absolute presidential immunity grounds Donald Trump is asserting. Donald Trump filed his opening brief before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on December 23rd. Special Counsel Jack Smith filed his answering brief on behalf of the United States government on December 30th. And here, Donald Trump, with just moments to spare before the expiration of the deadline for the reply brief, filed that reply brief on January 2nd.

Folks, this is a patently frivolous reply brief, but saying it's frivolous doesn't quite do it justice. This looks like the rantings and ravings of Donald Trump's social media posts. Take a look at what Donald Trump, through his lawyers, as stated in special counsel Jack Smith's answering brief before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, selectively omits key facts about such as that in his speech at the Ellipse, Trump encouraged the crowd to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard and cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. Trump denounced the destruction of monuments and other symbols of American democracy. He never encouraged anyone to enter the Capitol. He stated on social media that protesters should remain peaceful. This is what Trump says that special counsel Jack Smith left out of the answering brief and that special counsel Jack Smith omitted key facts

according to Donald Trump. And this is the kind of gaslighting that Donald Trump does on his social media that he expects the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to countenance. And all I'm going to say right now, and we'll get into a more thorough review of Donald Trump's reply brief, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is going to have some serious, serious questions for Donald Trump's lawyers. Trump's lawyers should prepare to be grilled, and they are going to be facing some serious heat by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for making such blatant misrepresentations and arguing such complete trash before a court of law, especially the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As we go through Donald Trump's reply brief, they first address jurisdiction, and they're

clearly concerned about the jurisdictional argument made by that amicus brief that we've been talking about here on the Midas Touch Network filed by an organization called American Oversight. And as you now know from watching the Midas Touch Network, an amicus brief is also referred to as a friend of the court brief. This is a brief submitted by a third party that's not a party to the case seeking to persuade the court, in this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, on an area that had not been briefed before the court on this issue. And here, American Oversight says that there's a 1989 United States Supreme Court case authored by the late Justice Scalia, a right-wing conservative justice who stated that there is no right for a party to have an interlocutory appeal unless there is strict textual support for that interlocutory appeal

in either the Constitution or in a statute. And thus, American Oversight argues that the order by federal judge Tanya Chutkin denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment on absolute presidential immunity grounds does not constitute what's called a collateral order where you can take a interlocutory appeal or an appeal during the middle of a criminal proceeding. Normally, an appeal would be taken once there is a conviction or there is a final judgment. Trump engaged in an interlocutory appeal, an appeal in the middle of the case in response to federal judge Tanya Chutkin's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss.

And American Oversight says that was inappropriate and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals should immediately remand the case or send the case right back to Judge Tanya Chutkin because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction and the case should go immediately back to the federal court for trial. though, is no, there is strict textual support for this appeal on an interlocutory basis based on the executive vesting clause, which is such a contorted reading of the executive vesting clause, because here's what the executive vesting clause says. It says, the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years and together with the vice president chosen for the same term be elected as follows. So Donald Trump is arguing here in the reply brief that what I just read for you provides strict textual support that he has the right to an interlocutory appeal on the issue of absolute presidential immunity.

Not only does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1, which I just read for you, which is called the Executive Vesting Clause, not only does it not mention absolute presidential immunity, by the way, it actually supports, as another amicus brief written by the top Republican lawyers from five former presidential administrations pointed out in a separate amicus brief, the executive vesting clause supports an analysis showing that there is no absolute presidential immunity because the clause supports term limits and a transition of power. And if a president were to have absolute presidential immunity, it would abrogate the executive vest and claws because in a case like this, you can have someone not agree to a peaceful transfer of power and then claim absolute presidential immunity and thereby do an end run around the executive vest and claws. So notice how Donald Trump tries to latch on to things that our founders did to have peaceful transitions of powers to try to justify a coup, to try to justify overthrowing our democracy.

So that's how Donald Trump starts off the brief with a supplemental jurisdictional statement. Very weak, by the way, if that's how Trump's going to try to address the American oversight claim that there is no jurisdiction by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because there is no strict textual justification. I mean, I just read for you the executive estin clause. There's no strict textual justification

in that clause right there. Copilot is a personalized fitness solution. Every individual is unique, so your fitness journey should be too. Copilot's app links you with an affordable, real-life fitness coach who customizes workouts tailored to your individual needs and goals. No fitness fads here.

Work out anywhere, anytime, and make fitness a seamless part of your lifestyle. With Copilot, you'll get completely personalized workouts with step-by-step guidance. Your coach continuously updates and adapts every workout to your goals, schedule, and injuries. The My Copilot app offers a connection to a real life expert coach and the workout plans tailored by your coach are meant to be enjoyable and effective with regular progress check-ins and the support and guidance you need for your fitness journey. The workout programs are designed around your specific lifestyle and ability to work out

at your convenience anywhere you want. My co-pilot makes it easy to start and stay committed to your fitness goals. My coach is a total rock star. He keeps me motivated and committed to the program he's designed for me. The thing is, co-pilot coaches are here to help you, and they truly want to see you succeed at every step of the way. The flexibility of co-pilot with all of our busy schedules makes this the perfect way to stay committed. The fact that the workouts are planned and designed by my

coach allows me to take even less off my plate and focus on reaching my peak performance. I'd love for you to follow my lead to get fit and feel fabulous. Give Copilot a try to find out why it was listed by Forbes as the top rated personal trainer app of 2023. Head to mycopilot.com slash Midas to get a 14-day free trial and 20% off your first month of personalized fitness with your own personal trainer if you sign up before February 1st, 2024. That's mycopilot.com slash Midas, M-E-I-D-A-S, to get a free 14-day trial and 20% off your first month. Sign up for the new year and let Copilot help you reach your fitness goals.

Then Trump goes on to say, this is the summary of his argument, that Trump is immune from prosecution for his official acts. Under our system of separated powers, the executive power is exclusively vested in the president as president's official acts can never be examinable by the courts. That's what Trump argues in this reply brief, he also argued it in the opening brief, that a president's official acts can never be examined by the courts. The judicial branch cannot issue equitable relief directly against the president's official acts, including his power under the take care clause. So also it cannot sit in criminal judgment over

them. Now, notably and notably throughout this brief, reply brief that Trump files, he never acknowledges that he's not the president anymore. He is a former president, which he does not acknowledge at all. Goes on to say, the Constitution's text history and policy supports this conclusion. The impeachment judgment clause presupposes the existence of presidential criminal immunity. Early commentators, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Chief Justice Marshall, and Justice Story support it. The 234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting presidents for official acts, despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerful evidence of it. By the way, pause. Trump's just making up history right there.

Vociferous opposition. a situation where a president has tried to overthrow free and fair elections, and then when they were no longer in office, assert absolute presidential immunity. So I'm not sure about this vociferous opposition. I think it was pretty much well understood that if you were an insurrectionist and tried to overthrow our democracy, you would be deemed as such and you would be able to be criminally prosecuted for trying to overthrow free and fair elections. The entire history, text, and structure of our Constitution was a reaction to authoritarians, to kings, to despots who wielded absolute power. So the very nature of our Constitution was to contain, to control,

to push back upon that dangerous, dangerous situation. Yet this is precisely what Donald Trump is arguing that he should have, that his conduct in trying to overthrow free and fair elections was official conduct and therefore should not be questioned, goes on to say. The scope of criminal immunity has to be at least as broad as for civil immunity, the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities. All five classes of conduct charged in the indictment fall within the broad scope, he says, of the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. That's what Trump argues, that says, of the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. That's what Trump argues, that if you take the indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith

as true, everything that Jack Smith alleges fall within the outer perimeter of what it is that United States presidents are supposed to do. What a dangerous, dangerous concept indeed. And then Trump goes on to say the impeachment judgment clause and principles of double jeopardy independently bar this prosecution. So then Trump goes on to say what I said earlier in this video, that the government statement of facts is legally and factually incorrect. And it says that the government omitted key facts about January 6th, about the insurrection. And then it goes on to say that Donald Trump was calling for peace. Donald Trump was saying to support the brave members of Congress and Senate.

And Donald Trump was actually saying to people to not do what we all saw Donald Trump do. Then the brief goes on to say that policy considerations favor criminal immunity. Contrary to the government, the threat of future prosecution with its more severe stigma and penalties is far more menacing and disruptive to the presidency than civil lawsuits. So Trump argues that because a president, while they are in office, would fear being criminally prosecuted later on, that would stop them from engaging in the discharging their duties under the Constitution. And by the way, the very fact that Donald Trump is making arguments like this shows you how unfit he ever was to hold that office. The fact that we even have to talk about him as holding that office,

and now what he's done, how he's degraded it, the way he is referring to it here, the way he is saying it is a lawless, free reign, do whatever you want with no checks at all. That's what Trump's argument, why he was never fit to hold that position in the first place, in the first instance. It goes on to then say that how the government continues to not accurately describe the history, text, and structure of the Constitution when the government absolutely does talk to the history, structure, and text of the Constitution, not supporting absolute presidential immunity, as do the amicus briefs. And my overall take on this is what a frivolous, traitorous, treasonous document that was just filed by Donald Trump and his lawyers. In many ways, this brief that was just filed is far more

sinister and disgusting and lacks all shreds of respect for our constitution. And not because I'm just pontificating and telling you that I'm angry when I read it. It's for the reasons and specific things that I cite in this video as I go through Trump's motion itself and how he's casting things and how he's talking about the Article II powers. It is so offensive to our constitutional norms, our constitution itself, our democracy. So tell me what you think. The next step is oral argument January 9th. I'm telling you, that American oversight brief, that amicus brief, and Donald Trump's response to it, very, very weak is what I want to say. And Donald Trump's response to it, very, very weak, is what I want to say. And Donald Trump's overall reply, you're not just weak, but outrageous, outrageous.

I'm Ben Micellis. This is the Midas Touch Network. Hit subscribe. We're on our way to 2 million subscribers thanks to your support. Check us out at patreon.com slash Midas Touch. Hey, Midas Mighty. Love this report? Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram, at Midas Touch, to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.