Originally published at: Why Trump Expects the Justice Department to Cut Him a Quarter-Billion-Dollar Check - TPM – Talking Points Memo
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes. Generally, a common-law principle known as sovereign immunity prevents the federal government from being sued, unless the government chooses to waive that privilege. In 1946, Congress laid out a few exceptions to this rule by passing…
1 Like
It is an absolute and confusing riddle to me how any human being could support DJT! I am flummoxed to the max!! It is a damned nightmare!!
6 Likes
NO argument… but Give past experience with John Roberts and his fellow GOP Toadies, I would not be surprised if the support this.
4 Likes
Putting aside the baseless nature of this suit… my first question would be, does Trump even have standing to seek any kind of recovery? After all, looking at public filings from the Republican party and the Trump affiliated PACs, it was clear that Trump was not even paying for his own legal bills. The idea that he thinks he can now get reimbursed for expenses he never incurred takes a lot of chutzpah even for Trump. If he really thought that the prosecution was completely without merrit, he should have let it proceed to a final decision by a judge and then moved for recovery of attorney’s fees.
And… the arguments he is making now could be turned against him down the road by Comey et al when they will surely seek compensation after they are exonerated.
4 Likes
Trump wasn’t charged in Russiagate. Underlings were charged, but Trump wasn’t.
3 Likes
His basic contentions are that investigators violated his right to privacy under Florida law by searching his home without consent, and that the Biden administration targeted him with sham prosecutions that lacked any constitutional basis. To support this proposition, Trump’s lawyers cite the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, arguing that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland “should have foreseen” in 2023 that the justices would decide that presidents enjoy “immunity from prosecution for official acts.”
They had a warrant, I can’t parse the no Constitutional basis argument since that’s just word salad that has no meaning, and Garland should have foreseen a lot of things coming down the pike, he seems to have missed all of them but arguing for actions based on events in the future is pretty much stupidly insane. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance ya know.
Hi there,
I would also like to have the Justice Department, or any federal agency really (I’m not that picky), send me a quarter billion ASAP.
I’ll be sitting at home here waiting for the cash to show up in my bank account.
I’m as entitled to it as anyone . . .