Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

Will Dems Subpoena Justice Kennedy’s Son Over Deutsche Bank?

President Trump with Justice Anthony Kennedy(Retired)

In the days following the June 2018 announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, there was rampant speculation that his resignation was not entirely voluntary but rather that the Trump administration engineered/even forced him out for fear that the GOP may lose their U.S. Senate majority to the Democrats in the November 2018 elections. In essence, the Trump administration did not want Justice Kennedy to retire at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate because that would make it difficult for any Trump SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.


Speculation that the Trump Admin forced out Justice Kennedy took a whole new turn after the New York Times did a bombshell piece revealing that Justice Kennedy’s son Justin Kennedy had been a longtime financier for Trump. Specifically, that Justin Kennedy was Trump’s financier at the troubled Deutsche Bank which has come under international scrutiny over allegations that it is the bank of choice for Russian money launderers

Justin Kennedy, the son of Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justin Kennedy was apparently the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank which leaves absolutely no doubt that he would be the point man at Deutsche Bank for Trump’s vast real estate empire. Part of the bombshell NYT piece read;“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.” 

With Special Counsel Mueller increasingly zeroing in on Trump’s business ties to Russia and news that German authorities recently raided the troubled Deutsche Bank, the question now being raised is whether with their new found majority in the House, Democrats will subpoena Trump-related Deutsche Bank records and specifically whether they will call Justin Kennedy to testify about his financial dealings with Trump. Justin Kennedy’s testimony in Congress could also lay to rest the lingering speculation as to whether his dad was forced by the Trump administration to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court before the November 2018 elections.

Bottom line given the serious questions being raised about Deutsche Bank’s ties to President Trump and its troubling history as a conduit for Russian money laundering, it would be Congressional malpractice if House Democrats did not call Justin Kennedy to testify about his role at the troubled bank and specifically, find out what criteria Deutsche Bank used to justify loaning Trump so much money when other “mainstream” banks declined to do so. Was Russia the source of these loans to Trump?. Grassroots Democrats would also like to know whether Kavanaugh played any part in Justice Kennedy’s retirement–essentially engineering his own ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




You may also reach the author directly via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Trump Obstructing Justice By Yanking Security Clearances


In case you missed it, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow made quite an interesting (and troubling) observation regarding Trump’s revocation of former CIA Chief John Brennan’s security clearance and his threat to do the same to other former U.S. Intel officials. Maddow correctly pointed out that all the former U.S. Intel officials Trump wants to strip of security clearances are involved in the ongoing TrumpRussia investigation and at some point in the near future may be called in by the Mueller team to testify. Revoking their security clearances in a way hinders their ability to testify against Trump–essentially an obstruction of justice. The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

Maddow’s astute observation is very important because the rest of her mainstream media colleagues continue to characterize Trump’s troubling actions regarding security clearances as just “crazy Trump being crazy Trump”–an erroneous and dangerous assumption. The mainstream media should instead take Trump’s actions on security clearances very seriously because as Maddow correctly points out, it is all part of Trump’s larger effort to thwart the TrumpRussia investigation which is inching closer and closer to him and his inner circle, including his family.


Even more troubling is the fact that the GOP-led congress knows full well of Trump’s intent in regards to security clearance revocations but does absolutely nothing. Even Senator Susan Collins, once considered a reasonable moderate, appears to condone Trump’s patently un-American actions regarding security clearances

Bottom line, congressional Democrats and the mainstream media must call out Senator Collins and her congressional GOP colleaoues for condoning Trump’s actions regarding security clearances while knowing full well that Trump’s true intention is to obstruct the ongoing TrumpRussia investigation. Simply put Senator Collins et al are aiding and abetting Trump’s blatant obstruction of justice–conduct unbecoming of members of congress.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Trump, The Subject Of Mueller Probe Cannot Nominate A SCOTUS Justice. Can He?


Dem Senator Corey Booker is advancing a novel legal theory(#BookerTheory), a brilliant one as far as Yours Truly is concerned, arguing that because Trump is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation (TrumpRussia), his nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace retiring Justice Kennedy creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. Senator Booker made the argument when he appeared on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show.


According to Senator Booker, this is unacceptable because it boils down to Trump appointing a Supreme Court Justice for the specific purpose of helping him with the TrumpRussia investigation. There’s a very realistic chance that at some point, TeamTrump will challenge an aspect of Mueller probe in federal court, especially a subpoena for his testimony. Such a challenge would most likely end up in the Supreme Court to be adjudicated by Trump’s Supreme Court pick. Senator Booker’s argument is that this creates an unacceptable conflict of interest that may further tarnish the image of the Roberts Supreme Court.

It’s also worth pointing out that no previous U.S. President has nominated a Supreme Court justice while under criminal investigation. This is probably the strongest argument in the #BookerTheory because simply put, we’ve never been here before. The founding fathers never envisioned that someone engaged in or suspected of criminal conduct would ever rise to be President.

The fact that we are in unchartered waters means there is no Supreme Court precedent establishing Trump’s ability to nominate a Supreme Court justice under these circumstances but more importantly, creates a fertile ground for a legal challenge testing Senator Booker’s novel legal theory.

While Dems are engaged in an all out warfare with Republicans over whether Trump’s Supreme Court nominee should be seated before or after the midterms, maybe they should step aside and give serious consideration to the #BookerTheory–whether the ongoing Mueller probe precludes Trump from making the said Supreme Court nomination in the first place. Brace yourselves folks it’s Bush v Gore all over again.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Appearance Of Impropriety Surrounding Justice Kennedy-Trump Relationship


Americans increasingly consider the Roberts Supreme Court more of a political body than a court of law–a troubling trend. Even more troubling is this New York Times piece that  says the Trump Administration conducted a “quiet campaign” to  effect Justice Kennedy’s retirement before Midterms 2018.  The New York Times piece, partly written by Maggie Haberman was quick to add; “There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening.”


Given the norm-breaking habit  of the Trump Administration, many people including Yours Truly will take issue with this conclusory assertion by Haberman that “there were no direct efforts” to pressure Justice Kennedy into retirement before the Midterms. Dems should not treat Haberman’s conclusory assertion as Biblical truth, but instead keep inquiring into the circumstances surrounding Justice Kennedy’s seemingly strategic departure from the High Court. Any reasonable person would conclude that Justice Kennedy’s departure right before the midterm elections signals a political motivation–one highly beneficial to Trump and his GOP.

In addition to that, the Financial Times reported in 2017 that Justice Kennedy’s son was Trump’s most trusted banker at Deutsche Bank, which gave Trump loans when no U.S. bank was willing to. Deutsche Bank has also been linked to Russian money laundering and is one of the banks Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking into in the TrumpRussia investigation. How the son of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice gets caught up in the affairs of Deutsche Bank involving Trump should be a question of the utmost importance for Dems. And Dems don’t have to take Yours Truly’s word for it,  just check out this excellent thread by Amy Siskind regarding this issue.

Bottomline Dems must demand answers from retiring Justice Kennedy and indeed Chief Justice Roberts about whether he coordinated his exit with the Trump Adninistration and secondly the extent of his son's dealings with Trump while he was at Deutsche Bank and thereafter. Justice Kennedy's son's dealings with Trump raise genuine conflict of interest questions or at the very least create an appearance of impropriety. People's faith in the U.S. Supreme Court as an independent court of law is waning and stories like these only add to the mistrust. Dems must raise all these lingering questions as they fight for the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

The Dangerous Koch Brothers Out To Buy Supreme Court Seat


Moments after Yours Truly urged Democrats to confront the unjust Roberts Supreme Court over its pattern of horrendous decisions that favor the GOP but wreck havoc on the rest of the nation, we got the bombshell news that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring on July 1.


Moments later we got word that the dangerous Koch Brothers plan to spend “seven figures” to get Trump to nominate who they(Kochs) think should be on the Supreme Court.


Bottomline Dems must not only start speaking out against the unjust Roberts Supreme Court, they must also point to instances like these where the Koch Brothers are trying to buy a Supreme Court seat as reasons why the horrendous Citizens United decision needs to be reversed

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out