- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.
Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.
“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”
The Logan Act was passed in 1799. A grand total of two people were charged with violating it, and none were convicted.
Those fun facts are never going to change. Prosecutors should find something else to charge Trump with, it won’t be hard.
We can always change the traditions
One reason that it’s never used is that a lot of lawyers suspect banning negotiation with anyone, even a foreign power, violates the First Amendment.
And if it’s used against the Trump then the SCOTUS will surely agree.
In that respect, I don’t disagree with them. Though they’re right for very much the wrong reason.
The trouble with prosecuting Trump under the Logan Act is that, technically, the ceasefire would not be an agreement between the US and a foreign government. It would be an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Here’s the text of the act:
Now, I would argue that brokering a ceasefire counts as “measures of the United States,” but it’s not a slam dunk legal argument. Trump put a fuckton of sympathetic activist judges on the bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, so I don’t have any faith that he will be held accountable.
While judicial corruption is a real risk, this sort of assumed helplessness just lets them implement it without actually doing the corruption and putting their credibility on the line. And it could be applied to literally anything. Once you assume the Court will always act corruptly, it doesn’t matter whether a legal question exists, they’ll do it anyway.
He probably won’t be held accountable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be initiating court cases for every violation of the law. They can die in the Supreme Court and be added to the list of reasons for why extreme reforms are necessary.
I agree with you completely, but also keep in mind that every corrupt ruling from the current federal and supreme courts is a precedent that must be later replaced if/when we get reasonable judges in place. Not only do we need to win, but we need the court to hear a case where a former president is charged with a crime and the “official acts” bullshit is thrown out. That, or the legislature passes a constitutional amendment. Until either one of those happens, presidents have immunity from prosecution.
My first thought is that the US is trying to broker a cease fire, so that should definitely count as a measure of the US.
The founding fathers weren’t unaware of international affairs and that countries do things that are not in relation to their own country. So that last clause seems to specifically address those other things.
I agree with you, but I doubt very much that Trump’s judges will rule against him.