Archive

ShareThis Page
How Trump’s tweets, outspoken comments affect legal system | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

How Trump’s tweets, outspoken comments affect legal system

The Associated Press
| Friday, November 3, 2017 6:36 a.m
Trump01731jpga4044
In this Nov. 1, 2017 photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington. Trump on Thursday backed away from his threat to send the suspect in the New York bike path attack to Guantanamo Bay, acknowledging in an early morning tweet that the military judicial process at the Cuban detention center takes longer than the civilian federal court system. But Trump called again for the man to be executed. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
TrumpImmigration45100jpg56e8b
In this Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2017 photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington.

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s voters may love his outspoken ways. But judges? Not so much.

The president’s tweets already have played a role in court decisions blocking his bans on travel and transgender members of the military. The judge deciding Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s sentence also has said he might take Trump’s scathing criticism of Bergdahl into account. And now the president is calling for the death penalty for the suspect in the bike path attack in New York.

Lawyers for the suspect in the New York attack, Sayfullo Saipov, almost certainly will argue that Trump’s two tweets saying Saipov should get the “DEATH PENALTY” will make it harder for their client to receive a fair trial or sentence.

Although some legal experts said judges in Manhattan’s federal courts will not let the president’s remarks throw the case off track, Trump’s comments broke with longstanding tradition against presidents publicly commenting on criminal cases.

“Once again, the President sabotages his own lawyers, and makes it virtually impossible to provide the defendant with a fair trial,” South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman said on Twitter.

Trump’s first comment came around midnight, a few hours after prosecutors filed federal terrorism charges against Saipov, a 29-year-old immigrant from Uzbekistan. Authorities say Saipov was inspired by the Islamic State group when he veered into a city bike path in Manhattan on Tuesday, killing eight people.

The court filing signaled an intent to prosecute him in civilian courts in the United States and was at odds with earlier comments by Trump and others that he might be held as an “enemy combatant” or even be sent to the naval brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

By Thursday morning, Trump himself said Saipov would be prosecuted in New York, which the president said would be faster than subjecting him to a military tribunal at Guantanamo. No one held in the U.S. has been sent to Guantanamo since the detention center opened in January 2002.

“There is also something appropriate about keeping him in the home of the horrible crime he committed. Should move fast. DEATH PENALTY!” the president said in a tweet.

The Obama administration made a similar argument in trying to move the five men accused in the Sept. 11 attacks from Guantanamo to New York for trial in a civilian court, an effort that was derailed by political opposition. The men remain at Guantanamo and have yet to be tried. Their cases are likely years from resolution.

The president’s potential for influencing a criminal case also has arisen in the court martial of Bergdahl. The Army sergeant’s lawyers said candidate Trump’s description of Bergdahl as a “dirty rotten traitor” who should be executed unfairly affected his trial.

Bergdahl faces up to life in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he endangered comrades by walking off his post in Afghanistan in 2009.

The judge, Army Col. Jeffery Nance, has said he was not directly affected by Trump’s criticism of Bergdahl, but that he would consider Trump’s comments as a mitigating factor in the sentencing.

Trump is not the first president to comment on the guilt and appropriate punishment of someone facing trial in notorious killings. Richard Nixon weighed in on Charles Manson’s guilt and Barack Obama suggested execution was the right sentence for accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, though both presidents walked back their comments in short order.

But the advent of social media has allowed Trump to comment on a wide range of topics at any hour of the day and without any filter. And he has persisted in his use of Twitter, in particular, even after his allies have suggested some tweets are counterproductive.

Past presidents have kept diaries with their uncensored views of events and people, but they also have kept those entries private until long after they left the White House, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said.

“Trump’s kind of a diarist in real time, and there’s nothing comparable,” said Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University in Houston.

Beyond criminal cases, some judges are taking account of Trump’s tweets and other seemingly unscripted remarks to assess the motivations behind policies, including a ban on visitors to the United States from several mostly Muslim countries and a ban on transgender members of the military. The latter was actually announced in a series of tweets beginning at 5:55 a.m. on July 26.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly incorporated screen grabs of the tweets into her 76-opinion that blocked the transgender service member ban and cited “the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement” among her reasons for doing so.

In the travel ban cases, Trump’s tweets both as a candidate and president were invoked by several judges who blocked the ban from taking effect.

Judges, like everyone else, can’t ignore what the president is saying.

“The president’s habit of sharing his running commentary with the country inevitably influences how his, and his administration’s, actions are understood and interpreted, by courts and citizens alike,” said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame law professor.

But Garnett also cautioned that judges should be hesitan t to rely too heavily on Trump’s tweets in assessing whether policies are legal.

“You don’t want to have a judicial doctrine where you’re going to slap down policies kind of like you ground your teenager as punishment for what we regard as reckless tweets. That can’t be the basis for deciding whether something is constitutionally authorized,” he said.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.