Jack Smith has bypassed the DC Court of Appeals (hope I got that right) and asked SCOTUS to answer, once and for all and in an expedited manner, the question of Presidential immunity in the 1/6 trial. DC District court already found that Trump does not have such immunity for crimes committed while in office. He’s not allowing Trump’s appeal (which also included a motion to halt all proceedings until the appeal is done) to be heard by the Appeals court, probably to be followed by a delayed appeal to SCOTUS, thereby saving weeks (at least) of delay.
Jack Smith has bypassed the DC Court of Appeals (hope I got that right) and asked SCOTUS to answer, once and for all and in an expedited manner, the question of Presidential immunity in the 1/6 trial. DC District court already found that Trump does not have such immunity for crimes committed while in office. He’s not allowing Trump’s appeal (which also included a motion to halt all proceedings until the appeal is done) to be heard by the Appeals court, probably to be followed by a delayed appeal to SCOTUS, thereby saving weeks (at least) of delay.
Makes sense from a common sense standpoint on multiple levels. Why mess around and waste everyone’s time for weeks/months if SCOTUS is simply going to deem Trump immune for all things occurring while in office. Just rip the band-aid off.
I like that Smith is playing offense, seizing the initiative and setting the tempo to stay on track for a March 4th trial date.
One of you smart lawyers might be able to explain to me how this wasn’t already ruled on in US v Nixon.
That’s not the point. Judge Chutkan ruled (based on U.S. (yes, Don, that’s “us”!) v Nixon and other cases). Trump appealed, wasting time. The DC Circuit agreed. Trump appealed, hoping to waste time. They would then appeal that negative finding, thereby wasting more time. Probably hoping to get SCOTUS to not hear the case in the current term, thereby getting him one of the ever-so-rare wins. If SCOTUS does rule for him then he wins (and we all lose). If SCOTUS rules against him, he’d have successfully pushed the trial so late as to make any subsequent appeal to SCOTUS beyond this term.
This is good for everyone involved. If Trump is not immune and has a chance to be convicted, then the R voters need to know it sooner rather than later. It would be best if Trumps trial was January 1 or sometime before the Iowa Caucasus. If he is not going to be the nominee ( due to criminal issues) the R will want time to pivot to Desantis ( currently #2) if that is required.
If the SC rules in Trumps favor, then it’s katy bar the door and we know what we are getting and that is a Trump nomination.
I like that Smith is playing offense, seizing the initiative and setting the tempo to stay on track for a March 4th trial date.
One of you smart lawyers might be able to explain to me how this wasn’t already ruled on in US v Nixon.
That’s not the point. Judge Chutkan ruled (based on U.S. (yes, Don, that’s “us”!) v Nixon and other cases). Trump appealed, wasting time. The DC Circuit agreed. Trump appealed, hoping to waste time. They would then appeal that negative finding, thereby wasting more time. Probably hoping to get SCOTUS to not hear the case in the current term, thereby getting him one of the ever-so-rare wins. If SCOTUS does rule for him then he wins (and we all lose). If SCOTUS rules against him, he’d have successfully pushed the trial so late as to make any subsequent appeal to SCOTUS beyond this term.
IANAL, of course.
I realize that the point of Smith’s filing is to prevent a delay and wasting time and the other bullshit that trump uses when he doesn’t have a case- that’s why I wrote my first sentence.
My second sentence addresses the merits of the legal issues- especially given Judge Chutkan ruling already. Those are what I was hoping for someone with some legal insight to comment.
This is good for everyone involved. If Trump is not immune and has a chance to be convicted, then the R voters need to know it sooner rather than later.
I like that Smith is playing offense, seizing the initiative and setting the tempo to stay on track for a March 4th trial date.
One of you smart lawyers might be able to explain to me how this wasn’t already ruled on in US v Nixon.
Nixon was a dispute over a subpoena for materials held by the President. It was not a criminal case against Nixon himself. There were several people who had been indicted, and the docs/tapes could be used in the case against those people. Nixon’s potential immunity from prosecution, if any, would not enable him to avoid producing material relevant to the prosecution of someone else.
Notes that in US v Nixon, the Court took a week to grant the petition. Smith is asking that Trump respond by 12/18, and sets a preliminary schedule for all proceedings.
Makes sense from a common sense standpoint on multiple levels. Why mess around and waste everyone’s time for weeks/months if SCOTUS is simply going to deem Trump immune for all things occurring while in office. Just rip the band-aid off.
this also feels like a question just worth resolving generally. obviously trump generates a lot of heat, but having some really clear precedent (or even black-and-white law) stating exactly whether and how a president can be immune seems important. so many aspects of our political systems, it turns out, aren’t actually written down, but instead relied on common understandings of things like norms/traditions/decorum/etc. if those aren’t working anymore, let’s get it all in writing.
This is good for everyone involved. If Trump is not immune and has a chance to be convicted, then the R voters need to know it sooner rather than later.
Republican voters don’t care.
If he is in jail or ineglibile, it won’t matter if they don’t care. If he is not on the ballot, they will have to put someone else on the ballot.
Let’s say he is convicted, put on house arrest for 5 to 10 years and guilty of a class whatever felony. Can he still be the nominee? I assume not, but perhaps there is nothing to keep him off the ballot.
Well until there’s finally proof of Joe getting laundered money from Brurisma during his Presidency.
If and when SCOTUS takes it on, I certainly hope they all avoid the temptation of lining up along typical ideological camps because the personality-cult-of-Trump is the subject, realizing that there are deep, deep long term implications.
Being a felon wont keep you off the ballot. You cant vote but you can be president.
There isnt much that keeps you off the ballot. One of the things that does is being part of an insurrection + swearing an oath to uphold the constitution. Being part of an insurrection alone does not keep you off the ballot. In fact, several people arrested for Jan 6 are on ballots.
Its also wild that the GOP previously argued that the sitting president was immune from challenges. Now they are saying that a sitting president acts are immune.
I am sure the GOP would also argue SOL isnt stopped because the president is president. So essentially the GOP is arguing
Its also wild that the GOP previously argued that the sitting president was immune from challenges. Now they are saying that a sitting president acts are immune.
I am sure the GOP would also argue SOL isnt stopped because the president is president. So essentially the GOP is arguing
do hood rat shit with your friends,
become president,
do more hood rat shit with your friends
Too bad too sad.
Well we all know the “original sin” can be traced directly to Hunter’s laptop according to the GOP.
