Trump Immunity

[Blaster]

SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it.

Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now

The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…

thehill.com

 

[Blaster]

A prudent decision by SCOTUS.

 

[Orangecat]

Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump,

Fan-fucking-tastic. A definite victory for the American people and democracy.

 

[Blaster]

This trial can wait until after the 2024 presidential election.

 

[Moonglow]

SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it.

Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now

The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…

thehill.com

Drats, it looks like it is a state-right issue just as I mentioned...

 

[Blaster]

Smith tried to bypass the appeals court and got slapped down by SCOTUS.

 

[Moonglow]

This trial can wait until after the 2024 presidential election.

Nah, it's been idle for too long...Convict the bitch.

 

[Moonglow]

Smith tried to bypass the appeals court and got slapped down by SCOTUS.

It was a proper question and he directly petitioned the SC because it had federal matters at hand.

 

[Moonglow]

What the SC is saying is, do as you please with the orange baboon we do not want to disenfranchise millions for one man and his overly self-inflated bad actor in crisis.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The appeals court will encourage the trial to continue while it considers the motion.

 

[White 6]

SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it.

Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now

The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…

thehill.com

Looks like U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will start receiving and reviewing briefs starting tomorrow thru Jan 2nd, as they agreed to expedite. Probably handing down a ruling in January, since the Supremes declined the political hot potato at this time. If Donny does not like the decision of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, I think he has 45 days to appeal it.

 

[miketx]

How many witch hunts does this make now?

 

[BackAgain]

The appeals court will encourage the trial to continue while it considers the motion.

Naturally. The usual process.

 

[rightwinger]

Kick that can down the road

Cowards know they will have to deal with it eventually.
The concept of……..The President is not above the law

Is a no brainer

 

[BackAgain]

The appeals court will encourage the trial to continue while it considers the motion.

Maybe. And of course the trial judge wants that. Itching to get going. Too bad it’s to reach a predetermined or hoped for resolution.

 

[BackAgain]

Kick that can down the road

Cowards know they will have to deal with it eventually.
The concept of……..The President is not above the law

Is a no brainer

Awaiting an actual case and controversy is the right legal decision.

It’s obviously not kicking any can down the road.

And the issue is unrelated to the baseless libtarded spin crap that the President is “above the law.” That’s not his claim.

Strawman clutching pussy libs believe silly propaganda.

 

[Auld Phart]

How many witch hunts does this make now?

42

the answer is always 42

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Naturally. The usual process.

And no cases before the Court were ever outside of what you call 'the usual process'

Jack Smith acknowledged he wanted the Court to hear the case as an emergency - fast track .

You've actually said nothing. You may as well have posted a blank comment

 

[Blaster]

And no cases before the Court were ever outside of what you call 'the usual process'

Jack Smith acknowledged he wanted the Court to hear the case as an emergency .

You've actually said nothing. You may as well have posted a blank comment

Why is it an emergency for SCOTUS to rule on this case?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it.

Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now

The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…

thehill.com

Supreme Court won’t fast-track ruling on Trump’s claim of immunity​

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will not fast-track consideration of Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president, a question crucial to whether he can be put on trial for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The court’s one-sentence order, from which there were no noted dissents, means a federal appeals court in Washington will be the first to review a district judge’s ruling earlier this month rejecting Trump’s claim of immunity. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9. The timing of a decision — and a likely appeal to the Supreme Court after that — could delay Trump’s criminal trial in Washington, D.C., now scheduled to begin March 4.

Special counsel Jack Smith had asked the justices to short-circuit the normal appellate process and quickly settle the question of presidential criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court previously has not been called upon to resolve. He said public interest required intervention now, so the federal election-obstruction trial of Trump — the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — could proceed as scheduled.
--
WAPO