144
Jack Smith just made a gutsy, momentous decision in his prosecution of Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
144 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19050 readers
4565 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Problem is the Supreme Court could sit on that decision until after the election. And I read the courts have paused said trail until they get an answer.
This could backfire because the Supreme Court is corrupt.
Defense motioned to the Court for a stay pending appeal. Judge Chutkan granted such a stay, because she had to; there is no other choice. However, she was very clear that that stay only puts on hold the various deadline dates for pretrial motions and discovery and such. As of right now, all of the protections in place remain (including the gag order in that case), as well as the March 4, 2024, trial date, although that trial date may be adjusted depending on how long the appeal goes.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is moving much faster on this appeal than they did with their almost year-long process which found that Trump can be civilly sued for Jan6 events. SCOTUS has already agreed to expedite the process of considering whether they will take the case (because of Jack Smith's motion to SCOTUS to do so), and they're asking for a hasty response from Trump's defense team.
But based on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals moving quickly on this appeal, I suspect SCOTUS will ultimately decline to hear the case, and let stand the appeals court ruling.
I was serious about this Defense immunity/double jeopardy argument being frivolous. There is absolutely no way any court finds in Trump's favor on either of those points - and Defense knows it. The whole point is to delay, as is made obvious by their motion to delay the appeal proceedings, apparently because Jack Smith is the Grinch? If Defense was serious about these arguments, and thought they had any chance of winning this appeal, they would want that appeals process to go forward as quickly as possible, because winning that appeal means their client becomes not only "unindicted," but "unibictable." One might even argue that Defense counsel moving to delay the appeals process is acting in opposition to the interests of the defendant, amounting to legal malpractice.
But I digress.
While not impossible, highly unlikely. The repercussions of ruling that a president can never be criminally charged for actions taken while holding office puts the persons who are Supreme Court Justices at direct personal risk, because such a ruling would explicitly enable a sitting president to commit crimes, not the least of which would certainly be to imprison or murder their political enemies - remember, with impunity - and SCOTUS would be on the short list there.
No, SCOTUS justices having a lifelong term means that they have a much longer view of American politics than people who have to run for election every two or four or six years. They will act to protect themselves personally, even if they are not acting to protect a functioning democracy.
There’s no point in carrying out the trial if he has immunity