To the surprise of no one but his crack legal team (link)
by sprack (2024-02-06 10:50:02)
Edited on 2024-02-06 10:52:55
Cannot Reply Return to Political

No immunity for you!





Here's a nice little poke in the eye.
by IrishJosh24  (2024-02-06 13:45:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

And during President Trump’s 2021 impeachment proceedings for incitement of insurrection, his counsel argued that instead of post-Presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for “investigation, prosecution, and punishment” is “the article III courts,” as “[w]e have a judicial process” and “an investigative process . . . to which no former officeholder is immune.”

His own lawyers admitted he wasn't immune from criminal prosecution. Now, of course, those lawyers were trying to stall or end the impeachment proceedings, and these lawyers have a very different goal. But it's a point worth emphasizing nonetheless. Trump's own lawyers said criminal prosecution was the appropriate course. And now Trump's lawyers argue criminal prosecution is never allowed.

He's got quite the Cracker Jack team. *
by Revue Party  (2024-02-06 17:07:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

He still won this round
by vermin05  (2024-02-06 12:37:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

It took over a month for the board to publish their opinion. Now he’ll appeal to the full court, and then the Supreme Court. He has no chance of actually winning this he’s nearly trying to run out the clock. I no longer believe his trial will occur prior to Election Day.
The unknown: whether SCOTUS will move at a pace...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-02-06 13:41:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...similar to Bush v. Gore. The Florida Supreme Court issued their decision December 8, 2000, which was immediately appealed by the Bush side. SCOTUS issued a stay on December 9, heard oral arguments December 11, and issued their 5-4 decision favoring Bush on December 12.

It's true that in Bush v. Gore they were coming up on the meeting date for the Florida electors. However, that case illustrates that is up to SCOTUS to move quickly or not. They also did so in United States v. Nixon, where oral arguments took place on July 8, 1974, just 5 weeks after the appeal was filed, and the decision came out July 24.
Why couldn’t the full DC court of appeals and/or SCOTUS
by IAND75  (2024-02-06 16:58:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

just decline to hear the case and allow the current ruling to stand? Is there really a serious constitutional question in doubt at this point?

If so, those rulings could come quickly and the trial would be back on schedule soon.
That would process, even if expedited in the court of
by domerfromkansas  (2024-02-06 22:05:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Appeals, is likely to take months.

That does not appear to be the case.
by IAND75  (2024-02-06 23:30:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

From the linked article by George Conway in The Atlantic (which is worth reading in its entirety):

In its judgment accompanying its opinion, the appeals court took an additional important step in moving Trump’s case to trial. It essentially set a deadline of next Monday for Trump to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The court of appeals directed that, by February 12, if Trump does not ask the Supreme Court to halt proceedings in the district court, those proceedings should recommence immediately.

Which means that Trump’s lawyers have to take their case to the Supreme Court—by filing an application for a stay—by next Monday. And the Department of Justice will surely respond almost immediately.

What will the Supreme Court do? The strength of today’s opinion makes it far more likely that the Court will do … nothing. Any court—including the Supreme Court—would have a tough time writing a better opinion than the one the D.C. Circuit published today. The best course of action would be for the Supreme Court to deny a stay, and to deny review altogether, in a matter of days.

And that could mean a trial in United States v. Trump no later than early summer. That’s what a unanimous, airtight opinion can do.
They may well do exactly that *
by sprack  (2024-02-06 17:26:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Even if he appeals, the case moves forward unless one
by Barrister  (2024-02-06 13:30:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

of the appellate courts (en banc DC Circuit or, more likely, the Supreme Court) issues a stay.

There is no requirement that they do so.

This.
by IrishintheD  (2024-02-06 13:28:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

The election is 9 months away. Courts move at a glacial pace...especially with appeals.
He doesn't need to be acquitted, he just needs to delay. He is counting on becoming president and simply pardoning himself for all of his crimes. And, honestly, at this point it appears his 'most-winningest' strategy.
Sad times.
Looks like Team Trump will have to reevaluate the 2024
by Kali4niaND  (2024-02-06 10:59:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Republican platform in light of this unexpected development. They'll have to actually propose and pass laws to get things done.
Oh they're good at proposing the laws
by sprack  (2024-02-06 11:04:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

You see, they know how to *propose* the bills, they just don't know how to *pass* the bills. And that's really the most important part of the bills: the passing. Anybody can just propose them.
The Bills' passing game is strong
by mocopdx  (2024-02-06 13:26:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

But I think Josh Allen's ability to scramble and improvise with his legs is what really makes their offense hum.