SCOTUS agrees to hear the Trump presidential immunity case
This means there will be a delay in the Jack Smith trial:
… [T]he case was moving towards a March 4 trial when Trump appealed denial of his defense that the conduct alleged was covered by presidential immunity. Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to go directly to the Supreme Court, to try to keep the trial on track, but was rejected in favor of allowing the Court of Appeals first to consider the issue. To no one’s surprise, the Court of Appeals rejected the immunity defense, and Trump sought a stay from the Supreme Court preventing the Appeals Court issuing a “mandate” for the case to proceed to trial pending the Court taking the case on the merits.
Today SCOTUS granted the stay and treated it as a grant of certiorari to hear the case on the merits. …
With an April 22 argument, even a quick decision would mean, assuming Trump loses on the defense, that a trial in DC prior to the election is doubtful, as there is a lot of work to be done before trial, and the March 4 trial date was unikely even without the appeals. Of course, if Trump wins in the Supreme Court, the case likely is over.
I know nothing about the speed of such things, so I defer to Professor Jacobson’s judgment on the issue. I do think, however, that the situation is so complex and volatile that anything is possible.
Great! Maybe he’ll finally get a break. With laws like walking on the wrong side of a sidewalk or spitting on a sidewalk – there should be some real laws added, e.g., laws of the Capital Crime type for political prosecutions and prosecutors like Jack “Roland Freisler” Smith.
The question itself is a tricky one, and I’m hesitant about going all-in in either direction. Long-term repercussions of a hasty decision could cause problems unrelated to Trump in the future.
Having said that, the way in which the High Court has handled the appeal process is the correct method. Barring some unusual circumstance in which the High Court must hear the case immediately, cases should be heard by the lower courts first. This is the same process that’s being seen in California with the different 2nd Amendment cases in which the 9th Circuit is bending over backwards to block trial court decisions that go against the state’s gun control laws.
So the court is applying the same standards regardless of what the left-wing pundits are insisting.
Prof. Jacobson states, “Trump is not charged with insurrection or even causing the J6 riot; and the central theory of the case, that seeking to overturn an election in itself is illegal is not true, and therefore Trump is being charged with conspiracy to do something that is not illegal, Trump DC Indictment – Where is the crime?”
So if SCOTUS rules that Trump doesn’t have presidential community in this case, the democrats will cite it as ‘proof’ that he engaged in a conspiracy… It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t illegal, in their clown world any conspiracy on the right is illegal. Which would include celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah but of course, not Ramadan.
This scenario occurred to me:
1. Trump is re-elected President.
2. Trump is convicted in one or more of his cases, and his appeals are unsuccessful.
3. President Trump pardons himself.
I don’t know if the above scenario is possible, but the American Communists’ lawfare should be thrown back in their teeth!
I recommend the commenters’ discussion at Legal Insurrection; it seems to me that they cover most of the questions that I would have asked.
As to pardons, I have seen some observations that the President is limited to Federal convictions, and some of the cases against him are on State statute charges.
I haven’t tried to check on those assertions, on the theory that, if a pardon becomes relevant, someone like Prof. Jacobson will do the legal brief for us.
Junior, excellent comment! I believe this is indeed a prickly question and the court’s decision will have far reaching and impossible to predict impacts beyond Mr. Trump.
Democrats will cite anything as proof, even non existent pee tapes, lets get real here,
Something to keep in mind. Presidents can pardon for federal offenses & crimes. Not state offenses.
From the standpoint of our Founders, I suspect they would consider a president pardoning himself to be a tyrannical act, or at least a high crime or misdemeanor suitable for impeachment.
But from the perspective of today’s world, only a riot or three away from CW 2.0, perhaps the situation will end up justifying such as action in response to a highly politicized set of indictments.
I saw an 8 minute video segment of a speech by Ben Carson at CPAC, where he points out many of “we the people” are looking at DC and thinking our government, and hence our rule of “law”, is no longer legitimate. I found that to be a powerful point to make, one that perhaps we can use to leverage the Left away from their grip on power.
@ R2L > “But from the perspective of today’s world, only a riot or three away from CW 2.0, perhaps the situation will end up justifying such as action in response to a highly politicized set of indictments.”
If the Democrats win in November, and have an ounce of intelligence and desire for self-preservation (a stretch, I know), the new D-President will pardon all the Trump convictions that he / she can, and lean on D-Governors to do the same with State convictions, in order to give cred to any claims of being a “healer,” as Rufus predicted on the Biden post.
Anything they would gain by having The Donald physically in jail is miniscule compared to the convictions themselves, and sets up CW2.0 as may people have opined.
Now, bankrupting him so he can’t keep punching back is a possible option that might not be a war-trigger when combined with pardons, as is “doing a deal” with the Trump Family to take the pardons (including a not-total bankruptcy??) and shut up.
We shall see.
Even if worst comes to worst, Trump is not going to prison, not even Club Fed. He would probably have to wear an ankle bracelet and stay under house arrest at Mar A Lago, but that’s a long road ahead, with a lot of side exits and stops along the way.