The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.
The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.
The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.
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, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.
But there isn’t a time imperative here.
…what? How is there not a time imperative? Getting the case completed one way or the other before he is a candidate for president is absolutely time imperative.
He has been a candidate for president for over a year now. He filed the FEC paperwork November last year.
You’re being deliberately obtuse, here. You know that I was referring to the actual election, and the immediate lead-up once the major parties have decided on their own candidates. It is important to determine if Trump could potentially go to jail before he is the Republican candidate. In fact, it’s important to determine if he is going to jail before then, which means we would need to know if it could potentially happen well before that.
I mean, no it’s not being obtuse. He is a candidate for president. Legally he is no different now than if he were to win the nomination.
Also, there are exactly 0 stipulations on someone in jail from running or being president. Not being in jail is not one of the constitutional requirements.
This entire SCOTUS bit is largely irrelevant other than to secure a conviction before the election, which would sway voters.
ferralcat@monyet.cc says there is precedent. What precedent is there for that?
One example case was an incident at a hotel called watergate
That’s a pretty obscure reference, I imagine not many people have heard about that incident. Or repeatedly made reference to it for every real or fake scandal since.
The Supreme Court expedited the Watergate case for the purpose of preventing someone from becoming a candidate for President?
Who?
No - the precident set is that the supreme court can make decisions on a case before it goes through a full set of appeals. In US v Nixon the supreme court expedited a ruling before the appeals court held a hearing, allowing prosecutors to get to work in a timely fashion. That ruling released and unsealed the evidence that ultimately lead to Nixon’s resignation.
I would think getting this motion moving should help Trump, because he’s clearly innocent and will be very distracted with his cases now looking to start while trying to run for president.