154
He wants to do it later to strategically delay the trial.
He wants to delay it till the Supreme Court is under the thumb of Emperor Trump
That isn't now?
They're gonna have to sink to even lower levels to handle the bullshit Trump has in store for them.
This could be true
The appeals court made it clear that Trump could still claim immunity later in the proceedings in three cases brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress.
but the Paula Jones rulings are pretty clear that he doesn’t have immunity
Appeals cost money.
and you're often expected to escrow the adjudicated fines until the appeals are decided.
Did he choose not to appeal, or did his idiot lawyers just miss the deadline?
He might not be able to get a member of the Supreme Court Bar to take his case. The requirements are:
To qualify for admission to the Bar of this Court under Rule 5, an applicant must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or the District of Columbia for a period of at least three years immediately before the date of application; must not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during that three-year period, and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.
It's a low bar but all his lawyers end up getting disciplined by the judge at some point.
How many lawyers are there that have been in a lawsuit in front of a state Supreme Court in the last three years?
I think it’s a pretty ingenious solution because anybody who has that qualification is not one that wants to throw it away.
I'm assuming he can't afford it now
God this all sounds awful. First that this is about civil suits? The Jan 6 violent insurrection being handled in civil court?? That they explicitly allow his appeal for the criminal case in the future. And that the argument appeals courts are using to deny his immunity claim isn't that the President doesnt have carte blanche to do whatever crimes they want, but that he wasnt acting as President at the time. Implying that Presidents do have a free ticket to murder.
Which tees up a lob ball for the Supreme Court when he appeals the immunity ruling for the criminal case, that he was still president during Jan 6. All this shit just seems deliberately corrupt from all involved. From the criminal, to the prosecutors, to the courts.
There are criminal cases too.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — Lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump personally accountable for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol can move forward after the former president chose not to take his broad immunity claim to the Supreme Court.
The appeals court made it clear that Trump could still claim immunity later in the proceedings in three cases brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress.
Trump's lawyers argued that any actions he took on Jan. 6 fall under the scope of his responsibilities as president, thereby granting him immunity from civil liability.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected that argument, ruling that Trump was acting in his role as a political candidate running for office, not as president.
The lead plaintiff in the civil immunity case is James Blassingame, a Capitol Police officer who was injured in the Jan. 6 riot.
The legal arguments being made by Trump are similar to those he is making in his criminal case as he seeks to prevent a trial from taking place before the November election.
The original article contains 426 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
That's good, that makes these timelines even more likely.
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
154 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1726 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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