The Crane Pool Forum

So, let's imagine the 'impartial judges of our land' say that a
president has immunity and can do whatever he or she wants
to? Fine. Biden can incarcerate, deport or order assassination of
anything standing in the way of keeping the US a functioning post-
2015-democracy? It's all so stoopid. But we'll see.

Exactly. And while the Dems have the Senate, Biden might as well then machine gun Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Coney-Barrett, too. She's occupying RBG's former seat? What a disgrace.

Of course, SCOTUS will probably just issue the only logical decision on immunity, but at the last possible moment, guaranteeing that the DC trial won't be had before the election.

They might also say immunity is limited, then return the case to lower court(s) to specify which activities are or aren't covered.
And then there will be lawsuits about the lower court decision.
That will delay any really meaningful result far beyond the election.

I think that's the path they will take.
Later

I'm with Batmags on this. They'll delay to the very end; it's already impossible for any of these trials to proceed before the election. Punting it back to a lower court would look really bad and I think they're a little concerned about optics right now. The delay was the thing; they can make the right decision and still favor Trump by taking so long. I'm betting there'll be a dissent from Alito or Thomas just for good measure, though.

Trump was not indicted for the events of Jan 6 2021 until August 1 2023. That's 31 months later. The special counsel wasn't even appointed until November 2022. 21 months after the riot.

Meanwhile the actual people who invaded the capital building were indicted within weeks of their trespasses.

That's inexcusable to me.

For all of the good that the House J6 Committee did, he should have been indicted immediately after Biden's inauguration.

It's not impossible, of course, that these cases come to trial before the election. These courts are just treating it as such in order to benefit the former president.

There is, of course, no grounds to conclude a president has full immunity, and it should be the quickest decision in court history.

The other defense that is heading to the court — that the independent counsel statute is un-Constitutional — has been rejected by the court multiple times.

Edgy MD wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:55 am
There is, of course, no grounds to conclude a president has full immunity, and it should be the quickest decision in court history.

It's much worse than that because it's so plainly obvious that a President shouldn't have immunity ---even your average nine year old could figure this out. SCOTUS should have never taken the case in the first place.

Fman99 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:48 am Trump was not indicted for the events of Jan 6 2021 until August 1 2023. That's 31 months later. The special counsel wasn't even appointed until November 2022. 21 months after the riot....


That's inexcusable to me.

Totally to the max. It's a fucking outrage. Fucking Merrick the Meek totally slow-walked the whole thing. By contrast, the GOP could ram through Coney-Barrett's confirmation in like three and a half minutes just weeks before the Presidential election with many mail-in votes already having been submitted. But when Scalia died more than half a year before the election, Obama's pick was ignored because all of a sudden, a President wasn't allowed to nominate a SCOTUS justice in the fourth year of his presidency. The people had to vote on it, said McConnell. I thought they did vote on it. I was certain that Obama was voted President to carry out a four-year term, not a three-year term.

Merrick Garland wanted to be 'above politics' so he dragged his feet on prosecuting Trump. If they hadn't had the House Select Committee hearings, I'm betting that he still wouldn't have been charged to this day. It's shameful.

Spitballing here. Let's take this to the extreme.
If the SC says the President IS totally immune, I hope they decide before the debate.
Then, Biden could pull out a gun and Shoot DT on national tv, and they can't prosecute him.
Thank you, Supreme Court. (I can dream, can't I?)

Back to reality:
If they send the case back to the lower court for parsing which activities are and are not immune, none of the cases will proceed before the election.
But here's an idea.
If the SC does specify those instances where immunity doesn't exist, Jack Smith should immediately withdraw all charges in the Florida case(away from that MAGA imbecile judge) , and re-file in the DC Circuit for only those activities in the SC decision. If he doesn't, Smith runs the risk of her saying there are no grounds for a case and dismissing it, so he can't be re-tried. The more narrow case may have a chance of reaching a verdict before the election.


Later

I believe the court will not find that he has total immunity but will kick it back to Chutkan to review whether or not he has partial immunity for certain charges. Of course all of this has been nothing but a delay tactic to postpone the trial past the election.

Best case scenario for anti-Trump folks is that while Chutkin cannot set a trial date, her court can spend the late summer and early fall holding hearings about these immunity claims. In the process, witnesses could be called, evidence can be presented and arguments can be made around the various charges alleged. We will not get a full-blown trial with a jury decision and all of the facts, but I don't think this will be the full-wallpapering-over the J6 charges that MAGA thinks they are getting.

I saw this earlier and was like jesus tell me they didn't...

I think a whole bunch of big decisions, including this 'un, are supposed to spill out on Wednesday.

The restraining order decision is very interesting. An isolated Justice Thomas changes the dynamic of the court.

They've announced decision release days for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week.

I'd expect the immunity decision on Friday. It delays the decision as long as possible. It will compete for coverage with the debate post-mortem. Then it will get a summer weekend news cycle as opposed to the standard weekday reporting.

I can't see them releasing the immunity decision before the debate. That'd be too on-point. I agree, they'll wait until the very end, release it and get out of town and on to their oligarch-funded vacations.

Immunity decision to be announced Monday.

The decision today on the insurrection case leads me to think the court will vote that he has immunity, too.

Later

We are so fucked.

It's really the outcome we all should have expected. He has immunity with regard to some acts and not with regard to others. Not shocking.

The most indicting part of it is that they waited until the very last day to announce it. Weaving further ambiguities into the ruling is also a gross disservice.

It still should be shocking. The litigation to determine official from unofficial will take years. All while daring a potentially re-elected Trump to continue to push boundaries without consequence.

That's sort of what I was getting at. The slow-walking of it all.

Another view is that many of the crimes for which he is under indictment happened after he was no longer President. But, according to (MSNBC) Legal Analyst Katy Pfang (I'm paraphrasing) the challenge will be separating the evidence that has been accumulated for those specific crimes. They are all intertwined.
IMO, some of the charges will have to be re-filed in accordance with this decision.
Later

It's a major shitshow. On the other hand, I guess it's time for Biden to take out Trump and the wingnuts on SCOTUS under cloak of his official powers. If I was Sonia Sotomayor, I'd fear for my life if the orange sociopath wins in November.