Trump Supreme Court Appears Ready To Delay Trump J6 Trial Indefinitely
Let's not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt. The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.
David Rothkopf
Red Box Rules
Oral arguments will not be heard until the end of April. Who knows when the decision will be.
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
Trump is getting his money worth from his Supreme Court justices.
This is no surprise to me, I predicted long ago that the Trump appointees would provide Trump with protection as payback for being chosen, so with apologies to our Australian NT members, welcome to the SKCOTUS (Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States). If Trump does get elected, which could happen if all the court proceedings against him are delayed past election day, can Trump pardon himself from everything?
Doesn't anyone have an answer to my question?
Nope.
That question has never come up before and there is no legal precedent, probably because the mere thought of it is so absurd and totally contrary to the basic tenets of American jurisprudence. That doesn't mean that a corrupted Supreme Court might not rule in favor of a partner in corruption.
I hope you can read this link and it's not blocked where you are at. If it is, let me know. But the basic thought in it is yes he can.
The twist as shown in the second paragraph is that in order to accept a pardon, he would have to accept the pardon and imply guilt. I don't know if his ego would allow him to accept guilt, even if it got him free of any potential charges. This is by no means a complete review or the final word on the matter, legal scholars are split on this topic. I suspect he's more wanting to drag things out in hopes he wins the White House and can then order the DOJ to drop the cases.
I suspect that if he were to attempt to pardon himself, that act alone would create a constitutional crisis.
Thanks, Snuffy. What link? I read all 7 quoted paragraphs plus your personal ones.
I don't agree with the argument that a President has the power to pardon himself anymore than I believe that Presidents have total immunity from all criminal prosecutions for the balance of their post-presidential lives. That way would lead to dictatorship.
Trump- Example A Dicktater tot boy wanna B who needs to be cast to Hell oh Dolly Madison of a Bitch, cause Trump is the Scratch that caused US to itch.
This is just plain ridiculous, and if they decide he has immunity Biden should implement the Seal Team 6 Option and show Trump First Hand, what true Dictaterships look like, up close !
We only have opinions because it hasn’t yet been adjudicated. That being said, at best, he could only pardon himself for federal crimes. He has no authority to pardon himself or anyone else for crimes against a state.
Can a President Pardon Himself? | Jonathan Fuentes (independent.org)
A president pardoning himself would be the equivalent of a King being charged and going through the motions. . . only at the end of it to use a get 'clear' of all charges card. In the modern world, if not all worlds, that would make the U.S. president above the law. Commonsense makes sense of laws too. Unless one's commonsense is telling him/her that president's should be above the laws that apply to all "commoners"
Which is why I ended my original post in 1.1.4 with
I don't know why for even non-lawyers can figure out that a president that can pardon himself can pick and choose the crime he or she would like to 'dismiss' and then execute it. . .successfully (Hey! Mr. President: You finally get to shoot that special 'someone' on Fifth Avenue in New York-of all places). Moreover, it would efficiently end a founders' system of check and balances between the three branches. ("♪ Nan-nan-ni-nan-nan ♫, SCotUS and Congress you can't touch me.")
One more thing: Remember, it is former president Donald Trump who told several of his officials in the prior administration to 'act out' and if prosecuted for doing so, he would use the pardon to extricate them before, doing, and after having committed to the deeds! The thing speaks toward intent to act in the next administration if granted to be.
Can't open it, but thanks anyway.
Did you even read what I linked? It explains why there are legal questions around if a president can pardon himself.
Based on the constitutional text (or lack thereof) and the simple fact that a small number of state governors have pardoned themselves and suffered no judicial challenges, would imply that it's not as cut and dried as some would like it to be. We've never had a President who did that action on themselves, so it does stand to reason that SCOTUS should weigh in on the topic. If for nothing else than to better explain and set limits for future presidents.
My response is the same! BTW, a president pardoning himself is stupid -
1. It would place him or her above the law (and untouchable) once and for all.
2. Even police with "qualified immunity" do not get away all with crimes all the time.
3. A candidate can start the process of building a list or several of 'errand citizens' to act against ("I am your retribution") and execute it in the open. Then, pardon himself before his term ends.
4. Richard Nixon could not pardon himself (and he likely wanted to do so).
5. President Ford, pardoned Richard M. Nixon (because apparently Nixon could not or did not have the gad to consider such a thing possible.
A president pardoning himself for crimes would mean he could instigate or participate in an insurrection on the Capitol in real time and later when convicted: Pardon him or herself!
Nobody in their right mind can think this or that is okay. Anymore than a president being able to kill somebody for not obeying an unlawful order of the Executive.
constitutional crisis? He's already said he will throw out all or parts of the Constitution he doesn't agree with.
LOL... so which is it? Does Trump lie all the time or does he tell the truth? Can you tell the difference between the truth and a campaign statement? Do you really think that any president has the authority to throw out the Constitution?
Why would we want to elect someone who thinks he does ?
Why don't you ask that question from someone who wants to vote for him.
is that how he "campaigns" ?
You follow him more than I do, seems you should be able to answer your own question.
Will, Jack Smith is getting the review by the Supreme Court that he asked for, so the blame is on him.
Supreme Court Will 'Eviscerate' Jack Smith's Case—Legal Analyst (msn.com)
It shows how incredibly partisan the left wing approach to the Court is. The Court must act exactly as the Democratic Party demands it act at this moment or it's "partisan." None of the Court's Progressive heroes voted to hear the case when Smith said only the Supreme Court can definitively rule on this. But now that established procedure is being followed (on a very expedited basis), its a "Trump Court" because Democrats are panicking and they never miss a chance to smear the Cort and try to delegitimize it.
To quote Obama :
Elections have consequences, tough luck, you lost. Get over it.
The left thought that was really cool back then. Not so much now huh?
thank the turtle man, as he playeed Dem Demz with no vote for DA dude in an election year but with two months remaining in another election year, he shoved it up Demz rear
Sounds like you like turtles …..
i like Snapper
but i digress. Reminds me of an essay "Clipperships"....
John Michael Luttig says this means trump will not be tried for his traitorous acts before the election.
Oh, have they now included treason as one of the charges?
Sounds like they are gearing up to accuse the Supreme Court of treason if they don't get their way. Just calling them corrupt is not going to be enough.
You have been told in detail numerous times that I know of that treason and traitor do not have the same meaning
if you keep trying to say on this seed that they do, you will be on the brink of trolling
[✘]
You specifically stated "says this means trump will not be tried for his traitorous acts before the election". Being tried for traitorous acts means he has to be charged as a traitor. Maybe you should be more clear than throwing around terms.
do you think Trump is a "patriot" with the country's best interests in mind ?
Can you tell me what that has to do with my comment.
can you tell me why you answered with a question ?
Is it too difficult of a question ?
Can you tell me why I should go along with your deflection attempt?
Why don't you comment on my original comment without the deflection attempt?
Not for a New York second.
Trump was never accused of treason in a court of law, let alone charged or convicted of it.
The court of (some) public opinion doesn't count.
I said he's a traitor which he is , I didn't say that he was going to be charged with treason
one can be a traitor without committing treason, acquaint yourself with a dictionary
And that is just an opinion.
nope
Yep
If he is so innocent, why delay the trial? If I was accused, and knew I was innocent, I would want the trial IMMEDIATELY. Can you explain that, Greg?
Who's delaying the trial. Ain't me.
The guy who sent an appeal to the SCOTUS? You know, trump.. He said himself he wants to delay... The question is, "why"?
I don't recall saying it was, "YOU".
Trump wants a delay for the federal trials. . . because, he wishes to get elected in November and once inaugurated (again) as the executive he can ask/order the United States Attorney General he installs to dismiss the federal cases (but not the state cases).
Trump is entitled to due process no matter how much Democrats and leftists want to deny it.
The stank of Clarence Thomas is behind this.
That’s racist.
No, it is racist to presume that JR's comment was based on Thomas' race (rather than his ideology and influence of his wife).
When you think of Thomas does 'black justice' hit you as the prominent characteristic?
Thomas doesn't hold that kind of power over the Court.
Thomas is a vote and an influencer. Every justice matters on the court. Amazing you do not know this.
Luttig said today that at least one of the justices must agree with Trump's position that he has immunity otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to hear the case.
3 guesses for everyone as to which one of the justices that is - I don't think you'll need 3 guesses though.
I am curious as to what kind of contrived legal argument by a SCotUS justice could conclude that Trump has his claimed immunity.
What a mess our system has devolved into.
Amazing you didn't read my post
I did not say he had no power, nor did I imply it.
I merely stated the truth, that he doesn't hold that kind if power over the court.
I can only assume, based on your reply, that you dispute what I clearly stated.
Why? Do you feel Thomas has the sole power to decide the SCOTUS docket?
is that based on any evidence?
I don't think it's far fetched to describe this as corruption on the Supreme Court
No more than any other justice. This court is following the law and the Constitution and the left and anti-Trumpers are totally pissed about it.
Thomas must be very special and have more power than the Chief Justice!
Prove your claim.
[Deleted]
Nobody knows the argument for hearing this case so your post is complete bullshit. Until we hear the argument for hearing this case (if ever) all one can do is speculate.
[Deleted]
Chief Justices have the authority to assign the writing of opinions when they are in the majority. Other than that, with regard to deciding cases, they have no more power than any other justice.
I guess using the rules of the left "If you have anything bad to say about a minority it is racist" doesn't always work for them.
It sure has. Almost every time the Supreme court makes a decision they don't like internet lawyers, twitter and MSNBC "unbiased experts" come out of the woodwork to claim the Supreme court is corrupt.
And people who make up strawman claims for others while implying that everyone else is wrong.
Nobody knows the argument for hearing this case so all one can do is speculate. But given the extensively documented rulings thus far on immunity, and the legal experts weighing in on this issue prior to today, there does not seem to be any suggestion as to why the SCotUS would have a legal reason to hear this appeal.
Now if you have something to offer like a credible reason for why the SCotUS would hear this appeal, bring it forth.
he won't bring it forth, 5th, sixth, or 7th.
Biden needs to take his chances that Trumps arguments grant him immunity and implement the Seal Team 6 option, and just claim immunity, for this is just frckn ridiculous !
Have lost all respect for the supremes under a far right 6 to 3 Trump owned court. They have no honor or sense of justice.
Because they are ScotUS and they get to choose what to look at and not look at without giving a "credible" reason why they did it so to internet lawyers or cable news legal "experts".
Personally I hope they give no reason. All they are going to get is more accusations of corruption (like the first sentence of the article and some of the comments) .
Your reply shows that you have nothing to offer. Deflective bullshit is not helpful.
[removed]
How?
[Deleted]
Typical (and expected) response when you have no worthwhile response. Dismiss an opinion (or response) you don't like and accuse them they have nothing to offer. The deflection accusation is an added bonus.
You offered no reason for why the SCotUS would decide to hear the immunity case. Your 'answer' was that they get to do what they want.
A typical non-responsive platitude.
Right. They are hearing the case because they want to hear the case. Hope that clears it up. Unless I am mistaken they don't owe you (or anyone else) a reason that you would find credible. You are just going to have to accept they have a reason as to why they want to hear it and can accept that or start (or add) to some conspiracy/corruption theories.
Either way the case will be heard.
A fine example of a platitude.
The question was the legal reasoning for hearing the case. You obviously do not know. Telling us that the SCotUS is hearing the case because “they want to” states the obvious and adds nothing of value.
No one knows because they haven't told us. That makes the question ridiculous. Not sure why you would insist on asking questions where there is no answer but it is not the first time. My response is true.
1. They are taking it because they chose to take it.
2. They don't owe you (or anyone else) a reason that you would find credible. It seems to me there is no credible reasons for anyone that wants to see Trump launched into space so asking their opinion is a ridiculous effort in futility.
3. People are just going to have to accept they have a reason or start (or add) to some conspiracy/corruption theories. Based on the comments it seems many people are going the corruption route.
But thanks for your opinion, as predictable as it is.
They are taking the case because Jack Smith requested they do so.
Supreme Court Will 'Eviscerate' Jack Smith's Case—Legal Analyst (msn.com)
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Really?
https://supremecourthistory.org/supreme-court-civics-resources/role-of-chief-justice-of-the-united-states/#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Justice%20is%20the%20presiding%20officer%20of%20the%20Court,(including%20the%20Chief%20Justice).
I would say supervising the the process of selecting cases the court will hear grants them far more power.
Exactly the observation I originally made!
You repeat your platitude. That is obvious. Stated differently: no shit!
This isn’t really a complete answer, but at we at least know what they intend to focus on from the Writ of Cert.
Which, to me, is a curious thing to focus on, because the lower courts did not rule on whether or not Trump’s conduct involved “official acts.” As far as I know, the prosecution is not even alleging they were official acts.
My understanding is that Trump’s team is saying his conduct involved official acts, but I’m not sure what presidential responsibilities would be involved in the election, its certification, or any other part of the process. Even if he had any, pursuing them fraudulently would still seem to be criminal. Either way, it sounds like obvious bullshit to me.
And if these weren’t official acts, that still doesn’t necessarily resolve the matter of immunity. I would expect Trump to argue his immunity regardless.
I also don’t understand the apparent lack of urgency. Basically, almost none of this makes sense.
As much as I hate to write this, it all makes sense if the SCotUS is indeed attempting to delay matters so that the trial is pushed past the election.
I held every SCotUS in higher regard than this, but right now hearing this obviously absurd appeal is strike one, and the lack of urgency in this and the eligibility question is strike two.
Then you would be wrong. The Chief Justice chairs the meeting where all the justices decide as a group which cases will be heard. The Chief Justice has no more power or say in that regard than any other justice. All of the justices vote on whether or not to take a case and their votes are all equal.
It does when you allow for 'conservative-think' about justice versus a plain reading of the law (as we are told to expect from SCotUS). Also, Lawrence Tribe,* constitutional professor, mentioned this very thing (you questioned in your comment), that SCotUS has expanded the question in order to justify their delay (stalling).
(FULL) The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell 2/28/24 | MSNBC NEWS Today Feb 28, 2024
* Mr. Tribe's portion begins at 15. 20 on the video.
Yes, it takes four justices to agree the hearing was he case has merit.
Actually ,for SCOTUS to take the case for consideration, 4 justices have to agree it's an important enough case or situation that they need to hear it. Not just one.
In order for a stay of lower courts rulings , 5 justices must agree a stay is warranted.
As for the WHY they decided to take the case , I have as everyone here nothing more than my opinion, and could maybe make a close WAG (wild assed guess ) that could possibly both be plausible and close to why it was done.
Any way ,the legal political pundits have been both put on their ear, and been blindsided by the court.
Like I said to someone a couple months ago talking about the Co case, one thing I HAVE learned about the current sitting SCOTUS, is to expect the unexpected from them.
I will leave it to others to judge how correct I have been in my WAGS.
I think one criteria that SCOTUS uses is the national importance of the case:
I’m thinking of US vs Nixon and Bush vs Gore.
Death penalty cases might be another example.
Empirically, this is supported.
If that were true, one would expect them to expedite matters.
Yes, I think that they taken this up before Christmas and bypassed appeals court.
If I remember correctly Jack Smith asked them to take it up in Nov or Dec of 2023 and they refused.
Yes, here it is...
isn't that where he tried to bypass the lower court to expedite case due to it's importance to be rectified before election time ?
The question posed above is why did the SCOTUS agree to hear the immunity case? The answer appears to be, as pointed out in Kavika's linked article at AP News on Dec 22, 2023,
My emphasis in bold red . Sounds to me like Smith's request to leapfrog the lower court in December was admittedly "extraordinary" and certainly clear as to motive to accelerate the process for resolution of their case before the election. So, perhaps the SCOTUS turned it down to let the appeals process move forward in an "ordinary" fashion? Apparently it did and now Trump has appealed the lower court decision on the immunity matter to the SCOTUS as would be the typical process, and as was expected. The SCOTUS appears to be hearing the immunity case now because that is the normal process?
Personally I think the immunity argument sounds like a bunch of BS, but I am not a lawyer and I don't know what the legal underpinnings of the argument are. However, in looking at it logically from an armchair, sure seems to me that the SCOTUS shot down the prosecution's attempt in December to accelerate the process just so that it could be resolved before the election, and are now being accused of purposely delaying the trial until after the election. Seems to me that the prosecution wants to accelerate the process so that the trial can wrap up before the election, and the SCOTUS wants the process to play out the way it is designed. What am I missing here?
I suppose that the SCOTUS could have declined to hear the appeal on the immunity matter, so apparently they do still want to weigh in on that. Which still begs the question, why?
I think your right , but SCOTUS said no, I believed at the time the request was made it hadn't even started the appeals process,I remember saying to someone here , the court likely did that so that they could say the entire appeals process had been followed and settled at the lowest level needed.
Anything else I could say is speculation on my part as to why now .
Purely speculation on my part here.
The why is likely to set future presedent for future high courts , even if it's not binding on future courts.
The matter of a president or former president claiming immunity hasn't really ever came up and made it this far up the judiciary ladder.
They may not agree that the president has no immunity and that a president could have partial immunity in some matters , that could be supported by pointing to executive privilege and how it has been historically used in the past, that unless I am wrong could be considered a form of partial immunity of sorts in regards to certain matters of operation.
Having the trial occur before the election is in the national interest.
There is more than enough evidence of wrongdoing by Trump to require that this case be heard before people vote on him to return to the office he tried to steal.
As we see right here on this forum, there are many people in America who know nothing about the evidence against Trump. A trial on these matters would educate millions of people as to what was done and attempted.
There is a long history of expedited cases before the Supreme Court.
Turley thinks this is indicative that the court will entertain the oral arguments but is already leaning to toss this one out.
On the other extreme is the Newsweek article that the author already decided that SCOTUS will ruin democracy by coddling Trump.
Amen to that!
Yes, Iggy.
It does when you allow for 'conservative-think' about justice versus a plain reading of the law (as we are told to expect from SCotUS). Also, Lawrence Tribe,* constitutional professor, mentioned this very thing (you questioned in your comment), that SCotUS has expanded the question in order to justify their delay (stalling).
Here is the video offered at 3.1.38 but was changed by a Youtube 'author' - I guess:
Professor Lawrence Tribe starts on the video at 10:58.
Thanks for confirming my statement that Thomas doesn't hold power over the court.
Thomas is a vote and an influencer. Every justice matters on the court.
Nobody claimed the strawman you posted:
In a group of nine people every one of their opinions is important and one strong opinion can most definitely influence others.
I haven't argued otherwise.
Oopsy! My mistake. I keep forgetting that obvious sarcasm should be pointed out. I'll try to work on that. And that takes care of the "strawman" bull.
Influence and holding power seem, to me at least, two separate and distinct things, but to each their own, I suppose.
My claim is that Thomas holds no power over the Court, and if you care to document powers that he does hold over the Court, and where this power emanates from, go for it.
Every justice can influence the other justices. As I noted, a justice with a persuasive argument can (and does) influence other justices. This is basic group dynamics. But no justice has super powers to control the court (power OVER the court).
Yeah Texan they are different levels. You are the only one who is speaking about holding power over the court. You brought it up @3.1.2. Nobody else ... just you:
Having influence on the other members is not "holding power over" the court. It is influence. You exaggerated from what was stated and are arguing against it. That is a strawman argument.
Thank you for agreeing with precisely what I have been saying all along.
No poster claimed otherwise. You were rebutting nobody.
Justice Thomas is the longest serving Justice, ever and the oldest of the current Court (75).
Justice Thomas is a prolific opinion writer compared to his colleagues.
Although he traditionally prefers the old SCOTUS format where the Justices typically sat in silence taking notes
all day, he has bought into the current frequent questioning by the justices.
No one Justice controls the Court more than Roberts
but to say that Thomas isn't currently the conservative Justice with the most sway
is just not realistic.
Thank you for the REMINDER that Trump in the White House will be appointing MORE JUDGES across the boards, thereby 'burying' and overwhelming liberals and their ideas about justice in this country for generations upon generations! (This country can not survive the setback to 1950's understanding of justice!)
[deleted]
I don't see where anyone has claimed that.
I do believe that Tig made that point several times.
Maybe you were just too busy arguing for the sake of arguing?
This 5 ton turkey will be beautifully dressed and stuffed with 'soaring' language, placed in an oven at 5pm and served at 6pm au jus rouge. Bon appetit!
Just a guess and my record is zero for too many to count.
Jane’s to Blame.
@JksKathryn
·
33m
You get what you pay for.
That meme says it all.
He was always in it for the money.
The only reason for this ruling granting certiorari and continuing the stay, causing further delay in the trial, is that the most corrupt Supreme Court in American history is attempting to help Trump's re-election campaign. As an attorney in my 44th year practicing law, I can state with absolute conviction that today's ruling is one of the biggest stains ever on the Supreme Court and a truly bleak day for our democracy. The ramifications from today's Supreme Court decision could prove to be devastating to America's future. Even if the Court eventually decides against Trump's immunity arguments, the delay could prevent the American people from knowing a jury's decision as to Trump's guilt or innocence before the election, or, possibly, without me getting into a detailed explanation, result in Trump not facing justice at all.
There are people on Twitter right now calling for Ginny Thomas to be arrested. I think that would be a fair turn of events
If the prosecutors can make a showing of probable cause, then she should be arrested.
So then what can be done with her corrupt husband?
He can be impeached if he engaged in "... bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor" as set forth in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. He can be prosecuted if there is evidence of criminal misconduct.
Can we get rid of Merrick Garland if we are going to follow twitters command on who to arrest?
You and I both know it won't be that simple.
Far right-wing fascists know how to subvert the law.
They learned from a guy named Adolf Hitler.
At this point is there any question?
All far right supremes have been bought and paid for by ALEC.
How can anybody have any respect for any court in America when the highest court in the country has obviously been subverted by far right wing fascists?
the noted legal expert Michael Luttig said on TV this afternoon that this decision makes it very unlikely that the trial could take place before the election. he says that they won't even give a decision on the immunity until the end of July. Trump's lawyers have to be given a number of weeks after that to prepare their case , so it'll probably take it up until the beginning of September. the trial is expected to last three months. if it all plays out like that this trial is not going to happen
It seems to me that if the election goes in favour of the Democrats all the way, there is damn good cause to pack the SCOTUS. Hey, look at the ICJ - I couldn't count the number of judges sitting in a row.
That would be terrific for israel.
Although with Rashida Tlaib as their guide, America's Muslims and Arabs might think negatively about Biden's support for Israel (although he's trying to do the best he can to satisfy both sides of the issue for personal political reasons) they would be set back on their heels by Trump whose support for Israel is undeniable.
Could it be that Biden is actually smart enough to see both sides of the equation?
Fuck Israel and fuck the Palestinians.
Way past time to put them out of the world's misery.
Since Trump has his own jet and since he is looking at life in prison, he should be remanded into custody yesterday.
Maybe they should put him in Guantanamo Bay where the rest of the dangers to democracy are housed. S/
Not even close.
Nope, the FCI in Terre Haute Indiana...
Having practised law for 37 years, appointed a Q.C. (Queen's Counsel - One of Her Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law) by the late Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, having once been offered a judicial position myself but turned it down, I am in complete agreement with you. I also cannot believe that with all of the proven benefits accepted by Clarence Thomas, and this has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's black, I cannot believe he is ALLOWED to remain on the court. Guess I'm spoiled by the honesty and integrity of Canada's Supreme Court, and those I knew personally who WERE judges, including the late Supreme Court of Ontario Justice Dennis F. O'Leary, for whom I articled (apprenticed) when I graduated law school, back when he was a lawyer before his appointment.
apparently she's too dumb to understand that today's ruling was good for trump
Or maybe she calculated that she has no control over this and a positive message is best for her interests. This, by the way, is a good message post the SCotUS decision to hear the appeal:
I have loss respect for the Supreme Court over this action. They are aiding and abetting a damnable former president get away and beyond swift justice. Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse. I am sadden that this man will not do so.
Ok, so trump get's presidential immunity.... Biden has Gini Thomas arrested and executed...
Sounds good and...
"Presidential Immunity".
Michelle Obama for president and to hell with everybody else!
(Taylor Swift needs another 4 to 8 years before she's ready.)
[deleted]
We’re still in pre-trial, which is why this is confusing. I figure the reason they’re doing it now in this way is because Trump is expected - at trial - to claim presidential immunity against the idea that his alleged behavior was otherwise criminal. Rather than argue all of that at trial (and deal with the inevitable appeals), the prosecutor is asking SCOTUS to say now that even if Trump’s behavior was part of an official act, he can’t claim immunity for it.
if his behavior is called part of an official act God help us.
his behavior is called part of an official act God help us. “
cause that’s plofficially Fckd up