The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case before November
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.
By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.
“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.
Elie Honig had an interesting take on this on his podcast. While I’m not sure that I completely agree with Elie, I feel like he tends to say things that, emotionally, I wish weren’t true but that are very factually true.
Elie said that, as supreme court cases go, even important ones, this is a very accelerated timeline. They are asking both sides to prepare their arguments quickly but want to allow both sides to construct their arguments. He also suggested that this is exactly the kind of case that the supreme court should hear. It is an issue of first impression with dire impacts for our country, both in the short and long-term. He argued that this kind of decision shouldn’t be left to an appeals court simply because it is simply too important. It requires the weight of the supreme court.
it’s what they were installed for. trump gave us a corrupt court that will last for decades, regardless of him not being in office.
Get out of here. It’s possible to criticize more than one thing. It’s possible to say one thing is bad while recognizing another thing is worse.
Democrats could have precluded this whole thing by finding him guilty as a result of the impeachment.
finding him guilty as a result of the impeachment.
What does this mean, like literally? Are you a troll, or gaslighting? Every single non-Republican did vote that DJT was guilty, as part of the impeachment process.
Republicans literally saved him from being removed from office, yet somehow Democrats are to blame in that trial? Your worldview of globally-documented historic events is wild…
Every Democrat and some Republicans found him guilty. They needed 60 votes. They got 57 with 7 Republicans finding him guilty.
Call me old fashioned but it seems like a flaw in the legal system if it takes slightly longer than one 4-year presidential term to prosecute someone for interference in a presidential election.
Garland was gonna let him skate. It wasn’t until he refused to give back the classified documents that he crossed the line and Garland have the go-ahead to prosecute him for that. And once you’ve given permission to prosecute an ex-president for one thing, you can’t tell the other prosecutors who want to nail him for other crimes ‘no’.
Garland should never have been picked as AG. He’s literally the guy democrats pick when they want to tell Republicans “Hey, we see you, we love you, and you have nothing to worry about from us. So please just be normal 💕”
The real screw up here was appointing a fucking conservative as attorney general.
Never, ever show kindness to conservatives. Politeness and professionalism? Sure. But a conservative sees kindness as a weakness to exploit. That is just who they are at their core.
Reaching across the aisle by appointing Merrick Garland was an extremely stupid move that could cost us our democracy.
Yes, very. Federal judges have huge case loads, and expanding the size of the federal bench would be one way to fix that. At least doubling it, and quite possibly doubling it again.
Democrats haven’t touched this because they’re spineless and don’t want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.
Didn’t the turtle Mitch refuse to fill hundreds of members of the federal judiciary?
Democrats haven’t touched this because they’re spineless and don’t want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.
I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.
The vast majority of people in Congress are affluent white people, and they really have nothing to gain by replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one. A conservative judicial system isn’t going to stop them from leaving the country for an abortion, or change what the private schools teach their children. While a liberal judge may increase their taxes, make it harder to accept bribes, or even ruin their businesses by implementing labor laws.
I just don’t really see anything that would really motivate anyone in Congress to enact a more fair judicial system.
I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.
Sadly, I think you’re right. Occams razor would suggest that’s what we’re seeing here. IMO, it’s far more likely that politicians are being self-serving (power corrupts) than being a bunch of shrinking violets in circumstances where it hurts everyone else.
Yeah, it seems to me that Democrats are in a pretty nice position for themselves - they can claim to be for the people, while lamenting that they’re unable to make the big changes that the people want due to conservatives holding them back. If they didn’t have that excuse, they might actually need to coordinate those changes, which they likely don’t want to do.
