So Judge Chutkan has to delay trump's Jan 6th trial because the DC court

[JohnSJ]

of appeals is taking their sweet time to rule if he has immunity

What bullshit

[Ocelot II]

1. Give them a call, let them know.

[dchill]

2. It's just SO HARD to figure out!

[MOMFUDSKI]

4. Yeah.

That’s the ticket! shit

[tritsofme]

3. This isn't an episode of Law & Order, things take time.

[JohnSJ]

5. No, it is an episode how to get away with inciting an insurrection

Delay, delay, delay

It will not go to trial before the election

[spooky3]

9. SCOTUS moved very quickly to decide Bush v. Gore. It's a matter of priorities. nt

[tritsofme]

10. What is the silly conspiracy theory here? That the DC Circuit, with its Democratic majority, is putting their thumbs on

scale for Trump? This is just dumb.

[spooky3]

11. I don't see anyone posting any silly conspiracy theory and I notice you aren't denying facts.

People here and legal experts on major networks have noted that courts are not inevitably slow; they can speed things up if they choose.

You are the one who accused people of expecting fictional speed, when in reality courts can move swiftly when they want to do so.

[senseandsensibility]

14. Absolutely

I see no conspiracy theories here, and I have heard the same from legal experts.

[onenote]

22. And how did the speedy decision in Bush v Gore work out?

Maybe if the Court had taken more time, it could've ended up with something other than a 5-4 decision that many legal observers regard as nearly incomprehensible. But since its the Supreme Court, it didn't have to worry about further review.

The DC Circuit doesn't have that luxury. It needs to produce a decision that thoroughly and thoughtfully analyzes and disposes of all of the arguments and their various permutations so as to increase the odds it will be upheld when it is reviewed by the Supreme Court.

[gab13by13]

28. Time was the point though, wasn't it,

not so much the legal decision. What did Bush v Gore analyze? Wasn't the decision based on time and not the law?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

34. I heard "It would hurt shrubs feelings if he lost". nt

[scipan]

30. Maybe there just wasn't a good argument to stop counting the votes?

I've never heard one.

[former9thward]

23. The SC acted quickly in Bush v Gore because the law established a deadline.

There is no deadline here.

[Silent3]

33. For something as patently absurd as total presidential immunity...

...it sure shouldn't take two months or more to decide.

No one is positing a conspiracy here. There does, however, seem to be a lack of appropriate respect for acting fast enough to help save a little thing called democracy, which is hanging in the balance here.

And no, moving with a bit more speed and determination is NOT the same thing as throwing democracy away in just a different manner... before you're tempted to throw out that tired chestnut.

[Ms. Toad]

38. Unfortunately it is not patently absurd.

I don't think it is a winning argument, but neither is it something you can just toss off as as legally insignificant at the prize in a Cracker Jack box.

[Silent3]

39. What is the non-absurd take on how people determined not to live under a king...

…nevertheless intentionally gave the President king-like immunity from prosecution when writing the Constitution?

[Ms. Toad]

41. That is a policy argument, not a legal one.

Policy arguments pay a role, but they have to be consistent with the law. As for the intent of the framers there are non-trivial arguments on both sides of the applicable provisions in the Constitution, not to mention that immunity is not synonymous with being king.

[Silent3]

44. Oh, come on. One of Trump's lawyers was forced to admit...

…he was essentially saying, as long as Congress didn’t impeach them for it, a President could send Seal Team 6 out to assassinate political rivals, and be untouchable.

I refuse to play along with the idea that this is worthy of serious consideration. Someone is way, WAY too lost in treating the law and the Constitution as an ivory tower abstraction, far too scared of “looking political”, or just in the tank for Trump if they don’t laugh this out of court.

[Ms. Toad]

45. And now many judicial opinions have you drafted?

I did that work for two years. I have a decent idea of what goes into the sausage.

As for using the seal tab to assassinate Trump, that is the logical conclusion of the argument they made. How is that any more ludicrous than being unable to prosecute a diplomat from assassinating the president? Yet that is our well settled law.

[Silent3]

47. Your experience might just mean you're steeped in the culture that accepts this insanity as a matter of course

Last edited Sat Feb 3, 2024, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

The possible crimes of a diplomat are a totally different thing. A diplomat can at least be ejected from the country, if the diplomat comes from a friendly country, that country will likely hold the diplomat accountable for their crimes, and a diplomat isn't in the position to completely undermine our democracy by using immunity to act freely as an unaccountable dictator.

A diplomat, most importantly, isn't a citizen of our country the way a President is and has to be.

You can also be sure that if a diplomat tried to do something really outrageous and harmful to the country as a whole, there would be consequences one way or another, up to and including a declaration of war.

I can be pretty damned certain that if I tried to claim immunity from prosecution because I'm actually an alien from another planet, and as such cannot be held accountable to earthly laws, it's not going to take weeks or months to sort that out, and our society won't collapse into a hellscape of kangaroo courts and mob justice simply because my ridiculous gambit is quickly dismissed as nonsense.

[bdamomma]

6. Jack Smith

isn't going to give up.

[Silent3]

40. Jack Smith's determination can't force the courts to move faster n/t

[nevergiveup]

7. It is my understanding that it is a W. Bush appointed judge

that is causing the delay.

[Deminpenn]

16. That was speculation by one of the legal beagles on cable

It was based on Judge Henderson apparently not being in favor of an expedited hearing and speculating that she might be using her position as senior justice of the 3 judge panel to slow walk the opinion, but there is no real evidence to support that speculative theory.

Jmho, but this is all new territory. We've never had an indicted president before. The decision will be precident setting. There's a good chance if it's a well-reasoned and well-written opinion, the DC circuit will not grant an en banc hearing, which Trump's lawyers will undoubtedly request, and SCOTUS might not grant cert. There's a strong incentive for the DC circuit to get the opinion correct and bullet proof. That likely takes time.

[former9thward]

24. How is it your understanding?

[BlueKota]

31. This is what I read too

[pwb]

8. The judicial system wants to get it right.

A criminal President is new to our country. Not much precedence to follow. I am happy with the progress. Everything put together this is all hurting Trump. Polls show that.

[republianmushroom]

15. They are continuing the delay.

What ever they decide it will be appealed. They know it and we know it.

[triron]

19. What esoteric logic is necessary to figure this out?

[pwb]

21. Weed helps.

.

[republianmushroom]

42. So does alcohol when weed is not available.

[republianmushroom]

12. Yup and you nailed it.

Total male bovine excrement.

[Patton French]

13. Delaying the inevitable. NT

[tavernier]

17. IMO the courts want to leave it to voters to decide.

However that is no longer their choice. The courts and juries are bound by our laws to decide the verdict and the punishment of a crime. Running for office is not an automatic delay or exoneration.

[pwb]

18. Or they may want another court to go first.

So the heat is off of them. He is guilty in all of them. IMO.

[Mr.Bill]

20. I think the NY hush money trial

is a slam dunk. Like Michael Cohen said, "There must have been a crime committed, because I went to jail for it". It will be good to have a state conviction because no republican president like Haley can pardon him for it. She has said she would pardon him for any federal crimes.

[former9thward]

25. If it was a slam duck other NY Democratic prosecutors would have gone with the case.

They didn't. They refused to charge.

[Mr.Bill]

27. Or maybe they decided

they didn't want their family to get death threats.

[former9thward]

36. Or maybe they looked at a seven year old case.

That the feds also refused to prosecute. Were they afraid of "death threats" also?

[Mr.Bill]

37. Probably not while Trump was president. n/t

[onenote]

32. No case tried before a jury is ever a "slam dunk"

[brooklynite]

26. I'm sure the two Obama Judges on the panel are out to delay things to help Trump....

....because there couldn't possibly be a reason a Judge would take longer than in an episode of LAW & ORDER.

[scipan]

29. It doesn't take the two Obama judges to delay

Just Judge Henderson assigning herself to write the opinion.

[brooklynite]

35. The majority writes the opinion.

[scipan]

43. Yes exactly.

Denying immunity.

[brooklynite]

46. Some people think the justice process moves as quickly as it does on TV