The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal.

Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date.

Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpones the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The judges gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

  • orbitz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, no, couldn’t congress impeach and convict him during the ordeal and then they’d be good to charge him with a crime? Only the one he was committing once the vote was tallied of course, after the senator filibustering the vote was pressured, and it was on the agenda. It seems like such a simple thing to do unless the President gave himself a pardon in advance of course.

    The whole idea is completely preposterous, that anyone should have that sort of immunity, to the point that justices should have been writing their decision as soon as the idea was brought up and knew it could land in their court.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      They don’t need to write anything if they wish stay true to the constitution and justice. All they need to do is simply say, “Nope we good Fam, we ain’t hearing shit about this.” And that lets the Appeals Court stand.

    • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Congress couldn’t do shit because anyone voting to impeach the president would be a “political opponent” and would get murderized