Any surprises on this?
Raise your hand….
Not me…..
Here we have a US Govrenment Prosecutor after a crooked ex-President…
The clock IS running….
The High Court CAN keep the ball rolling by ruling along with the other courts now and in the past that ONLY acts associated with their offical duties of the office enjoy immunity ….
The act of asking people to come to the nation’s Capitol to help him disregard the Offical certification of a lawful election IS NOT AN OFFICAL PRESIDENTIAL legal action….
It should be THAT simple…
Ducking on this question is Bull Shit….
Next up at bat is the question the sdame question to be handled by a Appeals Court….
THEY will probably agree with the Justice Dept. about limited immunity….
THAT will be the heavy lifting….
But?
Donald J. Trump is praying for time……
And he will NOT make things easy for the justices….
In the criminal immunity case, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the trial, denied Trump’s claim in a ruling in early December. “Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote.
Trump’s appeal of that order will now proceed first in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Trump’s briefs in that case are due Saturday, and a randomly chosen panel already has been named to hear the case. The judges are Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, and two more recent additions chosen by Biden: J. Michelle Childs and Florence Y. Pan.
The special counsel had argued that since only the Supreme Court can definitively answer the question of a chief executive’s immunity for actions taken while in office, the justices should act now.
“Whether a former President of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a conspiracy to overturn an election, and thereby prevent the lawful winner from taking office, is an issue of great constitutional moment,” Smith said in his filing. “This Court’s immediate review of that question is the only way to achieve its timely and definitive resolution.”
While it is relatively rare for the justices to accept a case before an appeals court has reviewed it, Smith noted that the court has done it before in important cases. One such case was another test of presidential power.
In 1974′s U.S. v. Nixon, the court took up and decided within weeks the question of whether President Richard M. Nixon had the right to withhold subpoenaed recordings of conversations in the White House. Nixon resigned in the wake of the unanimous decision that he must turn over the recordings….