Trump asks Supreme Court to reject special counsel and stay out of immunity dispute for now - eviltoast
Trump asks Supreme Court to reject special counsel and stay out of immunity dispute for now | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.

Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.

Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.

But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.

  • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
    43·
    11 months ago

    Maybe they shouldn’t 

    Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      33·
      11 months ago

      I’m going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.

      Edward Teach’s comment:

      Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?

      Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., “why should [they] care”).

      My response:

      Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.

      I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. (“Maybe they shouldn’t [care about the consequences]”.) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.

      Edward Teach’s comment:

      Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?

      Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn’t do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        21·
        11 months ago

        Maybe they shouldn’t

        ☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.

        you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.

        • balderdash@lemmy.zip
          22·
          11 months ago

          Now you’re just repeating yourself. You didn’t even read the comment, did you? You’re right, this is a waste of time.

          • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            Now you’re just repeating yourself.

            because I’m right

            You didn’t even read the comment, did you?

            I did. the part of my comment you didn’t read is that it changes nothing.

            You’re right, this is a waste of time.

            that’s why I said it