Current Events > Appeals court denies Trump immunity in 2020 criminal election case

(+) Yeah! (+)

This still delayed the proceedings which is good for Trump.

If only there was a penalty for losing an appeals process to discourage its abuse, like extraditing the proceedings or something. Like how losing a challenge in football charges you a timeout.

EPR-radar posted...

If the corrupt Republican SCOTUS majority flushes what little remains of its credibility down the toilet

Why would they care about credibility?

It's not like they can get shitcanned for bad performance reviews.

solosnake posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrJRYVG8eg

oh wow, House republicans also unveiled a resolution to declare Trump did not engage in insurrection today.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3d2172be.png

Theyll rule that immunity applies to republicans but not Democrats.

solosnake posted...

This shit should have been decided 3 years ago. Trump should be on criminal trial by now. The whole thing has taken FAR too long

At the rate this is going, by the time a verdict has been reached Trump will have long died of old age after having served a full second term as POTUS. That is, if he hasn't started a nuclear war by then.

SaikyoStyle posted...

Theyll rule that immunity applies to republicans but not Democrats.

One side doesn't want presidents to have immunity and the other side wants then to have immunity. So only giving half of them immunity sounds like a pretty fair compromise

EPR-radar posted...

Why waste total immunity on something so petty? Tossing Trump, his cronies, leaders and major mouthpieces of the right wing noise machine, the most offensive (R) governors, and congressional Republicans into Gitmo would be much more to the point. God knows no innocents would be caught in such a purge.

But, as tempting as it is, it really shouldn't be done. Rule of law is important.

The point is that it's harmless, amusing, and would piss a bunch of people off but at the same time make them look petty if they make a big deal of it.

MrAntisocial posted...

One side doesn't want presidents to have immunity and the other side wants then to have immunity. So only giving half of them immunity sounds like a pretty fair compromise

One side doesn't want presidents to have immunity. The other side wants presidents to have immunity if they are Republican.

They may not have the votes to stay or even take the case. They might just let the DC appeals ruling stand.

Is the court being pressured to do something more satisfying? Absolutely. But affirming the ruling would take more time.