world

Trump asks Supreme Court to extend delay in his election interference trial, claiming immunity from prosecution

41 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

In their request to keep the trial on hold, Trump's lawyers indicated they would seek to stretch out the delay by also asking the full federal appeals court in Washington to weigh in. Only after that would they file a formal appeal to the Supreme Court, the lawyers wrote. That could add weeks, if not months, before trial preparations could restart.

If they do that, the trial can go ahead straight away. If they want the Supreme Court to review, they have to do that now.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Clearly Trump wants to stretch this out to the fall in the off chance that he wins election, in which case he can direct the Justice Department to drop the matter.

Voters deserve a clear judgement before casting their ballot.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The office of the presidency is not above the law. Absolute immunity would mean a president could commit crimes with impunity.

As for the claim that a ruling against Trump would open the door to indicting presidents on any matter, BULL. The bar for indictment and conviction is high. You need evidence.

The evidence is strongly against Trump. He knows that he’s guilty AF, so he’s doing what he’s always done: throw sand in the gears of justice.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

This will be an interesting one to follow. Will SCOTUS allow other lower courts to set immunity precedent or will they wish to weigh in. Legal analysts unsure.

Risky to allow lower courts to decide, given politically charged nature of such a ruling but it does give SCOTUS an out. Need 4 Justices to agree to take case.

Trump's Georgia case looking much better, as prosecutors alleged to have filing false statements to the court, so not good for their lawfare get Trump agenda!

Most Americans understand d's lawfare against former President's unprecedented, election interference, anti-democratic, key reason Trump's winning in polls vs. Biden!

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

HSE is a tr001, I’m guessing either Russian or Chinese. It comes on JT to sow discord and spur on feeble-minded MAGA cultists.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Immunity?!

Who does this guy think he is?

A king?!

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Hope is not legit, TorafusuTorasan.

he cheered stand alone funding for Israel from the Speaker of the House while at the same time lamenting Palestinian genocide on the Gaza articles.

the definition of bad faith.

Good for Trump is good for Putin. It’s Hope’s only criteria. Blow him off.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yet another delay effort.

Trump only has 3 moves.

Delay.

Deny.

Misdirection.

Put him in court ASAP. Let a jury decide innocent or guilty. If found guilty, put him in jail for 20 yrs.

Time for a constitutional amendment that modifies who can seek Presidential office. A a minimum, nobody convicted of a felony should be allowed. That's a huge flaw in the filters for President.

I'd add an age limit too - nobody over 70 yrs old should be allowed to run for President, Senate, or Congress.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Nobody is accusing SCOTUS or those bringing cases to SCOTUS of misconduct. We'll have to all wait and see how SCOTUS decides to proceed with issue of immuity.

Geogia's case another matter, prosecutorial misconduct is being investigated, false documents submitted to the court etc. Seems these prosecutors could be disbarred, given both unethical and unprofessional implications.

Most Americans believe lawfare is un-democratic and strongly prefer to let the ballot box decide!

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Do you MAGA folk really want a president to have that kind of power?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

With the possible exception of Thomas and Alito, SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump. Trump’s legal opinion is beyond flimsy.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The office of the presidency is not above the law.

Funny, I didn't hear this kind of talk back in 2008-2016

Absolute immunity would mean a president could commit crimes with impunity. 

Ok, strip him of that right and then when we have majorities in the House and Senate it will be easier for the Republicans to get rid of a Dem they don't like. TBH, I hope the Dems win on this because it will make things much easier for the GOP in the future.

As for the claim that a ruling against Trump would open the door to indicting presidents on any matter, BULL.

Not bull, because that is exactly what will happen or are you trying to say if the GOP have majorities in Congress and we have a Dem President, we wouldn't have the power to depose that President? Of course they would then have that power and could wield it any way they want.

The bar for indictment and conviction is high. You need evidence. 

If they have control of both chambers, they can and the minority party can't do squat.

The evidence is strongly against Trump.

If the GOP had the Senate and the Presidency this wouldn't be an issue.

He knows that he’s guilty AF,

No, he knows this admin and the swamp are corrupt AF.

so he’s doing what he’s always done: throw sand in the gears of justice.

No, more like slipping out of the nooses the Dems try and knot.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

With the possible exception of Thomas and Alito, SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump.

As well as Gorsuch and surprisingly Jackson as well, so I think Trump has got this.

Trump’s legal opinion is beyond flimsy.

I disagree

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Who the hell taught you that the Founders created our Constitution to enable the establishment of an Emperor, Bass?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Anyone believe views here will influence SCOTUS? We'll just have to all wait, as even most serious constitutional legal minds have no idea about this outcome.

So yes, it's a clown-show, I hope nobody's offended, that was not my intention after all!

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

As I understand it, SCOTUS needs to define immunity and its scope regarding below.

How to strike Constitutional balance, protecting Executive by not impairing critical decisions that always entail risk & uncertainty, while also preventing criminality.

Nobody on JT, has SCOTUS paygrade, FYI!!!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

makes a person babble made-up terms like lawfare.

what? Made up?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lawfare

the made up things are the charges against Trump.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Debate at hand, HOW & WHY SCOTUS will rule on below regarding Executive immunity. I have NO idea. JT posters, please have at below in constructive manner, that leaves out the partisan insults etc.

Promise, SCOTUS cares not, but a good exercise anyway!

How to strike Constitutional balance, protecting Executive by not impairing critical decisions that always entail risk & uncertainty, while also preventing criminality.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Blacklabel--since you feel all the legal charges for 91 felonies that could lead to centuries of jail time are fictional fantasies, it shouldnt take more than a few minutes to crack a dictionary and prove it to us. Enlighten the masses on the latest weasel words.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It’s “lawfare”. Posted the dictionary definition.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Promise, SCOTUS cares not, but a good exercise anyway!

Are you here for any other reason than to annoy?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Biggest comedy of the world..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes indeed...Trump has his "crack" legal team at work...

The same lawyers that told him if he violated the subpoena to return his classified stash, that would be ILLEGAL (he did it anyway)...

The same lawyers that certified in writing to the DOJ that no classified remained at MAL (when there was)...

The same lawyers that argued in court that he can't be prosecuted before being impeached...while they argued the exact opposite in court two years ago...

Lawyers like Powell, Cheseboro, and Ellis who all flipped and will testify against him...

Definitely crack lawyers - as they're on crack...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Trump will get a reality check when Judge Engoron puts his crime family out of bizness in New York. Trump will continue riding on the crest of his popularity until the MAGA wave and the GOP crash on the rocks of their "king's" criminal culpability come November.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

There has to be immunity for actions taken and decisions made while performing Presidential duties.

duties. Not this nonsensical murdering of political opponents by the military. That’s an obvious crime, not a duty.

otherwise Joe goes to prison next January for drone striking that innocent family in Afghanistan.

Then Obama is right behind him as is every living President. We can even retroactively do the dead ones too if that’s what it’s gonna be.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

For example, imagine US citizen(s) knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting terrorist(s) deemed highly likely to have a nuclear weapon(s).

Are US citizens in situation as above concerned about potential criminality of US President to address such a grave risk? With swift action innocent people, including citizens might be killed or have their rights violated. Crimes might be committed due to Executive's actions.

Should President spend many hours and days to secure all the necessary 'legality' to act? Executive will be forced to do so if he/she's not criminally immune after all.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Calling for an insurrection/civil war is not within presidential duties. It is plain everyday common sense. No amount of running to the dictionary helps change that.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Blacklabel

There has to be immunity for actions taken and decisions made while performing Presidential duties. 

duties. Not this nonsensical murdering of political opponents by the military. That’s an obvious crime, not a duty.

Exactly! Trump isn’t immune to crimes. He’s been indicted for crimes, so no immunity. Glad you agree.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Calling for an insurrection/civil war is not within presidential duties. It is plain everyday common sense. No amount of running to the dictionary helps change that.

Your view of insurrection is other's view of a legal protest and the Executives right and duty to 'contest' elections that may have irregularities or illegality.

It's no accident about half of US voters now and trending up solidly believe 2020 election was not legitimate. Lots of discovery has taken place, including depositions and statistical analysis etc.

It would be nice if the world were so simple, but like SCOTUS with immunity, obvious it's very gray indeed, but that's world I prefer, the world of reality.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

duties. Not this nonsensical murdering of political opponents by the military. That’s an obvious crime, not a duty.

thats not the argument that Trumps attorney made in federal court, Blacklabel.

you know this. He said, explicitly that it would still require impeachment and conviction. His out was of course that would happen in such a case.

thats not good enough. You have enough sense to know that you can’t rely on goodwill.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

otherwise Joe goes to prison next January for drone striking that innocent family in Afghanistan.

As you can see, the US legal system sometime takes time, but I would have no problem with people being held accountable for drone strikes on civilians.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Most Americans believe lawfare (sic) is un-democratic and strongly prefer to let the ballot box decide!

Most Americans would rather have real choices for President that don't include geriatric care, mental illness and whatever Biden's issues are.

We certainly don't want a POTUS who behaves like a 2yr old who needs his diapers changed and a nap.

I'd like a POTUS who told the truth most of the time and didn't have a direct hand at killing 600K Americans with bogus COVID advice, didn't call his opponents names like a child and wasn't going to court for 19 criminal cases in multiple states and federal courts.

Most of the cases fall under three themes: financial wrongdoings that made him more money; his role in the January 6 2021 insurrection; and his alleged interference in the 2020 election.

We aren't stupid - well - most of us aren't. We all know if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, that is it most likely a duck. Just replace "duck" with these: rapist, liar, fraudster, election tamperer, insurrectionist.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We aren't stupid - well - most of us aren't. We all know if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, that is it most likely a duck. Just replace "duck" with these: rapist, liar, fraudster, election tamperer, insurrectionist.

I understand your feelings. Please be aware big media has worked OT to build above narrative. Truth is often not easy to see, even for most gifted. Especially in partisan political affairs or even workings SCOTUS!

It's all Gray, top talent knows true narrative can shift 180 degrees instantly anytime anyplace, including at SCOTUS!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Calling for an insurrection/civil war 

this would be outside the duties.

Good thing no one did that as President.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Tell us about this Gray person. Is he or she one of the top talents? It is all so murkily mysterious, like a ghost tale by the embers of a campfire. And then an orangish wolfman staggers from the underbrush with a mangled constitution in his paws...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

He said, explicitly that it would still require impeachment and conviction. 

it would. Was trump impeached for any crimes?

If so, then if he were to be prosecuted and convicted (after leaving office) there’s your presidential “crime”.

desperate to find it just to get Trump (and only Trump) but you don’t have it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Blacklabel--no one is the number of people who bothered to upvote you on this thread today. You can find the words to spin that into a perfect performance if you plow through the dictionary a little more.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Don’t be surprised if the court shows Trump the back of its hand and denies Cert.

Even if it decides it needs the final word, there is no reality in which there are 5 votes and there probably aren’t 2.

He’s going to trial before the election. He’s going to be convicted because he’s guilty AF.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This coming days after Biden was given a pass on prosecution because of his hazy, fuzzy, faulty, poor memory that has significant limitations - or lied to federal prosecutors about it.

It's a reminder of the two-tiered justice system and this witch hunt could happen to anyone. Crooked stuff.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Trump asks Supreme Court to extend delay in his election interference trial, claiming immunity from prosecution

The money Trump is saving from all this free publicity.

I won't be surprised if Harris gets shutout in November.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Bottom line is If the people think these charges are lawfare they will elect Trump and he will drop them all.

if they don’t, then he won’t be elected. Pretty simple. Muh democracy!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites