I love to see yourself twisted into knots when you try to wriggle out of admitting you were wrong. You claimed he went to both the Appelate process and the Supreme Court like it was the same appeal.
The fact is, as proved by the CNN link I posted, is that Smith bypassed the Appeals courts in his plea to the SC to hear his case. He's desperate and getting nervous he won't be the big hero and convict Trump before the election. This is a Hail Mary on his part and yet, even if the SC rules in his favor, he still has to win the case - which he won't.
I love how Leftists turn into Constitution originalists on this subject when Mueller couldn't find anything to charge Trump and then they said they couldn't charge him anyway because he was President. lmao Too funny.
I posted what I said. Feel free to try and equate what I posted, with the claims you are making here. Where in the world did I say it was the "same appeal"? Why would I make such a ridiculous claim...
I said it was concurrent. When Smith filed with SCOTUS he INFORMED SCOTUS that he was going to also file with the Appeals Court to expedite the process IF SCOTUS were to kick it back to the Appeals Court.
In other words Smith put it solely in the hands of SCOTUS and now everyone waits on their decision. They may agree to hear arguments , they may decide it is not a matter they wish to weigh in on, and they may kick it back to the Appeals Court for a preliminary decision and then decide whether they will entertain an appeal from whichever side loses in the Appelate Court.
Trump's task this week is to address the issue of an expedited process if SCOTUS decides to send it back to the Appeals Court. Smith argued that if the case should be remanded to the Appeals Court, that the Appeals Court should act expeditiously. Trump's strategy is to delay, so he has to try and convince the Appeals Court not to move the appeal to the top of their list, should SCOTUS send it down for a ruling. He can't really say he's trying to delay the trial till after the election, so he has to think of another plausible reason to ask the Appelate court to slow walk the process...
But that may all be moot,depending on what SCOTUS decides. If they agree to hear the case before trial and Trump can garner 5 votes to agree he has total immunity, then there likely won't be any trials. However if they reject that immunity claim, then the concept is ruled inapplicable as a defense strategy and Trump won't be able to use it.
You'd think knowing a win at SCOTUS would basically end the trials, that Trump would be eager to have SCOTUS rule on his theory. But strangely enough he doesn't want that to happen.
By agreeing to entertain Smith's filing, both SCOTUS and the Apelate Court have basically put the onus on Trump to convince them of why he does not want the procedures to proceed judiciously. He lost the motion with the trial judge and her ruling was confirmed by the Circuit court. Trump has chosen to appeal, and every one knows that if he loses in the Apellate Court he'll appeal to SCOTUS. So what he has to convince SCOTUS of, is why they shouldn't decide the question he wants them to ultimately decide now.
I don't think admitting he wants to prolong and delay the trial till after the election would be a wise move. SCOTUS is clearly entertaining the case Smith presented for expediency, and it only took them a couple of hours to reply. So it's up to Trump to convince them that expediting the process does not make sense. It will be interesting to see what kind of argument his legal team comes up with...
It's interesting. You want to impeach Biden for acts you claim he committed while VP or a private citizen, and yet at the same time you want to declare that Trump is immune from being prosecuted for acts he committed as POTUS. It's hard to draw a distinction, because once the precedent of Presidential immunity is set, it applies to Biden as well as Trump.
So Biden could break the law for the remainder of his term and there would not be any possible way to prosecute him. It would basically eliminate the concept of Impeachment from the realm of possibility for any future POTUS, because it would have to be recognized as a blatantly political act.
You can try that, but once the precedent is set it automatically gives cover for a member of either party to vote for or against impeachment based solely on their political party. You can't ever charge a POTUS with a crime, which means you would basically have to admit that you want to Impeach a current POTUS because he belongs to the opposite political party.
