Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution, appeals court rules

[eccieuser9500]

Winn, happy reading.

https://supreme.justia.com/stages-of...y%20of%20cases.

Writ of Certiorari

There is no absolute right to have the Court hear an appeal. Someone who wants to appeal to the Court must file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Justices will receive briefs and potentially amicus briefs on whether the writ should be granted. They then will decide at a conference whether to grant the writ. (Briefs, amicus briefs, and conferences play a larger role later in the case and are discussed in more detail below.) This decision does not require a majority. Only four of the nine Justices must agree to grant a writ of certiorari. This tells the lower court to prepare the record for review by the Supreme Court, and the case is placed on the Supreme Court docket.

If the Court denies a writ of certiorari, the decision of the lower court stands, and the case ends. This happens in the overwhelming majority of cases. Only a tiny fraction of these petitions are successful. The Court may be more likely to grant a writ of certiorari if lower courts have reached clashing decisions on the issue, or if it has broad national significance. Granting a writ of certiorari does not necessarily mean that the Court thinks that the lower court was wrong. However, the Court recently has reversed much more often than it has affirmed.

[ICU 812]

If this is allowed to stand, there may be trouble for President Obama down the road for things he did while in office . . .President Clinton too.

It is my belief that we, as a nation, do not want to open this can of worms. There is a clearly defined method for removing an official who has committed crimes against the state while in office.

Both President Clinton and President Trump faced impeachment proceedings. Neither of them were convicted.

That should be the end of it.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

If this is allowed to stand, there may be trouble for President Obama down the road for things he did while in office . . .President Clinton too.

It is my belief that we, as a nation, do not want to open this can of worms. There is a clearly defined method for removing an official who has committed crimes against the state while in office.

Both President Clinton and President Trump faced impeachment proceedings. Neither of them were convicted.

That should be the end of it.

I completely disagree. Unfortunately for us Impeachment is a political process and it requires a group of biased individuals to sac up and do their jobs. Which in Trump’s case they failed to do.

I would rather trust the regular people involved in a jury trial than a group of obviously biased politicians.

What I do know for certain is that by giving immunity for anything that they say or do is in itself the greatest incitement to lawlessness the American people can expect.

[Yssup Rider]

With every argument destroyed by the appeals court, what’s left for SCOTUS to rule on?

Salty, you’re wrong again.

This is going to trial. And MAGA is rightfully going down the toilet. Maybe the acolytes can find the documents Twitler flushed while they’re on their way down the pipes.

[1blackman1]

The thought that an elected official (president or otherwise) can commit criminal activity - which is what Trump did - and claim immunity was and is just plain dumb. The fact that a bunch of idiota thought that was even a possibility just shows the lack of depth of thinking of the folks in right wing media, Trumpys and the ECCIE righties.

It's just plain dumb but sadly not surprising if you read the rest of what these people write.

[ICU 812]

If this is allowed to stand, I can see some future Republican controlled House, Senate and Oval Office prosecuting President Biden for murder in the deaths of the US servicemen connected with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that possible action, but that is where the future lies by extrapolation.

I have forgotten the specifics at this remove, but there was something similar regarding the deaths of Americans from a drone strike during the Obama years as well, I think.

President Bush (43) could face criminal charges over the Abu Grabe scandal for similar reasons. Jimmy carter and the embassy hostages or the failed rescue could be in the cross hairs.

If we drop down a level or two, there could be legal repercussions for Secretary Clinton from the Benghazi fiasco.

Folks: Think about where this could go in the future and why it hasn't to this point in time.

[eccieuser9500]

I do.

[1blackman1]

I read dumb stuff from the righties but damn it keeps getting worse.

AMAZEBALLS

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

If this is allowed to stand, I can see some future Republican controlled House, Senate and Oval Office prosecuting President Biden for murder in the deaths of the US servicemen connected with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that possible action, but that is where the future lies by extrapolation.

I have forgotten the specifics at this remove, but there was something similar regarding the deaths of Americans from a drone strike during the Obama years as well, I think.
President Bush (43) could face criminal charges over the Abu Grabe scandal for similar reasons. Jimmy carter and the embassy hostages or the failed rescue could be in the cross hairs.

If we drop down a level or two, there could be legal repercussions for Secretary Clinton from the Benghazi fiasco.

Folks: Think about where this could go in the future and why it hasn't to this point in time.

Ridiculous. None of the actions you mention by past politicians broke any laws. They may have been poor decisions but that does not make them felons. Tell me what laws Biden may have broken with his decisions concerning Afghanistan. We will soon know if Biden broke any laws with his storing of documents after leaving office.

On the other hand, Trump has allegedly broken many laws which is why he is in court on a daily basis. Huge difference.

[Yssup Rider]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

I could not have stated that concept more clearly myself.