First, thanks to all of you who contribute here, I really really appreciate it and have made good friends here in Minneapolis through this group. We all hope that the polls are wrong and we can have a strong democratic showing this fall and send this awful man in his minions back to the rock they crawled out from under!
So I got to thinking the other day regarding Trump‘s immunity appeal to the Supreme Court. They had three options as I saw it:
One. Give him immunity. If they do this, they will likely understand it is not a good precedent and make it a limited or even one time thing like, the Florida election results for Gore V Bush. To justify doing this they would likely resort to the argument that he is running for president and the people can decide, and side with him that these charges are election interference, guilty or not.
Two. Let the appeals court decision stand without comment. This is probably the least divisive stance they can take although it would be hard for the current 6 to 3 conservative set to take.
Three. Reject his immunity, upholding the appeals court decision, this seems unlikely to me, considering the make up of the court, but it is possible.
But then I realized there are other possibilities. If they let it stand, I believe he can appeal the three judge appeals court decision to the full appeals court. Considering the first appeal judgment was unanimous, it is pretty unlikely that the full appeals court will overturn it, but it is possible, and I do not know the make up of the full set of judges, I. E. Who appointed them. it certainly will be another opportunity for him to delay, which he will obviously take if he can get it.
So now that they have decided to hear the case, they have facilitated its delay significantly, but it could still run in a few months before the election. This decision rules out, going back to the full pellet court, so at least there’s that.
I think they have a plan to rule on two issues: one that presidents are not immune, but secondly, the Trump is not guilty of election interference. They will explain by saying that he got poor advice and listened to and believed all of these sycophants who convinced him there was interference, and that they had evidence when they really didn’t.
What do you think they will do?