Unconscionable is a strong word, but it holds true here. Consider: Just 18 days after oral argument, another panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit largely rejected President Trump’s objections to the gag order issued against him by the trial judge, a sufficiently We have created a 68-page opinion with evidence. . The legal issues raised by an immunity action are not very complex.
what happened? The Immunology Committee included two Biden appointees, Florence Pan and Michelle Childs, and George H.W. Bush nominee Karen Henderson. They appeared intent on ruling against Trump, but perhaps opinions they agree with or disagree with are slowing things down. Sir, the hands of the clock are getting bigger every day.
President Trump’s ability to effectively freeze criminal proceedings against him stems from a vague exception to the general rule that criminal defendants cannot appeal until they are convicted. Immunity claims are usually an exception, based on the theory that injury includes being forced to endure the criminal process itself. Trump’s immunity claims are almost certain to fail, but his lawyers exploited this loophole to try to prevent him from going to trial.
So far, it’s working like a charm.
Without strict court oversight and swift action to prevent Mr. Trump from running out his time, his trial could easily collide with party conventions and the general election campaign. It’s not at all far-fetched to imagine it being postponed until after the November election. Trump’s ultimate goal is for him to win, become president, and be able to order the lawsuits to be dropped.
Failure to bring Mr. Trump to justice before the election would be a severe disservice to voters. Before they vote, they have the right to know whether they are electing a felon, especially one guilty of election interference. Opinion polls show that Trump’s conviction will also be important to many Republican voters.
It’s clear from the pace of his filings that Trump is trying to manipulate the system. Trump’s lawyers first raised the idea of immunity from prosecution in late August. It wasn’t until October 5th that they finally filed their promised motion to dismiss. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan dismissed the claim on Dec. 1.
When Mr. Trump appealed, special counsel Jack Smith sought to avoid the current predicament by asking the Supreme Court to jump over the appeals court and decide the issue itself. If the justices had decided there was no need to intervene because the appeals court would act quickly, that now seems like a bad bet.
On Friday, Chutkan issued a court order indefinitely postponing the trial scheduled for March 4. Smith estimates the trial will take two months. Meanwhile, pretrial proceedings remain stalled and appeals courts drag on, a process that could take weeks, if not months. If, as expected, the panel rules against Trump, he would have the right to request a review by the full appellate court and then by the Supreme Court.
A judge could refuse to hear a case or immediately affirm it in an appellate court, without going through the lengthy process of arguments, oral arguments, and written opinions. But Smith himself argues that such cursory treatment is unlikely because the case is “at the pinnacle of public importance.” And remember. It took, in the Supreme Court’s words, a lightning two months for the justices to decide that President Richard M. Nixon must comply with the subpoena for the Watergate tapes.
Once the appeals are completed, Trump’s lawyers will have additional time to resume pretrial preparations. That means it will be difficult, if not impossible, to conclude the trial before the Republican National Convention begins on July 15th.
Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the defendant “must be present” at “all stages of the trial.” What if a trial cannot begin until the general election campaign is in full swing? President Trump, who orchestrated the delay to ensure this overlap, cannot claim that the election date requires a trial postponement. No doubt. This reminds him of a murderer who murdered his parents and begs for mercy because he is an orphan. However, it is also unsettling to imagine that Trump will be mired in litigation and unable to campaign.
What can you do? Despite the delay in sentencing, the Court of Appeal indicated that it recognized the need for swift action. An expedited schedule for briefings and oral arguments was set. When the committee ultimately makes a ruling, it should be careful to set limits that will prevent President Trump from abusing the normal deadlines for filing appeals. As Just Security’s helpful analysis shows, President Trump typically has 30 days to seek an appeals court hearing and then 90 days to go to the high court.
But both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have mechanisms in place to frustrate this kind of bargaining. It is possible to set stricter deadlines and proceed with pre-trial preparations while considering appeals. Justice is already long overdue.