Replies

Not being an attorney, have observations and questions: 1. Seems to me that regardless of how Cannon rules this goes to appeal. 2. Seems to me, SCOTUS wants this case in their court. At least some justices do. This “regulation” created by Reno may be something they have hoped to eventually see before SCOTUS. Since it has never been challenged to SCOTUS they have had to sit on the sideline and watch what may be an unconstitutional rule be abused. 3. Seems to me even if she rules for Smith, it goes to appeal and would still delay the DC Jan 6th trial. You cannot try someone if it turns out the prosecutor who brought the case is not legally appointed. If I read this correctly the J6 case would be tossed if SCOTUS rules Smith did not have the power to bring it,

First question I have, could the Chevron case impact Smith's appointment. Reno made a regulation or rule that was not within her authority to create. Since she appears to have created this regulation out of whole cloth without Senate approval.

If Justice Thomas inserts a comment regarding the brief from Messe into the Immunity case, questioning the constitutionality of the Reno rule, could that be used by Cannon in this case?

Which makes me ask, is Cannon a whole lot smarter than people think by scheduling this hearing to coincide with the findings of cases from SCOTUS that could impact her case? She has to know however she rules there will be an appeal, unless she has rulings from SCOTUS that favor her position.

This question is off topic but germane to this case. Presidents do not have immunity. The constitution lays out the process by which a President who has committed a crime while in office is punished. It is called impeachment. Trump was impeached for J6, but not convicted. After the Senate failed to impeach Trump, how is waiting three years, then charging him with basically the same crimes not a form of double jeopardy? Could SCOTUS in a narrow ruling state in this case the proper method to address Presidential immunity was taken against Trump and failed, therefore courts cannot come back once a President is out of office and revisit those same charges?

If SCOTUS rules against Presidential immunity could that comeback to haunt the RAT congress critters, Fed agents and prosecutors? If the holder of the highest office in the land does not have immunity, then no federal office holder does. Am I wrong on that?