plus add 4 more Justices and a 10 year limit of seating.

since it takes 2/3 of members for an impeachment vote to succeed.

given election year. This time around, exactly 10 Republican held seats are up for re-election. Even if Dems won every one of those seats, it wouldn't give us the 2/3 majority that would be needed.

He is being tried and he has not fled.

The decision will be out before the court goes on recess this summer. Probably by mid-July

That decision that finally comes down (at the end before recess) WILL be Send it back to appeals court. So what the fuck is gained?

Will decide by July. The trial won’t be complete before the election

case is no hold until then?

I've been in meetings all day can someone tell me what I missed, please?

the questions poised, I would be surprised if there is a trial before the election.

I'm sorry JohnSJ, I'm not following.

Send what back to the appeals court?

Are we not on appeal with the Surpreme court?

They can issue instructions to test which are official acts and which are campaign acts. Then proceed to trial on any unofficial acts.

However, tsf's lawyers can and will appeal any such determinations, all the way back to scotus, gumming up the process for months and months.

there would be no dc trial before the election, and might not be one in 2025.

I do get it now and I appreciate you taking the time to tell me.

i heard them repeatedly refusing to address the immunity concept to the case before them, instead they want to come up with a ruling that covers all possible scenarios forever. That means it will take them a long time to write this.

Though it was hard for any of them to directly refute the seriousness of what Trump did, they seemed much more eager to protect a president from prosecution than the American people from a demagogue. Everything they suggested that might be done to a former president are the kinds of things Republicans do to, say, Democratic officials or women wanting abortions (like citizens looking for an excuse to prosecute, vigilantes in search of a crime). They are defending future presidents as if there will be any if they rule for immunity, and it seemed as if they hadn't noticed that the guy asking for immunity was the kind of guy who would do everything they feared....to everyone else.

They even broached extending immunity to state crimes.

This is going to be far worse than anyone has imagined.

Some members of the SC may see a private benefit in delaying that has nothing to do with appeasing Trump. If they delay, Trump might get back in the WH and setup a justice department that decides to drop the case. Then, the SC, having delayed by over broadening the scope of their mission, can narrow it back to just the Trump case which, now, THERE ISN'T ONE, so they can drop the decision about immunity and, meanwhile, let Trump, now back where he can do anything he wants, do as he pleases. Backside covered completely until next time. No next time, perhaps????

So he can't be tried for any crimes anyway.