If the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court...?

[kentuck]

Do they rule in favor of Donald J Trump?

Or do they rule in favor of the United States of America?

Does the ex-president have the same executive powers as the present "Executive"?

Does an ex-president have the authority to abscond with the most secret of America's secrets and store them in various places at his home or club?

If the Supreme Court is unable to answer that simple question, then we will need a new Supreme Court.

[old guy]

1. 6 to 3 for tRump.

[brooklynite]

3. Based on what?

[dpibel]

10. OFFS

[brooklynite]

11. Read #6 and get back to me.

Or not. Your choice.

[dpibel]

13. I agree with your "First"

Your "second," however, is incomprehensible.

Trump is arguing this is a PRA case. The DOJ has based nothing at all on the PRA.

What Trump reinforced dealt with handling of classified information. That has nothing to do with the PRA.

But, in general, your legal analysis here is on par with your usual legal analysis.

[brooklynite]

20. All right then...

Point to Trump's legal filing that either 1) Trump declassified all the documents or 2) he retains a post-Presidency right to them.

His lawyers have done neither. No basis for an appeal.

[dpibel]

22. Big smile

The Honorable Ms. Cannon has already raised the issue of "residual privilege."

A judge can make just about any ruling that's remotely within the parameters of the facts and law before her.

If Cannon rules in Trump's favor, no matter how tenuous the grounds, there's no choice but appeal.

Your try here assumes that Cannon rules against Trump and claims, not so convincingly, that Trump would be bringing the appeal.

That's only one possible outcome.

You may believe that "residual privilege" or "because I say so" will be laughed out of court at the appellate level.

As I pointed out below in this thread, the vast majority of people, just a year ago, were quite sure that the Supremes would never overturn Roe v. Wade.

They did.

Your trust in the institution is charming but, in this era, ill-founded.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. How would executive privilege or residual executive privilege

How would executive privilege or residual executive privilege be a bar to an espionage or obstruction of justice charge? There is a debate whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime but these crimes would have been committed when TFG was a civilian.

[dpibel]

31. I didn't say it was a legit argument

But if the judge chooses to rest her decision on it, there's no recourse but appeal.

And if it goes to the current Supremes, all bets are off, regardless some people's faith in the institution.

[Ocelot II]

2. How will the legal issues be framed? How will the lower courts rule?

It's far more complicated than it looks.

[tinrobot]

4. Thomas will favor Trump. He hopes Trump pardons Ginni using 'residual executive powers'

Not sure about how the rest of the justices will vote, but guessing 8-1 against.

[liberal N proud]

5. They were planted there for just such reason

[kentuck]

7. But they would soon discover...

That the power does not lie with the White House nor the Supreme Court. The power belongs to the people.

[brooklynite]

6. For those reflexively assuming that the Supreme Court will of course support Trump, a reality check

First, the SC hasn't supported TRUMP in ANY of his Court filings. They're conservative but don't feel loyalty to him.

Second, the SC in this case doesn't get to have the case relitigated. They can either rule on the legal process of the original Court hearing, or rule that the entire Presidential Records Act is Unconstitutional. Trump isn't claiming the PRA isn't valid (especially since he reinforced it) and there's no apparent violation of Court procedure he could appeal on.

[Ocelot II]

8. Many assumptions are made and conclusions jumped to,

usually based on an unclear understanding of how the entire process works. Right now there isn't even a case or controversy that can be litigated.

[The Magistrate]

17. The Problem, Ma'am

Is that there is no reason to be confident the five creatures in question will hew to any common understanding of law if doing so would mean foregoing a political goal.

The judge before whom this 'special master' nonesense was brought, going by the transcript of the hearing, may ignore law and precedent entirely in her ruling.

Failing to act to back the ongoing 'stop the steal' agitation was one thing. Keeping the man at liberty is quite another, particularly after Dobbs gave them a taste of blood.

It's a flat fact that, however, and in whatever form, elements of this investigation and trial do come before this high court, five persons on it can produce any result they please, without the slightest hinderance to them, or check upon them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. He likely would have to be convicted of a crime to begin the appellate process

[dpibel]

23. Really, now

There are all manner of interlocutory rulings that can be appealed.

Especially in a case like this, where almost everything is a matter of first impression.

You're just plain mistaken that appeals can only happen post-conviction.

[kentuck]

9. We would all hope the Supreme Court would follow our Constitution.

But many folks do not believe that would happen. They believe Trump would divide it into a political issue, rather than a legal one, notwithstanding the Constitution, and they would tragically rule in favor of the Cult.

Perhaps we shall find out?

[dpibel]

15. Remind me

How many of Trump's "Court filings" have been considered by the Supremes.

I'm thinking it's a number that's less than the fingers on a hand.

So that all caps "any" may be a little hyperbolic.

[H2O Man]

12. Recommended.

I think it is important to keep in mind the court ruled against Trump when he was litigating the 2020 election results. Only Clarence supported Trump.

[Metaphorical]

14. No - SCOTUS will not find for Trump

The justices know that they will be around a lot longer than Trump will (except, perhaps, for Thomas), and they are not going to weigh in on anything that has the potential to boomerang back on them when political alignments are different.

[dpibel]

16. No - SCOTUS will not overturn Roe v. Wade

The justices know they will be around a long time, and they are not going to weigh in on anything that has the potential to boomerang back on them when political alignments are different.

I believe there were people saying that not more than three or four months ago.

[live love laugh]

19. Their allegiance is to Party not country.

They’ll definitely rule in his favor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Which case?

He likely would have to be convicted of a crime to begin the appellate process. SCOTUS is the court of last instance, not first instance .

[dpibel]

24. Think about it

The Supremes made at least one (and I believe more than one) ruling about Richard Nixon.

He was never convicted of a crime.

It's just not true that conviction is a predicate for appeal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. They ruled he had to give up the tapes.

If Trump was charged tomorrow with espionage and obstruction of justice what's the trigger to begin the appellate process?

[dpibel]

26. Don't be silly

You said a conviction was required for an appeal. I said that's not true. You agree with me.

Now you're asking me to tell you what pretrial motion might be deemed final for purposes of pursuing an appeal?

I don't think it works that way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I said a conviction is likely needed to begin the appellate process.

Is likely synonymous with absolutely as your response implies? If you believe SCOTUS is gong to rule on pre-trial motions it's incumbent on you to provide a scenario where it's likely to occur.

[dpibel]

28. NIXON

The Supremes ruled without a conviction.

Interlocutory decisions go up on appeal all the time.

But, hey. You practice your brand of law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. What's the trigger?

This is a beloved community where we gather to learn from one another, is it not?

[dpibel]

32. Try this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217123786

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217123744 (Reply #1)

It appears that there are some lawyers, including former DOJ prosecutor Neil Katyal, who believe Judge Cannon's order is immediately appealable.

Is that what you meant by a "trigger"?