Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
In a 57-page opinion, the D.C. Circuit has rejected, as expected, former President Donald Trump's sweeping immunity claim. Many of us anticipated this result. Here is the opinion storage.courtlistener.co
m/recap/gov.usco…
...Notably, the panel rejected the claim of many critics that there should be no appellate review. However, it categorically rejects the claim of Trump that he is entitled to immunity as a private citizen...
...The question is now whether Smith will again seek to curtail the time or options for Trump in appealing this decision. Trump has weeks to file for a full en banc review. He was previously unsuccessful in that effort with the Supreme Court.
...Crunching the numbers, Trump can seek corrections in the short term but, even without a correction to the opinion, he has 45 days to seek an en banc where the government is a party. He then has 90 days after the rejected of any en banc decision. ...
...So, even without factoring in review time for the circuit, Trump could extend this process 135 days absent a successful move to expedite. The 90 day period alone would put a petition into May. Any rejection of appeals, without an expedited calendar, puts this into the summer...
...That is without delays or a successful grant on by the D.C. Circuit (unlikely) or the Supreme Court (uncertain). After that appellate line is tied off, the parties would have to return to the trial court to resume the pre-trial work, which could take months. That puts the trial very close to the election and would raise obvious concerns given the long-standing DOJ policy to avoid trials with a few months of an election.
...While Smith will likely try again to expedite, the question is why the Supreme Court would suddenly see a need to curtail the time or process when it previously denied such efforts. There is no longer a scheduled trial on the docket and Smith is the prevailing party. That is not ideal for a motion to expedite further appeals.
...Notably, in a footnote at the end of the decision, the panel declines look at the merits of the threshold challenge that "the appointment of Special Counsel Smith is invalid because (1) no statute authorizes the position Smith occupies and (2) the Special Counsel is a principal officer who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1754888658551755219.html
