[Maru]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Isn’t that immoral or illegal or both ??

Just sounds kinda dodgy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's just not practical. They'd have to hold off on a trial for 4 years. A new case would have be drawn up and complicated by a number of factors, such as he will have been President for 4 years and have likely nominated new people to the courts that obviously have implications on whether a proper verdict could even be rendered...

The original counsel probably won't want to be in charge of it for a good number of reasons (many of those are sane ones). So if it were the same case (it wouldn't be), they would have to restart with new counsel and that resets the clock and pushes the process out longer. So it would likely take well in excess of the 4 years it would take for it to resume. All on the taxpayer's dime and the defendant would likely have to continue to retain counsel in that period. We are owed a speedy trial and that's one reason, is that cost...

So that's just some of the hurdles that are predictable... In that time frame, other doors may open for appeal which will lengthen the process even more and create openings for the Justice system to be politicized or it becoming unfeasible for a fair verdict to be rendered. It's just not worth it.

We are each owed a speedy trial as a right and that is how our system is meant to be run. A drawn out court cases create unforeseen circumstances inevitably the longer they go on. The resetting of the clock is normal, and DAs do it all the time for silly **** to screw regular people out of their individual rights and to force them to take plea deals since they're carrying the expense of keeping an attorney and having a felony indictment on their record, which can screw them out of jobs and even make them homeless. They may not be able to move due to bail restrictions obviously blocks them from pursuing opportunities elsewhere as well as they can't pass background checks. So finding places to rent is harder and they likely won't be able to get a mortgage... That's the complication of allowing a trial to sit for that long is that it violates rights, since an indictment, not even a guilty verdict, has real world consequences for the defendant that create undue stress, financial burden and inevitably puts most people's lives on hold...

So I think a normal judge, even if it not compelled by law, will consider all those factors, whether the process can be run fairly, won't appear to be politically motivated and without dysfunction. They may even consider Trump's age. It's unlikely a DA/Prosecutor, or even the taxpayer, would have an appetite for it. It'd be a bit of Pyrrhic victory anyway even with a positive conviction since the process will have been tainted by all the lead up and be stuck in appeals afterwards. Trump will probably go to his grave while in Appeals court ... this is why they have immunity because it's not worth it as all the obstacles to navigate in order to reach a fair conviction would not only be complicated by his status, but would obviously appear tainted in the eyes of the Public...