Key facts
- Judges are reviewing Rep. LaMonica McIver's claims of immunity and selective prosecution.
- The court questioned the prosecution's grounds for intervening before a trial.
- McIver stated the legal process is cruel and designed to inflict pain.
- The prosecution argued that pre-trial intervention on selective prosecution grounds is not permissible.
Judges on a federal appeals court grappled with the legal arguments surrounding Representative LaMonica McIver's claims of immunity and allegations that she is being targeted by the Trump administration. During oral arguments, Judge Cindy Kyounga Chung, a Biden nominee, expressed difficulty in understanding the specific conduct at issue in the case. Judge Thomas Ambro, a Clinton nominee, questioned the threshold for charging individuals with certain offenses and whether the court should intervene if charges appear to be vindictive, aiming only to 'get a pound of flesh.' Ambro, who previously ruled on the speech or debate clause for former Senator Bob Menendez, seemed particularly interested in the possibility of dismissing charges based on selective and vindictive prosecution.