‘Could Be Game Over’: Supreme Court Hands Trump A Big Win By Agreeing To Review Presidential Immunity

Posted on by ( 8 comments already! )
        

Loading

by Rusty Weiss

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case concerning former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity.

The Court set an expedited timeline, with arguments beginning the week of April 22. This decision could potentially delay Trump’s trial until after the election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith had urged the court to dismiss Trump’s push for a review of presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court also declined to exercise an option to simply affirm the decision by a three-judge panel D.C. Appeals Court panel against Trump.

In what would be a historic ruling on a hotly-contested topic for some time, the court stated that they would review, “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

Trump Celebrates Supreme Court Decision To Review Presidential Immunity

By most expert analysis, the decision by the Supreme Court to review the matter of presidential immunity is a win for former President Trump and a significant setback for Smith’s team.

Even if the court were to render a decision quickly and in favor of the special counsel, it now seems highly unlikely that the trial regarding January 6th would be heard, much less resolved, prior to the election in November.

As such, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social celebrating the news.

“Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity,” he said. “Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America.”

Trump contends, and actions taken by the administration since President Joe Biden entered the White House concur, that without immunity, this “could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President.”

“The other side would say, ‘If you don’t do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner,’” he asserted.

That is exactly how it has played out.

Could Well Be Game Over

In another sign that the Supreme Court’s decision to review presidential immunity is a big win for Trump, analysts for left-wing media outlets aren’t exactly covering up their doom and gloom predictions.

Axios found election law expert Rick Hasen, who wrote, “This could well be game over.”

“There’s nothing Trump wants more in this case than a delay. If he wins in November and hasn’t been tried before Inauguration Day, there’s a good chance he never will be,” Axios adds.

Former Justice Department prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann surmised that the Supreme Court might hand Trump another victory.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Some further analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari on the Presidential immunity question.

BLUF: I think the Supreme Court is likely to reverse the DC Circuit, and as a result, Trump is very unlikely to face trial in DC or Florida before the election.

Here’s the question presented:

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

Here’s an important thing to understand: the Court is not going to resolve the question of whether President Trump’s conduct did, in fact, involve official acts.

So, unless the Supreme Court agrees with the DC Circuit completely – and holds that there is *no* such immunity for former Presidents – there won’t be a trial before the election.

Here’s what I think the likely outcome is. I think that the Supreme Court will hold that there is some amount of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. It won’t be absolute, as it is for civil litigation, because the Founders certainly contemplated that a President might be impeached and convicted by the Senate, and then subsequently face criminal prosecution.

But for the Supreme Court to find that *no* such immunity exists, it would have to repudiate much of the logic and force of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Court held that former Presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits arising out of official acts.

The most likely scenario, IMO, is that the Court agrees with Trump’s legal position, reverse the DC Circuit and holds that former Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, save for those that lead to an impeachment and a conviction by the Senate. Then they will likely remand back to the District Court for further proceedings – which would be some sort of hearing/analysis of whether Trump’s conduct *in fact* involved official acts.

And then those proceedings would again be subject to appeal, and it would likely go through the DC Circuit and up to the Supreme Court again. That would take months – and those proceedings would only start in June/July. After a second round of appellate proceedings, there’s basically no chance of there being enough time for a trial before the election.

LINK

0
Reply

… which is the Democrat’s own fault because they waited until these trials would interfere with Trump’s campaign to bring them.

0
Reply

It appears more and more that Trump is spending his own money to prevent the left from setting dangerous precedent after dangerous precedent that would cause great harm to the nation. This is their idea of “protecting democracy”. Trump, in fact, as he has been since running for President in 2015, is who is defending democracy, our republic and the Constitution.

Aside from their stupid “protection to commit murder” strawman arguments, Presidential and, indeed, Congressional immunity has been a given. Likewise, the idea that some rogue whiny, crybaby, sore loser turd can unilaterally decide who can and cannot be on a Presidential ballot is absurd on its face and ridiculous in concept. But, Democrats don’t really care about precedents because they are prepared to violate them, just as they violate the law, the Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution.

0
Reply

Andrew Weissmann After Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump Immunity Claim: Jack Smith’s “DC Case is Now on Life Support” (VIDEO)

Game over, lawfare has failed. This case will never see the inside of a courtroom, thankfully. Same with the Mar-A-Lago case and finally the Fulton County case. The only lawfare left is the stupid fat ass bragg case in NY and that is a questionable case at best.

‘Last night was actually November presidential election night for Democrats and they just lost to Trump.’

Last edited 3 months ago by TrumpWon
0
Reply

So if Biden were to, say, overtly rig the 2024 election, you’d be okay with it, since he’d have full immunity and the sky’s the limit? And you’ll stop complaining about “lawfare” and “weaponizing the DOJ” because Biden could just say that he was doing it as part of his role as President, which would confer full immunity?

-1
Reply

Since Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden already did this in 2020, you should be able to figure out what our reaction would be, scooter.

0
Reply

You really are dense you and Greg both thick. Which of your parents are to blame for the arrested mental development you suffer?

Last edited 3 months ago by kitt
1
Reply

We can blame both of their mothers for not opting for an alternative to them having birthed either one of them.

Last edited 3 months ago by TrumpWon
0
Reply