By Bonchie
As RedState reported, the Supreme Court decided to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump enjoys the broad presidential immunity he claims. Oral arguments will happen in late April, with an expedited decision coming no later than June.
That news has caused an absolute meltdown on the far left, with MSNBC representing ground zero on Wednesday evening. In perhaps the worst gathering of political personalities in television history, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell all appeared together on a three-way split-screen to lambast the Supreme Court for supposedly doing the bidding of Trump.
"This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend," says @Maddow on SCOTUS. "And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky." pic.twitter.com/v1NKDorzb0
— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 29, 2024
Now, wait a second. I was assured that the election-related case against Trump was strictly non-political, presided over by a special prosecutor with only justice on his mind. Given that, why are the three horsemen of the apocalypse in the clip above having a mental breakdown over this? Why do they care about the timeline? They certainly weren’t concerned about the January 6th defendants who sat around waiting two to three years for their trials to start.
Why, it’s almost as if the entire point of this prosecution is to influence the election, and Maddow and her cohorts are upset it might not happen before November.
With that said, there’s one big problem with the protestations being displayed by the far left: It was Special Counsel Jack Smith who asked SCOTUS to take up the issue.
Back in December, Smith urged the Supreme Court to skip the appeals court process and grant an expedited decision on whether Trump’s claim of presidential immunity applies. Instead, the Supreme Court allowed the lower court to make its ruling first before granting cert. In other words, Smith is still getting exactly what he wanted, albeit in a more delayed fashion.
Only now has that become a bad thing to the MSNBC crowd, and it’s because they see this trial as a way to rid themselves of Trump before the election, with the bet being that a conviction will swing enough votes to hand the White House back to Joe Biden.
In short, they are telling on themselves, admitting that this is all about politics. As trials go, it is not unusual for one to take well over a year to get started, with delays being normal. If this were really about “justice,” these complaints about SCOTUS doing what Jack Smith asked them to do wouldn’t be an issue.
Immunity is only for the Privileged Liberal Loyal Imperial Democrats which get big frontpage coverage from the leftists Media bottom feeders
Gosh, imagine the SCOTUS striking down things that are blatantly unconstitutional. Hate it.
The lawfare the democrats thought would defeat President Trump is failing and has failed. The democrats know they cannot defeat President Trump in a fair and fraud free election.
They can not steal it again because the American people are hip to their tricks.
See new posts
Conversation
Pinned
Will Chamberlain
@willchamberlain
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.