NAJ screen shot

By Glynn Wilson –

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The god damn United States Supreme Court announced its agreement on Wednesday to take up the case of whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution on charges of engaging in a seditious conspiracy and inciting a violent insurrection in a corrupt plot to overturn the results of the presidential election of 2020.

A trial court and an appeals court already ruled that he is not entitled to any Constitutional immunity from prosecution, and any such ruling would mean the end of American democracy as we know it, since a bedrock principle of our Constitutional Republic is that “no one is above the law.”

In the final, decisive paragraph, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote:

“We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case,” the judges ruled. “We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly ‘official’ action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by double jeopardy principles. Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. So ordered.”

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity

All the high court had to do to protect democracy was to issue a one sentence ruling upholding the appeals court decision and refusing to hear the appeal. Instead, the partisan court just had to get involved to delay the trial.

The conservative majority on the high court scheduled arguments in Trump’s appeal for the week of April 22, delaying a decision until well after Super Tuesday on March 5, when Trump will no doubt emerge as the Republican nominee for president. The court ruled that all proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the appeal.

According to New York Times breaking news coverage of the case, the court’s brief order (no link provided) said the court will decide this key question:

“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.”

The Supreme Court’s response to Trump’s bid for delay had taken on increasing urgency because its ultimate resolution would determine whether and how quickly Trump could stand trial. That, in turn, could affect his election prospects and, should he be re-elected, his ability to scuttle the prosecution.

In the emergency application asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Trump said a unanimous appeals court panel had been wrong to rule that he may be criminally charged for his conduct as president.

Total immunity for his official conduct, Trump’s application claimed, is required by the separation of powers, implicit in procedures for impeaching the president and needed to prevent partisan misuse of the criminal justice system, as usual the opposite of the truth. All while he was claiming Joe Biden was out to steal the election, that’s clearly what he was trying to do.

“An absence of criminal immunity for official acts threatens the very ability of the president to function properly,” the filing reads. “Any decision by the president on a politically controversial question would face the threat of indictment by the opposing party after a change in administrations.”

Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to handle the federal prosecutions of Trump, took issue with every element of his legal argument, citing his efforts to subvert democracy.

If Trump’s “radical claim were accepted,” Smith wrote, “it would upend understandings about presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law — particularly where, as here, a former president is alleged to have committed crimes to remain in office despite losing an election, thereby seeking to subvert constitutional procedures for transferring power and to disenfranchise millions of voters.”

Smith said there was no reason to fear tit-for-tat prosecutions that would chill other presidents from taking decisive action.

“That dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” Smith wrote.

“Conducting a monthslong criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the special counsel’s persistent demands for expedition,” Trump’s application claimed. “The D.C. Circuit’s order thus threatens immediate irreparable injury to the First Amendment interests of President Trump and tens of millions of American voters, who are entitled to hear President Trump’s campaign message as they decide how to cast their ballots in November.”

In a supporting brief urging the justices to deny Trump’s request for a stay, several former prominent officials who had served in Republican administrations said the court need not rule broadly, as the conduct Trump is accused of was so clearly outside of any immunity the Constitution might confer.

“Denying a stay would not preclude possible federal criminal immunity for a president’s official acts in some different, exceptional situation,” the brief stated.

Smith echoed the point, citing the brief.

“A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, whatever the rule in other contexts not presented here,” he wrote, “no immunity attaches to a president’s commission of federal crimes to subvert the electoral process.”

No matter how the court rules, taking its sweet time to rule in the matter only helps Trump keep his presidential hopes alive.

A recent public opinion poll by NBC News shows Trump leading President Joe Biden by five percentage points among registered voters, 47 to 42 percent, in a hypothetical general-election matchup. This is concerning because it is outside the margin of error of 3.1 percent.

The good news is when pollsters ask how voters would vote if Trump is convicted of a felony, Biden narrowly pulls ahead of Trump by two points, 45 to 43 percent, and Trump loses about 20 percent of his hardcore Republican support.

Biden Leads Trump by Two if He’s Convicted of a Felony

___

If you support truth in reporting with no paywall, and fearless writing with no popup ads or sponsored content, consider making a contribution today with GoFundMe or Patreon or PayPal.