In most court cases, you either win or lose, but that is not the case for the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump's immunity case.
For Trump, just having the court take this case is a huge win, and a decision in his favor by the Supreme Court would be a huge bonus.
Talking Points…
- Supreme Court takes the case
- Trump wins regardless
- Analysis
Several federal cases would get wiped off the books if Trump had presidential immunity related to the January 6 charges. The court has precedents in place that state presidential immunity is only in effect for acts associated with the president's office, so that is the issue the court will have to decide here.
Were Trump's actions and words related to January 6 and the election in the role of president or candidate? This is what makes Trump's Defense team argument so interesting because they do not appear to be going after that angle but rather blanket immunity, and I think that could be a mistake on their part. For instance, his attorneys argued:
"If the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination. Criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe penalties, imposes a far greater 'personal vulnerability' on the President than any civil penalty.
"The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President's official acts — especially the most politically controversial decisions."
The motion goes on to say that if Trump is not given blanket immunity, it will allow opposing sides to charge presidents for their actions once they leave office. It goes on to say:
"This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President's neck, distorting Presidential decision-making, undermining the President's independence, and clouding the President's ability 'to deal fearlessly and impartially with' the duties of his office.'
"Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist."
One of the top goals of all these motions being filed at the last minute for Trump's Defense team is to delay these trials so they do not impact the general election. Let's face it: Trump has the nomination locked up at this point, but his polling tanks in the general election if he is convicted of a felony.
To that point, just having the Supreme Court take up this case is a massive win for Trump, and more left-oriented publications and Democrats are already throwing a fit over this. For instance, Mother Jones published a report on this with the headline, "Supreme Court Hands Trump a Win and Delays His Election Subversion Prosecution." The sub-header was even more inflammatory, "The justices will wait almost two months before hearing Trump's argument that he's above the law."
The Supreme Cout has arguments scheduled for April 22, so any cases related to this issue will have to be pushed back well beyond that date. Even though the court will hear the arguments in April, it may be into the summer before the Supreme Court releases its opinion, which would likely push the cases back beyond November.
As we noted above, this is a win for Trump in delaying the case, but if he does not win the case, it presents a slew of problems, especially if Trump wins the general election, but the cases against him are heard between the election and inauguration day.
In terms of the argument Trump's attorneys are using, it is flawed, to say the least. The call for blanket immunity is ridiculous because that would mean that a sitting president could literally walk up to someone on the street, murder them, and not be prosecuted for the murder. Trump and his attorneys have referenced the botched missile strike during the Obama administration as an example, but that is off-mark. The missed strike that took out a wedding party was a horrific miscalculation, but it was done in the role of president for a military operation; only the intelligence that led to the strike was obviously flawed.
Trump's attorneys have to make the argument that Trump's actions were to ensure the election was above board as a president, not as a candidate. And there is an argument to be made there, but it will not be easy. After talking to several friends who are attorneys, the consensus is that if they argue for blanket immunity rather than concentrate on Trump defending the integrity of the election, they will lose this argument.
