This week saw landmark events, for better or worse, in two of the criminal cases against Donald Trump. The positive outcome was an indictment in New York City for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up interference in the 2016 election. There, prosecutors rested their case on Monday, presenting a strong case in the eyes of many, including one of the authors who is in court every day (Eisen). The defense also rested on Tuesday, with Judge Juan Merchan telling the jury to expect counting and deliberations next week.
It marked a negative milestone in Washington regarding the federal prosecution of Trump in the District of Columbia for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election. On Monday, the Supreme Court exceeded a key deadline by which precedent had indicated the dispute over Trump’s claim of presidential immunity should have been resolved. Whatever the outcome of the New York case, the rapid movement should serve as a rebuke to the ethically inconsistent Supreme Court justices who are apparently unduly delaying the Washington case.
The truth is that the special counsel’s verdict for the federal prosecution should have already been reached, or close to it. Jack SmithThe case concerns a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by President Trump to manipulate the results of the 2020 presidential election, which culminated in the January 6th riots. The Washington case was scheduled to begin in early March, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had expressed a willingness to postpone the New York case to allow the Washington case to go ahead. The federal trial is estimated to last 8 to 12 weeks and will probably be finished or concluded by now.
The reason that didn’t happen is because a majority of the court decided to delay the administration of justice in light of President Trump’s outrageous claims of presidential immunity. Trump has argued that he is immune from prosecution in the case because he was president at the time of the alleged crimes. But he doesn’t stop there. His lawyers offered a shocking theory of presidential power. That is, even if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent, he would be given impunity (which has never happened in America unless he was first impeached and convicted). ).
It was legally unnecessary to agree to address this absurd claim. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., unanimously rejected it. Judges certainly know that the president cannot get away with all crimes. The justices will likely reject Trump’s position and take a narrower view of presidential immunity.
What’s even more incredible is that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider the issue in December, as requested by Smith, but did not do so. The Court only decided to take up the case in late February, and then scheduled a hearing for April 25, the very last day of arguments this term. And now the case is dragging on.
Trump v. Anderson is the highest-ranking case determining whether Trump can remain on Colorado’s ballot as a presidential candidate despite the constitutional provision for insurrectionists to hold office. The court ruled in Trump’s favor just 25 days after oral arguments and 61 days after an appeal. Request a retrial from the court. He did so even though it remained on the ballot until Trump made his decision. Tuesday marks 26 days since the court heard oral arguments, 99 days since he appealed the unanimous D.C. Circuit ruling against him, and 99 days since the Justice Department first heard the case. It has been 162 days since the request was made. But there is no sign of a decision yet.
Moreover, recent revelations confirm deep bias among this court’s overtly pro-Trump justices. Chief Justice John Roberts The court knew that when the case was filed. judge clarence thomas And Samuel Alito should have been excluded under any standard of judicial ethics. She already knew that Thomas’s wife, Gini, had been involved in the preparations for January 6th, and that she had become a witness in the parliamentary inquiry into the rebellion. Last Thursday, in the immediate aftermath of the January 6th riot, the shocking news broke that an upside-down flag, a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” conspiracy, was flying over Alito’s home. The New York Times reported that “the language of the flag is back in court,” but the case was hidden from the public for years.
Had Justice Alito and Justice Thomas recused themselves, the case would have needed the votes of four other Republican-appointed justices, including Justice Roberts, to hear the case. Since Justice Roberts has repeatedly expressed concerns about the credibility of the Supreme Court, he should at least give the public a transparent explanation of why Justices Alito and Thomas are allowed to continue hearing this case. Must be. The public should receive a similar explanation regarding their involvement in the decision to adjudicate Fisher v. United States. The case challenges the insurrectionist’s conviction under the official obstruction law, which is also at issue in Trump’s prosecution.
Thomas and Alito’s involvement and failure to explain it is yet another proof that this Supreme Court doesn’t actually care about justice. The Supreme Court should not have thwarted Smith’s efforts to expedite the trial. Americans have a right to know whether anyone running in this election is guilty of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the last election. This is certainly true even for an institution so obviously compromised. The Supreme Court has a history of deciding important cases with extraordinary speed, from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court could have chosen to do the same here. But it failed.
Meanwhile, in the New York trial, the prosecution appears to be moving toward a conviction, which would be the first major blow to Trump’s dictatorial election fraud strategy. Trump’s supporters know this, which is why a group of congressional representatives and state elected officials appeared in front of the court’s microphone last week. And why the Supreme Court has remained deafeningly silent and has yet to issue an exoneration.
If the Supreme Court’s pro-Trump justices cared as much about the riot as they did about protecting the former president, they would have already ruled in the case regarding Trump’s role in the January 6 riot. . The fact that we did not do so is conclusive, if not surprising, evidence that the justices’ real priority is protecting Donald Trump.
This has already gone too far. The continued delay in the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity is a deliberate delay, ensuring that Trump will not be held accountable for his alleged attempts to steal the last election before the next one. There is a high possibility that Chief Justice Roberts should request that Justices Thomas and Alito not be allowed to participate in immunity proceedings or other decisions related to January 6th. And the Senate should immediately hold hearings to investigate their actions. Any other action would jeopardize the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, the rights of the American people, and the rule of law.
This article originally appeared on MSNBC.com.
