The Supreme Court appears hesitant to entertain former President Donald Trump’s bold assertion of criminal immunity in the federal election conspiracy case. Legal experts are now casting skepticism over the likelihood of the highest court reviewing the appellate court’s decision to dismiss Trump’s claim.
The controversy surrounding Trump’s immunity claim reached a new level during proceedings at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where his lawyer, John Sauer, argued that Trump could not be prosecuted, even in the extreme scenario of ordering a military assassination of a political opponent.
This audacious claim drew criticism, prompting an in-depth discussion on MSNBC with former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. Renowned for his role in the Robert Mueller investigation, Weissmann dismissed Trump’s immunity assertion as “preposterous” during an interview on Friday, January 12, 2024.
Expressing doubt over the Supreme Court’s inclination to take up the case, Weissmann highlighted the lack of merit in the argument. He characterized the oral argument as frivolous and even suggested that the Supreme Court might opt to bypass it.
When questioned by anchor Chris Hayes about the potential timeline for the case, Weissmann emphasized the critical role of timing. He outlined procedural steps that Trump could utilize to potentially delay proceedings, including a rehearing request from the full D.C. Circuit within 45 days, followed by a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, which could extend the process by an additional 90 days. Weissmann noted, however, that if the Supreme Court declines to grant a stay, the case would proceed.
Despite the legal maneuvers at Trump’s disposal, Weissmann speculated that Trump might strategically view the situation as a broader victory, even if perceived as a tactical loss. The prolonged appeal timeline could work in Trump’s favor, allowing him to extend the legal battle.
Trump’s legal strategy faced criticism for what was deemed a hypocritical filing in his D.C. elections criminal case. Despite securing a stay in the election subversion case while appealing his presidential immunity defense, Trump sought sanctions against Special Counsel Jack Smith for filing during the stay. This legal maneuver added to the ongoing scrutiny of Trump’s tactics.
In a parallel development, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) criticized Trump amid reports that the former president had received $8 million from foreign governments. Raskin underscored Trump’s lack of denial and pointed to uncontested facts documented in a report, intensifying scrutiny over Trump’s financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest.
Adding to Trump’s legal setbacks, a federal judge denied his last-minute attempt to delay the E. Jean Carroll rape defamation trial, reaffirming that the trial would proceed as scheduled on January 16.
As Trump grapples with a multitude of legal challenges, the skepticism surrounding his immunity claim adds a layer of uncertainty to his legal battles, prompting questions about the viability of his defenses in various cases.
