Even though the actions he is accused of in three separate trials date back to 2020 and 2021, it is now unlikely that Donald Trump will be tried and convicted before the November 5 election.
Last week, the country’s highest court gave him what he wanted most: a freeze on proceedings and additional time.
An unexplained decision
At the request of the lawyers of 45e president, the Supreme Court therefore agreed to examine the question of presidential immunity. We already know that it can be invoked in civil cases, but can it be invoked in criminal cases? If yes, is it complete?
The first thing that surprises me in this case is that a similar request from special prosecutor Jack Smith had already been refused in mid-December. Suspecting that Trump would invoke immunity, he urged the Supreme Court to rule quickly.
The Court had refused Smith’s request, without offering any arguments. Please note that she is not required to offer any arguments. What she didn’t give to Smith, she just gave to Trump two months later. Still no justification, but a first delay for the former president.
Is it really serious since the judges are going to rule anyway? Yes, because the Supreme Court could have studied this case sooner! Not only did she respond two months later, but we made it clear that we would hear the arguments towards the end of April. These four months since Smith’s request are important.
Even if we could offer a speedy judgment, the trial linked to the assault on the Capitol would begin months late and its outcome would not be known before the election, depriving voters of crucial information.
Is this really necessary?
If the lack of explanations to justify the Court’s decisions in December and February leaves me perplexed, I also wonder what the highest court could have found in the decisions of the Court of Appeal of February 5. .
In a unanimous and very detailed judgment, it was then determined that Trump did not enjoy any criminal immunity and that he must stand trial.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was in line with the opinions of a large majority of constitutional experts. The only angle which seems to me to justify the intervention of the Supreme Court is the one which seems to indicate that the highest court wishes to rule on the benchmarks of this immunity.
Whether it is prosecutor Jack Smith, the constitutionalists or the Court of Appeal, in all three cases, we are heading in the same direction: there is no criminal immunity. So I will be very curious to hear the Supreme Court’s ruling if it concerns certain loopholes for the president.
While awaiting this judgment which will affect future presidencies, Donald Trump’s lawyers can say “mission accomplished” and thank the Supreme Court.