I THINK THE SUPREME COURT WILL STALL TRUMP'S TRIALS AND SIGNIFICANTLY NARROW THE CHARGES

When Donald Trump's lawyers told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that he deserved immunity from prosecution for the things he did while he was president, the immunity they claimed for him was absolute. Even if he had ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, one of his lawyers said, he couldn't be prosecuted for it.

The Supreme Court has now decided to hear, at a less-than-urgent pace, Trump's request for immunity. We're supposed to be reassured by the fact that, as NBC's Lawrence Hurley notes, the Court doesn't believe Trump can do anything and get away with it:

The court indicated in a brief order Wednesday how it will approach the case by laying out precisely the legal question it will consider: "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."

In a New York Times op-ed, Lee Kovarsky assures us that the Supremes can't possibly rule that the misdeeds cited in the indictment are "official acts":

It has already been determined — in a recent decision in a civil case, by a separate D.C. Circuit Court panel — that Mr. Trump’s extramural efforts to remain in office were not “official acts.” The D.C. Circuit opinion now subject to review in the Supreme Court expressly cited Mr. Trump’s failed civil immunity claim as a reason to be “doubtful” that the former president could meet the official acts standard in the criminal prosecution. Mr. Trump was acting as an “officeseeker” rather than an “officeholder,” and the private sphere of office-seeking conduct sits outside the scope of official-acts immunity.

But isn't this precisely the kind of "settled" law that this corrupt and biased Supreme Court loves to overturn?

What is Trump charged with?

The indictment says of Trump that despite having lost, he "was determined to remain in power." So, for over two months after the election, Trump "spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won," the indictment states, and adds, "These claims were false, and the defendant knew they were false," but "repeated and widely disseminated them anyway."

... Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly "pushed officials to ignore the popular vote" and "organized fraudulent slates of electors" in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the indictment. The indictment accuses Trump and his co-conspirators of using "knowingly false claims of election fraud" in organizing the fraudulent slates of electors.

Prosecutors allege Trump and his co-conspirators also attempted to use the power of the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," and attempted to enlist then-Vice President Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role in affirming the electoral vote count on Jan. 6 to "fraudulently alter the election results." The indictment also alleges Trump repeatedly pressured Pence to fraudulently reject or return Mr. Biden's electoral votes.

... In a detailed accounting, the indictment claims Trump watched the [January 6] violence unfolding on television, and ignored pleas to unequivocally condemn the violence.

I think the Court will grant Trump, and all future presidents, "limited" immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office. I think the Supremes will proclaim that the push for "sham election crime investigations" by the Justice Department was absolutely within Trump's power because he was acting as president rather than as a citizen. (Republicans, anticipating a Republican presidency, believe that a president is fully entitled to politcize the Justice Department. I'd agree that nothing in the Constitution prevents this.) The Court may also rule that failing to intervene to stop the January 6 riot is also Trump acting as president, and thus covered by presidential immunity.

It might be a reach to say that attempting to pressure states to overturn election results, or pressure Mike Pence to reject them, was the work of a president rather than a candidate, especially when Smith intends to demonstrate in court that Trump knew he'd lost. The Court would have to rule without seeing the evidence Smith intends to present at trial that Trump wasn't doing this dishonestly, that he thought he was telling the truth and believed he was merely trying to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." That would be shameless, but I wouldn't put it past these justices.

I think the Court will grant partial immunity while greatly reducing Trump's legal jeopardy. The Court doesn't want to give presidents blanket immunity because, obviously, that would also apply to Democratic presidents, and we can't have that. The Court will toss out some of the charges because it can, and because fuck you, liberals, that's why.

I'm sure I'll be told in the comments that I'm excessively cynical about these serious jurists who genuinely revere the rule of law. I'll just laugh.