Dan Pfeiffer on the Supremes’ decision to help Trump’s delaying tactics:
Thanks to the shenanigans of Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the MAGA justices thanked Trump by giving him a massive, possibly campaign-altering gift. On Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court agreed to take on Trump’s claim that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for acts that occurred while they were in office. The icing on the cake is that the Supreme Court scheduled the hearing on an “expedited basis” for April 22nd, further delaying Trump’s trial. Thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court, the most important of Trump’s four (yes, four!) criminal trials may not be finished before Americans cast their ballots in November.
There is no reason for the court to wait six weeks before holding the hearings. On a matter this urgent, they could have moved much faster. Every day of delay helps Trump avoid accountability. If Trump wins in November, he could preemptively pardon himself or have his Department of Justice drop the charges. In addition to being a travesty for the rule of law, there are also significant political implications.
This may be the most blatant Supreme Court intervention in a campaign since Bush v. Gore — with the same result. Disregarding that three of the nine justices were appointed by Trump; Clarence Thomas also has a massive conflict of interest because his wife was involved in the insurrection for which Trump seeks immunity.
Polls have shown that a conviction could cost Trump the election. In the February NBC News poll, Trump led Biden 47-42, but when voters were asked how they would vote if Trump were found guilty and convicted of a felony, Biden led 45-43. Exit polls in the GOP primaries indicate that 30 to 40% of Republican primary voters wouldn’t view Trump as fit for the presidency.
Democrats in my text chains and on social media are equal parts enraged and despondent over the news. I share the rage but not the despondency (yet). Here are some quick thoughts on what it means.
Pfeiffer says that the trial still might happen before the election but I think we all know that’s probably a long shot. Had they had any desire for that to happen they could have taken the case back in December when both Trump and Smith asked them to. Instead they waited for the appeals court, which also took its time, and then sat on that for a couple of weeks before agreeing to take it, scheduling arguments sex weeks later. As Luttig said yesterday, it’s clear there are dissents from the appeals court decision and that means they will almost certainly drag it out to the end of the term at the end of June.
Pfeiffer mentions the New York case which is looking more and more like the only one that’s going to have Trump facing a jury before the election.
Trump is still on the hook for his crimes and election interference. The Supreme Court stay means that the trial in Manhattan over Trump’s use of campaign funds to pay hush money to cover up an affair will begin before too long. That case will almost certainly finish well before the election. Voters might actually determine whether they are willing to send a convicted felon to the White House. Because it is not a federal case, newly elected Trump cannot pardon himself or commute his own sentence.
There are two downsides to the Manhattan case. One, polls show that of all of Trump’s crimes, violating campaign finance laws to cover up an affair is not as concerning to voters as illegally hoarding classified documents or fomenting an insurrection. Two, these sorts of crimes rarely end in jail time for first-time offenders. So, our dreams of watching Trump frogmarched into prison may have to wait for another day.
Not only that, there’s actually a good chance that Trump will be found not guilty in that case in which case he will emerge once more as Teflon Don, spurring some of the bandwagon types to rally around him because he’s so untouchable. That was always the risk of any trials before the election but in the other cases the issues are so important, it might have been offset by the outrage that he got away with it. If gets off on this case it won’t have that effect.
The polls say that a good number of people wouldn’t vote for a convicted felon so people have been counting on that to turn the tide. I never thought that was anything we should count on. people have a way of rationalizing anything to support their decisions.
Pfeiffer writes:
Some worried Democrats comforted themselves by believing that Trump’s chances to return to the White House would end with a conviction. No trial before the election means no conviction.
Trump may avoid facing a jury before he faces the voters because of blatantly partisan shenanigans. This will further besmirch Chief Justice John Roberts’ already abysmal legacy. It’s an attempt at election inference from the highest court in the land.
Would it be easier to beat Trump if he were convicted of a crime before the election? Absolutely!
Does Joe Biden need Donald Trump to be convicted to win? Absolutely not!
This is a close race. Biden has a very good argument for reelection. He — and every Democrat — should make some chicken salad out of this chicken shit. Let’s fire up our base by calling out the Supreme Court, which has its lowest approval rating in history, for trying to rig the election. And then let’s make an argument against Trump that will ring true to the voters we need:
Donald Trump is running for President for one reason and one reason only — to avoid accountability for crimes he committed. He’s not thinking about you or your family. He only cares about himself. If elected, his first act will be to pardon himself because he believes that rich and powerful people don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Sounds good to me. I would add that he’s also running for president to exact revenge because he’s the greatest sore loser in world history but that’s just me…